Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-19-2002 - 9a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2002
>
Agenda - 02-19-2002
>
Agenda - 02-19-2002 - 9a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2017 11:33:26 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:27:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/19/2002
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20020219
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
12 <br /> 6. Allow agriculture community to open burn only a specific(limited) acreage per year. <br /> Description: <br /> This alternative assumes the agriculture community, through the ordinance, could be allowed to <br /> open burn a very limited amount of acreage per year,perhaps through a special permitting process, <br /> that could also contain other conditions such as time of day,prevailing direction and speed of wind, <br /> distance from adjacent properties/dwellings, etc. <br /> Key Issues: <br /> • County Attorney would have to evaluate whether this type arrangement would be lawful. <br /> • Would allow open burning in only a very limited, controlled way. <br /> • Would address the BOCC interest in limiting the impact of the prohibition of open burning on <br /> the agriculture community. <br /> • Would be necessary to develop criteria for determining a legitimate agriculture use. <br /> • Permitting authority would have to be identified, i.e. Emergency Management, Solid Waste, <br /> Cooperative Extension, Environment and Resource Conversation, etc. <br /> • Inconsistent with BOCC interest in prohibiting open burning. <br /> Cost: <br /> • Virtually no new cost burden for the agriculture community. <br /> • Would require no additional equipment or new operations for the Solid Waste Management <br /> Department, aside from some level ofpermitting <br /> Are options available to subsidize costs associated with alternatives to open burning within the <br /> agriculture community? <br /> Should the Board choose to utilize the Solid Waste Management Fund to pay for the recycling of <br /> landclearing debris from private property within Orange County, the County Attorney believes it <br /> would be able to do so. However,this service could not be limited to the agriculture community but <br /> would need to also be made available to the development community. If the Board wishes to make <br /> the service available to only the agriculture community we believe it may be able to do so,however <br /> the service must be subsidized by non-Solid Waste Management funding or the Solid Waste <br /> Management Fund must be reimbursed for expenses related to promoting or preserving <br /> agriculture/economic development. <br /> Could the"use value" tax designation be utilized in considering special accommodations for <br /> agriculture burning? <br /> In order to verify that a potential site is subject to an agriculture related subsidy or special service, <br /> some method must be developed to verify that such a site is legitimately involved in agriculture. It <br /> has been suggested that the agriculture"use tax"designation could serve this purpose. The"use <br /> tax" designation was developed in the 1970's to protect agriculture land from increasing tax <br /> burdens. Property of a minimum 10 acres in size used in pasture or under active cultivation is <br /> eligible. <br /> 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.