Minutes 12-06-2021 Virtual Business Meeting

Browse Search

7 o Unified Development Ordinance; The UDO has provisions that must be amended, however, the process to amend the UDO is more involved than that of the Code and the Planning Department is moving the UDO amendments through that process. There has been discussion previously by Board members about the necessity for the misdemeanor penalty provisions of some ordinances. Contrary to what may be generally believed, the goal of the penalty sections of the ordinances is compliance rather than punishment. Generally a civil citation for a violation would issue prior to any misdemeanor citation. And, for the most part, once the offender is in compliance the civil penalty, if any was assessed, may be waived in whole or in part depending on the circumstances. Having a misdemeanor option is another avenue to encourage compliance either through the threat of enforcement or when a civil penalty fails. The only ordinance violations that regularly involve misdemeanor penalties are violations of the Animal Control Ordinance. When misdemeanor violations are charged, the outcome is out of the hands of County staff and is decided by the District Attorney. For these reasons misdemeanor penalties are rarely pursued for violations of ordinances other than for violations of the Animal Control Ordinance. John Roberts reviewed the background information for the item. He said several months ago, the Governor signed a bill into law that is the result of several years of research done by the General Assembly, looking at each county and city's ordinances for misdemeanor provisions. He said he believes the intention was to remove most misdemeanor authority from local governments. He said the advisory committee for the study came back with a limitation on what local governments could adopt misdemeanor penalties for. He said the documents provided in the agenda packet were actually a draft, and he will share his screen to show to correct final documents. John Roberts focused on subsection b1 as written above, which has the limitation. He said the UDO has to be amended, and will be on the December 14, 2021 agenda. He said this evening the Board will see subsection 2, which refers to ordinances regulating businesses. He said he is recommending addressing with amendments to misdemeanor language. He said much of subsection b1 is not something for which Orange County has an ordinance. He said prior boards have asked why misdemeanor penalties are there at all. He said these are not something intended to fine or convict people, but rather are intended to encourage compliance. He said most ordinances have multiple avenues for pursuing penalties, including civil and criminal penalties up to a Class 3 misdemeanor. He said since he has been at the county, he is not aware of any misdemeanors being enforced other than the Animal Control Ordinance. He said the Board can look at removing misdemeanors in the future if it would like. He said the first section has some minor amendments to change the misdemeanor language, and the second thing is readopting misdemeanors as a best practice measure to address the new method imposed by the General Assembly. He said there are very few sections where he is recommending the Board make any change. He reviewed the few changes. Chair Price said the language in the ordinance is "punished by a fine", and asked John Roberts to clarify his point that these provisions are not intended as punishment. She said it seems contradictory to say this. John Roberts said a fine can be a civil fine as well. He said this language is in here because some of the misdemeanor language refers back to 1-7, and he felt it needed to be clearer. He asked if the Board would like to change this. Chair Price said no because she does not have any alternate suggestions, but just wanted to point out the language of the ordinance goes against the idea that these provisions are in place to encourage compliance, rather than impose punishment.