Approved Minutes of April 24, 2024

Browse Search

MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH April 24, 2024 members agreed that they would like the response rate for similar surveys to be higher in the future. • To improve the response rate, Dr. Stuebe recommended that time to complete the evaluation be built into the retreat itself, to which several board members agreed. Ms. Stewart explained that this had been the plan but due to a change in software providers earlier this year, the survey was not able to be made available until after the retreat. • Dr. Fowler suggested that, since one of the items had mixed responses (some respondents felt it was not enough time, some felt it was too much), perhaps more preparation materials could be made ready ahead of the retreat to allow everyone to come prepared, which might reduce the time actively spent on the activities during the retreat but still allow people to invest as much time as desired. Dr. Baldwin also suggested that the mixed response may have seemed less pronounced if there had been more respondents. IX. Actions Items A. Letter of Support for Vape Shop Land Development Ordinance The former Health Equity Committee has been drafting a letter of support recommending that the Orange County Planning Board, the Orange County Planning Department, and the Orange County BOCC adopt a Land Development Ordinance (LDO) restricting the opening of new tobacco, vape, and hemp shops to at least 1,000 feet from places where youth congregate, such as schools, libraries, and parks. Ms. Phillips-Weiner reviewed the draft letter of support with the board. Mr. Whitaker clarified that initial feedback on the letter had been only from the former Health Equity Committee and that this was the first time the full board had seen the letter, which Ms. Phillips-Weiner affirmed. Dr. Jonnal asked about potential opposition to the LDO; Commissioner Fowler explained they expect very little but if there was any it would likely be from people who run vape shops. Mr. Bagby added that other counties, Wake and Cumberland, have already adopted similar ordinances. Mr. Whitaker suggested that a local Chamber of Commerce might oppose this LDO as a representation of business interests and that it would be very powerful if the BOH could get their buy in on the LDO. Dr. Jonnal mused that opposing the LDO is tantamount to admitting that you want to sell tobacco to children, so she is not sure who would do so openly. Dr. Fowler added that she believes the BOCC will likely easily approve this, and the challenge will then be moving on to pass something similar in the municipalities (Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough). In response to Dr. Crandell's question about whether an LDO would stand up in court as opposed to being overridden by state law, Commissioner Fowler explained that several other NC counties and municipalities have used this strategy, and using zoning regulations is currently considered the best practice for managing tobacco sales in NC. Dr. Stuebe asked about the potential inclusion of libraries and places of worship and if there was a precedent for this. Mr. Whitaker said this is a mixed bag, and Ms. Phillips-Weiner chimed in to explain that the committee built their letter based on sample language from existing LDOs from other counties and municipalities, which may include schools, libraries, green spaces/parks, residential areas, and halfway houses/rehabilitation facilities. Because some S:\Managers Working Files\BOH\Agendas &Abstracts\2024 Agenda and Abstracts/ April Page 6