Ordinance Review Committee notes - 110321

Browse Search

Approved 12.1.21 2 Perdita Holtz: The UDO deals with land use issues and there are other laws that apply to nuclear waste being dumped so I 54 don’t want people to go away thinking this is the only way for recourse. 55 56 Lamar Proctor: As a prosecutor of Orange County for 13 years, I have only had one case referred to me and that was by the 57 Carrboro Planning Department. The criminal court is really poorly equipped to deal with these sorts of cases that deal with 58 injunctions and civil penalties. You are much better off seeking injunctive relief and civil relief. If there’s an environmental 59 problem or violation that gets to the level of state statutes, then the State Department of Environment Quality will jump in, the 60 AG’s office and I have dealt with that. I had a case once with illegal sewage that was going into a stream. If it gets to a certain 61 level, state authorities would jump in. 62 63 Carrie Fletcher: What initiated this? 64 65 Michael Harvey: I wish I could tell you. I’m sure that local district attorneys did not want to deal with some of the idiosyncrasies 66 of a land use issue through a criminal proceeding. The burden of proof becomes more difficult for criminal proceedings versus 67 seeking an injunction or getting payment for civil penalty. It’s probably an attempt to try to guarantee a more effective use of 68 the court’s time. This only impacts the methods available with respect to the enforcement of local land use regulations. 69 70 Kim Piracci: Mine is more of a comment than a question. I actually feel better that Lamar feels ok with this because if he didn’t 71 feel ok with it I would really feel not ok with it. In my mind there’s what’s legal and there’s what’s moral and ethical. Just 72 because the state is saying this, I can imagine a situation where there is a land use violation and it’s pretty extreme and this 73 person doesn’t care because nothing is really going to happen. Financially, he or she is going to come out ahead by breaking 74 the law so even though we have to do this, I’m going to vote no. I feel like this is a tool that might come in handy sometime 75 somewhere. I’m not trying to convince anybody else that they have to vote my way, I’m not getting it. 76 77 Michael Harvey: I respect your opinion. Unfortunately, this is not something that we’re going to have the authority under state 78 law to pursue. I’m not saying that you are not entitled to your opinion and I’m certainly not saying you are wrong in an attempt 79 to diminish the value of your opinion. What I am saying is that the law no longer gives me this as a viable option to address an 80 identified violation of a local land use law. This is what I’ve been asked to do, state law no longer gives me the authority to do it 81 so we are eliminating it because state law has taken it out of our toolbox. 82 83 Kim Piracci: Right, and it doesn’t matter how we vote the County Commissioners are going to do what they need to do 84 anyway. 85 86 Michael Harvey: Where we have violations that transcend land use issues, we’ve always had willing partnerships at the state 87 level to assist us and we not only involve state offices but also Orange County Solid Waste. I think that we have enough 88 arrows in the quiver to address the problem and effectively guarantee compliance. Yes, there’s a component of the 89 enforcement strategy being eliminated, I don’t think it’s that effective. 90 91 Lamar Proctor: I do think that the State Legislature seems to have streamlined things for developers to make things easier for 92 economic development and I think part of that is because developers and lobbyist didn’t want to be subject to criminal penalties 93 if something goes sideways on a land use thing. It could be an attempt to remove any threat for criminal prosecution. I do 94 understand Kim’s point. Removing criminal penalties for egregious land use violations feels wrong but I agree with Michael 95 that most DA offices don’t want to deal with those sort of cases. This doesn’t strike me as giving away the environment. 96 97 98 AGENDA ITEM 4: ADJOURNMENT 99 The ORC session was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. 100 101