[00:02:17]
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE WHAT IS THIS TODAY? SORRY. AUGUST 19, 2025, CAROLINE COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING, WHICH IS NOW IN ORDER.
THIS MORNING, WE HAVE OUR INVOCATION BY PASTOR DON REYNOLDS OF CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH OF DENTON, AND THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
IF EVERYONE CAN PLEASE RISE, PASTOR.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE PRIVILEGED STAFFER IN VOCATION, NOT ONLY FOR MYSELF, BUT OTHERS.
I THINK IT FITS IN WITHIN GOD,
[Call to Order: Invocation, Pastor Don Reynolds of Calvary Baptist Church, Denton; Pledge of Allegiance; Agenda Review]
WE TRUST. LET US PRAY.FATHER, WE COME THIS MORNING AND WE JUST HAVE EXPERIENCED AND CONTINUED TO EXPERIENCE SO MUCH GOODNESS FROM YOUR HAND.
LORD, SOMETIMES WE'RE SO SELF CONSUMED THAT WE DON'T SEE IT BUT WE DO THANK YOU, LORD.
WE SEE THIS RAIN AS FROM YOU, LORD.
WE KNOW THAT WE WAS HAVING A SEVERE DROUGHT, AND I'M HOPING IT WILL BE APPRECIATED, AND WE CAN SEE YOUR GOODNESS IN THE CROPS THAT HAVE BEEN GROWING AND NOW CONTINUE TO BE SUSTAINED.
WE THANK YOU WE ARE IN A RURAL COMMUNITY, AND IT LITERALLY MEANS OF LIFE IN SO MANY WAYS.
LORD, WE THANK YOU FOR OUR FREEDOM TODAY AND PRIVILEGE TO GATHER HERE AND TO DO BUSINESS RIGHT HERE IN OUR OWN COUNTY.
WE KNOW THAT OUR COMMISSIONERS HAVE BEEN ELECTED AND CONTINUE TO SERVE.
WE ASK YOUR CONTINUED BLESSING.
THERE ARE THOSE WHO SERVE UNDER THEM THAT HAVE GREAT RESPONSIBILITIES.
I PRAY LORD THAT WE WOULD REVERENCE YOU AND THINK OF YOU AND ALL THE DECISION MAKING THAT'S GOING ON.
THE DECISIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE AT THE PRESENT WILL BE GOOD DECISIONS, MONTHS AND YEARS AHEAD.
WE DO PRAY IN JUST A FEW MORE DAYS THE SCHOOLS WILL OPEN, AND WE ARE ASKING LORD THAT EVERYTHING WOULD BE IN ORDER.
THERE WOULD BE NOTHING BUT SAFETY IN MIND.
WE PRAY FOR THE YOUTH OF OUR COUNTY, PARTICULARLY AND THE TEACHERS AND ADULTS WHO AFFECT THEM, LORD, GOOD AND GOODLY VALUES WOULD BE A PART OF OUR SYSTEM, LORD.
NOW, LORD, WE KNOW THERE'S BUSINESS AT HAND THIS DAY.
I PRAY AND ASK YOUR BLESSING UPON THE COMMISSIONERS AND THOSE WHO SERVE UNDER HIM.
FOR THOSE OF US THAT ARE CITIZENS, LORD, HELP US TO BE BETTER.
HELP US TO BE A LAW ABIDING GROUP AND MAKE GOOD CHOICES.
I ASK THIS IN JESUS NAME. AMEN.
[00:05:08]
WE REALLY APPRECIATE COMING IN THIS MORNING.
I HAVE A PRESIDENT'S CLOSED SESSION REPORT OUT.
DURING THE AUGUST 5 MEETING, THE COMMISSIONERS CONVENED IN CLOSED SESSION UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 3-305 SUBSECTION B, PARAGRAPH 1 TO DISCUSS THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, ASSIGNMENT, PROMOTION, DISCIPLINE, DEMOTION, COMPENSATION, REMOVAL, RESIGNATION, OR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF APPOINTEES, EMPLOYEES, OR OFFICIALS OVER WHOM THIS PUBLIC BODY HAS JURISDICTION, AND ANY OTHER PERSONNEL MATTER THAT AFFECTS ONE OR MORE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS, AND ALSO UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE 3-305 SUBSECTION B PARAGRAPH 7 TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL TO OBTAIN LEGAL ADVICE.
PRESENT AT THE MEETING WAS MYSELF, VICE PRESIDENT LARRY PORTER, COMMISSIONER FRANK BARTS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR KATHLEEN FREEMAN, DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DANIEL FOX, COUNTY ATTORNEY STEWART BARREL, OUTSIDE COUNSEL, JESSE HAMICK, OUR PAB ADMINISTRATOR KIM RADER, AND ATTORNEYS LAWRENCE SCOTT, KEVIN JENSEN, CRAIG SNYDER, AND BRENDA MALONE.
WE ALSO HAVE CLOSED SESSION MINUTES, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED OR IS IN OUR PACKETS.
DOES ANY ONE HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS OR CHANGES TO THOSE MINUTES?
>> NONE SEEN. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CLOSED SESSION MINUTES.
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> AYE [OVERLAPPING]. ALL OF THOSE OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT.
THIS MORNING, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF WORKSHOPS FOR POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE BILLS THAT WILL NOT BE INTRODUCED UNTIL POSSIBLY OUR NEXT MEETING.
THIS IS JUST A DISCUSSION ABOUT THESE TWO POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE BILLS.
FIRST UP, WE HAVE A LEGISLATIVE BILL ADDRESSING PUBLIC NUISANCES, AND I BELIEVE CRYSTAL DAD'S, OUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING CODES, AND ROB AND KEHLER ARE HEALTH OFFICERS HERE, AND MATT KOZINSKI.
I DON'T KNOW THIS ONE PERTAINS TO AS MUCH AS THE SOLAR ORDINANCE, BUT WE MIGHT AS WELL COME UP AND GET ONE OF THE HOT SEATS.
>> WHY ARE THESE LABELED EMERGENCY, IT'S NOT REALLY EMERGENCY WHY ARE THE EMERGENCY BILLS?
>> IT'S JUST A PROPOSED EMERGENCY BILL.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT TAKES EFFECT UPON ENACTMENT AND DOESN'T WAIT THE 45 DAYS FOR A PETITION FOR REFERENDUM. THAT'S IT.
WE JUST MAKE THEM [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS.
>> STEWART, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE?
>> YES. THIS IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITIONS SECTION OF CHAPTER 137, AND ALSO A NEW SECTION WHICH WOULD DISCUSS PUBLIC NUISANCES AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABATED IN THIS COUNTY.
A PRIVATE NUISANCE IS A DIFFERENT THING.
PRIVATE NUISANCE IS SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS ONE PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR AND GIVES RISE TO A PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION BY THE NEIGHBOR WHO'S BEING AFFECTED.
A PUBLIC NUISANCE IS SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS AN ENTIRE AREA, THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, OR PERHAPS A SECTION.
IT MIGHT BE A PORTION OF THE COUNTY THAT IS,
[• Legislative Bill 2025-00# Public Nuisances – Crystal Dadds, Director, Planning and Codes and Robin Cahall, Health Officer, Caroline County Health Department]
FOR EXAMPLE, ALONG A ROAD, SOMETHING SOMEBODY'S DOING AT THE END OF THE ROAD IS AFFECTING ALL OF THE ADJOINING FOLKS ALONG THAT ENTIRE ROAD.THAT WOULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
THE COUNTY DOES HAVE THE POWER AS DOES THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, THE HEALTH OFFICER AND THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ALL HAVE THESE POWERS UNDER THE STATE STATUTES TO EVADE NUISANCES.
[00:10:02]
IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU A GREAT DEAL OF DIRECTION ON HOW YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IT, BUT YOU HAVE THE POWER.THE PURPOSE OF ORDINANCES AT THE COUNTY LEVEL IS TO GIVE SOME FRAMEWORK TO HOW A PUBLIC NUISANCE IS IDENTIFIED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND CODES, USUALLY THAT'S UPON A COMPLAINT.
THE CRITERIA BY WHICH SHE WOULD ADJUDGE IT TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE, DECLARE IT TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE, NOTIFY THE LAND OWNER AND TENANT AND EVEN THE LEAN HOLDERS OF THE PROPERTY, THEY WOULD HAVE A DUE PROCESS OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST IT OR EXPLAIN, AND PERHAPS CHANGE THE LET'S JUST SAY, CRYSTAL'S MIND, THAT IT'S NOT REALLY A PUBLIC NUISANCE, IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE COUNTY.
IN THE EVENT THAT THE OWNER AND THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND CODES DISAGREE, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DUE PROCESS HEARING.
THIS IS WHERE SOME JURISDICTIONS HAVE GOTTEN IN A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE IS WHERE THEY PRECIPITOUSLY DECLARE SOMETHING TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE, BUT IT'S NOT RISEN TO THE LEVEL OF A HEALTH HAZARD OR A DANGEROUS CONDITION.
BUT NONETHELESS, THE COUNTY GOES IN, ABATES THE COURT NUISANCE, AND THEN ENDS UP IN COURT, TRYING TO DEFEND ITS DECISION AFTER THE FACT.
WHERE IT HAD TAKEN ACTION AGAINST SOMEONE'S PROPERTY WITHOUT A DUE PROCESS HEARING, GIVEN THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
THAT'S WHAT DUE PROCESS REALLY IS.
IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT TAKES SOME ACTION AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL.
THAT'S WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO LAY OUT HERE, AND WE THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT IDEA TO BRING IN ROBIN, WHO WAS OUR HEALTH OFFICER, AND PERHAPS WE CAN COORDINATE, I ENVISIONED THAT THIS WOULD BE A COORDINATED EFFORT.
SOME OF THESE PUBLIC NUISANCES WOULD COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A HEALTH HAZARD.
SOMETHING THAT THE HEALTH OFFICER WOULD BE INTERESTED IN ALSO SEEING ABATED, NOT JUST THE COUNTY.
SHE HAS POWERS EVEN FAR BEYOND WHAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAVE WITH RESPECT TO TAKING IMMEDIATE ACTION.
THAT'S WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS TODAY.
WE ALL THINK ABOUT THESE IDEAS.
>> DID YOU GUYS WANT TO START WITH ANYTHING? DO YOU WANT TO START WITH ANYTHING, COMMISSIONER REPORTER?
>> I'VE GONE THROUGH THIS AND JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COUPLE OF NOTES AND HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE.
IN THE PAST, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, THE HOLD UP FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH ADOPTING SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAS IN MANY CASES BEEN AGRICULTURE.
IN THIS CASE, I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR, THE PUBLIC NUISANCE DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY CONDITION RESULTING FROM A FARM OPERATION, FOLLOWING GENERALLY ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES THAT ARE NOT CREATING A CONDITION DANGEROUS TO HEALTH OR SAFETY OR THE SECOND ONE IS ANY CONDITION RESULTING FROM COMMERCIAL FISHING OR SEAFOOD OPERATION.
AGAIN, FOLLOWING THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE.
THE STATEMENT AFTER THAT A SAYS, IF AFTER INSPECTING THE PROPERTY, WHO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT DOING THE INSPECTION? I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
>> THAT WOULD BE THE COUNTY CODES ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WHICH PRESENTLY, WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TRESPASS ON SOMEONE'S PROPERTY.
MOST OF OUR COMPLAINTS THAT WE GET HAVE TO BE VIEWED FROM THE ROAD UNLESS A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER MAY GIVE US PERMISSION TO VIEW IT FROM FROM THEIR PROPERTY.
>> IT WOULD BE OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF?
>> HOW DOES THIS COORDINATE WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT? IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE COMPLAINT IS?
>> YES. SOMETIMES WE'LL NOTIFY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL MAY INVOLVE AN ISSUE WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, PARTICULARLY WITH TRASH, SEPTIC WELL, IN THE PAST, WE WENT TOGETHER TO DO AN INSPECTION.
[00:15:05]
>> THAT DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE BASED ON THE TYPE OF COMPLAINT?
>> SECTION 137-14, THE APPEALS PROCEDURE.
I THINK I'VE RAISED THIS ISSUE BEFORE, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT I WON'T, AGREE TO THIS, BUT I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE APPEAL HEARINGS BEING HEARD BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THIS IS A NEW TERRITORY FOR US.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY APPEALS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, MY GUESS IS WHEN SOMEONE GETS SOMETHING, THE FIRST THING THEY'RE GOING TO SAY IS, WELL, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
IS IT IS IT FEASIBLE, DO WE THINK TO FIT THESE HEARINGS INTO THE REGULAR COUNTY COMMISSIONER SCHEDULE, OR ARE WE GOING TO END UP HAVING SEPARATE SCHEDULES? NOT ALL THE TIME, BUT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN AGENDAS ARE PRETTY FULL AND BY THE TIME YOU HAD CLOSED SESSIONS IN AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THERE AND SOMETIMES THESE HEARINGS, I THINK WILL BE PRETTY SIMPLE.
OTHER TIMES, THEY'RE GOING TO INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT TESTIMONY FROM NEIGHBORS.
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH SOME OF THESE, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH THE DAFT PROCESS WITH, WHERE WE'VE HAD A ROOMFUL OF PEOPLE.
WE'VE HAD OTHER, INSTANCES WHERE IT'S REALLY TAKEN A LOT OF TIME.
IS THIS FEASIBLE TO DO WITHIN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER SCHEDULED MEETING?
>> I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT COMPLAINTS WOULD ACTUALLY RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT DECLARES A PUBLIC NUISANCE, IT'S NOT JUST THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER THAT HAS AN ISSUE WITH THE NEIGHBOR.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S HAVING TO AFFECT THAT GENERAL AREA AND NOT JUST AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.
I THINK A LOT OF OUR VIOLATIONS, FOR THE MOST PART, ARE AFFECTING A NEIGHBOR AND NOT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
I DON'T FEEL THAT WE WOULD HAVE A LOT OF THESE UNDER A NUISANCE CODE.
ROBIN, WHAT DO YOU THINK AS FAR AS LIKE.
>> I AGREE AND IN TERMS OF ABATEMENT SITUATION WHEN YOU'RE INITIATING A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, YOU'VE MADE CONTACT, YOU'VE INVESTIGATED.
YOU'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO MITIGATE THE SITUATION.
I THINK BY THE TIME THAT IT COMES TO AN APPEAL SITUATION, IT'S EXTENSIVE.
YOU'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS.
YOU'VE DONE THE DUE DILIGENCE IN TERMS OF TRYING TO ABATE THE SITUATION, BUT NOW YOU'RE AT AT THIS CROSSING.
WHERE YOU HAVE A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE ABATEMENT, AND IT NEEDS TO BE HEARD.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT I HAD PULLED SOME NUMBERS IN TERMS OF OUR COMPLAINT SITUATION.
WE LOOKED, I THINK I HAD THERE LIKE 15, I THINK, OVER A SIX MONTH PERIOD THAT WERE INVESTIGATED.
A FEW OF THEM, NOTICES WERE ISSUED.
ONCE A NOTICE OF VIOLATION IS ISSUED, IT USUALLY RECTIFIES THE SITUATION.
THERE ARE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE, WE HAVE TO GO THE EXTRA STEPS FOR ABATEMENT.
EVEN AFTER AN ABATEMENT ORDER IS ISSUED, SOMETIMES THAT MITIGATES WHAT'S NEEDED OR ENCOURAGES THE ACTION TO HAPPEN.
IT'S AFTER THAT. WHERE IT'S THE ISSUE.
I WOULD THINK THAT A GOOD MAJORITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT COME ACROSS AS COMPLAINTS COULD BE HANDLED OR WOULD BE HANDLED AT OUR LEVEL AND THEN, A HANDFUL WOULD MAKE IT TO AN APPEAL SITUATION MAYBE ONE OR TWO.
>> BUT OF THOSE 15, THEY MAY NOT HAVE RISEN TO THE LEVEL OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
THEY MAY HAVE STILL BEEN A PRIVATE NUISANCE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO JUST PUBLIC NUISANCES.
MOST OF THOSE COMPLAINTS THAT YOU'RE ACTING ON ARE HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATIONS, NOT PUBLIC NUISANCES.
>>WE HAVE SEAL THERE ARE A FEW THAT FALL UNDER MDE AND OUR DELEGATION, AND WE WORK WITH MDE IN REFERENCE TO THOSE SITUATIONS.
[00:20:04]
BUT THERE ARE OTHERS.I THINK THERE'S LIKE LET'S SEE.
THERE'S 14 THAT ARE LISTED IN THE ANNOTATED CODE.
A FEW OF THEM APPLY SPECIFICALLY TO WATER, SEWER SITUATION.
IT'S THE ONES, AND I'VE SPOKEN BEFORE ABOUT US, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WORKING WITH MDH TO REALLY ESTABLISH A PROCESS, TO MOVE THE NUISANCE VIOLATIONS OR NUISANCE COMPLAINT SITUATION THROUGH THAT SYSTEM TO GET ACTION.
BUT I HAVE FOUND THAT IT WORKS A LOT FASTER THROUGH THE LOCAL LEVEL.
DEFINITELY KNOWING THAT IF I'M GOING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OF ABATEMENT, AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FURTHER WITH ACTION.
HAVING LEGAL REPRESENTATION IS WHAT I NEED. YES.
>> BUT AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A MECHANISM NOW.
ONCE THIS GETS ADOPTED, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL THEN SAY, I'VE GOT AN AVENUE NOW THAT I CAN.
>> I THINK MR. PORTER, LET ME JUMP IN CRYSTAL.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO GET USED. HARDLY AT ALL.
I DON'T THINK WE REALLY HAVE MANY ISSUES THAT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
THE GARBAGE BURNING FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD IS NOT IF SOMEONE PILES A WEEK'S WORTH OF GARBAGE, LET'S SAY, 20 BAGS OF GARBAGE IN THE BACKYARD.
THEY HAVE A ONE ACRE LOT OR A TWO ACRE LOT AND A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S A BUNCH OF TWO ACRE LOTS.
NEIGHBORS IN RELATIVELY CLOSE PROXIMITY.
THEY DECIDE TO SET IT ON FIRE AND BURN THEIR TRASH AND SMOKE THE NEIGHBORS OUT AND CREATE A HAZARD.
DOES THAT RISE TO A LEVEL OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AT THAT POINT?
>> IF THERE'S A COMPLAIN FILE.
>> THE WHOLE IDEA THE WHOLE IDEA, MY WHOLE PREMISE BEHIND DOING IT.
I WANTED SOMETHING SIMPLE WHERE PLANNING AND CODES COULD WALK OUT THERE.
WHEN THAT CASE COMES UP WHERE THEY CAN WRITE A CITATION TO STOP THE ACTIVITY IMMEDIATELY.
THIS IS GOING TO TAKE MONTHS TO ENFORCE, STILL.
IT'S ULTIMATELY NOT REACHING, WHAT MY GOAL WAS, WHICH IS CLEAR CUT.
YOU CANNOT DO THIS IF YOU DO, YOU WILL BE CITED UNTIL YOU STOP.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS IN THE COUNTY AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS MORE THAN JUST TWO OR THREE NEIGHBORS, CORRECT?
BASICALLY AND I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO FOLLOW OR FLUID DEFINITION OF WHAT IS THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
IF IT'S THE NEIGHBORS ALONG THAT ROAD, AND I THINK THAT YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ROBIN, BUT I THOUGHT THAT ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BECAUSE IT AFFECTED ALL THOSE PROPERTIES IN THAT ONE AREA.
>> DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
RIGHT NOW, IF IT FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF NUISANCE, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, IT COULD BE ONE PERSON CALLING THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND SAYING, THERE IS LET'S SAY, A RODENT SITUATION AT MY NEIGHBOR'S YARD OR IN MY NEIGHBOR'S YARD.
THEY'RE COMING OVER INTO OUR YARD.
THERE'S EVIDENCE OF ALL THESE THINGS.
WE WE SEND OUR SANITARIUM OUT BECAUSE THERE'S A COMPLAINT, AND THEN WE MOVE FROM THERE.
BUT AGAIN, THERE'S NO CITATION WRITTEN IMMEDIATELY.
IF THEY'VE GOT A RAT INFESTATION NEXT DOOR, THEY DON'T WANT TO SAY, WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU IN TWO MONTHS.
THAT'S THE SITUATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN RIGHT NOW.
WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT WE WERE LEANING ON THE AG, ATTORNEY GENERAL, THAT'S ASSIGNED TO YOUR DEPARTMENT.
IT WAS JUST TAKING FOREVER TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AND YOU WERE WORKING THROUGH IT, BUT IT WAS TAKING YOU WEEKS TO GET RESPONSES.
>> IT'S ALSO A LOT OF INVESTIGATION MATERIAL THAT HAS TO BE FORWARDED ON.
AS CRYSTAL SAID, OUR SANITARIUMS, THEY CAN'T JUST GO ON A PROPERTY.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE, SO WE'RE RELYING ON PHOTOS FROM A DISTANCE, WE'RE RELYING ON NEIGHBORS, REPORTING WITH PHOTOS THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
[00:25:02]
>> I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO APPEAR THAT I'M FIGHTING THIS BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT FOR YEARS TO HALF.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FUTURE GROUP OF COMMISSIONERS DOESN'T WALK IN AND LOOK AT THE AGENDA AND SAY, WELL, WE GOT FIVE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, AND WE GOT 10 APPEALS TO LISTEN TO.
I HOPE NOT, BUT MY EXPERIENCE OVER THE YEARS IS WHEN SOMEONE GET SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THAT INVOLVES THEIR PROPERTY.
THE FIRST THING IS, I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
WHERE DO I GO TO FIGHT ABOUT? WHERE DO I GO TO ARGUE ABOUT IT? RIGHT IN HERE UNDER THIS UNDER THIS.
I DON'T WANT TO KILL THIS THING.
I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION.
AS FAR AS WHO WOULD LISTEN TO THE APPEALS, I KNOW WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE ANY MORE BOARDS.
BUT I'M JUST I HOPE THAT IT DOESN'T END UP TAKING AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME ON A REGULARLY BUSY AGENDA BECAUSE THINGS ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANY SLOWER.
THEY'RE NOT IN HERE. THE ITEMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ON FUTURE AGENDAS ARE NOT GOING TO SLOW DOWN.
THAT'S MY THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN IN THIS ENTIRE.
>> I THINK THE OTHER THING IS DOES THIS ACCOMPLISH WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS WANT, WHICH I KNOW YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT, WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE LIVING IN RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
WE HAVE NO MECHANISM IN OUR ZONING CODE TO ADDRESS THOSE.
IT'S JUST WHEN IT RISES TO THE LEVEL THAT SOMEONE ACTUALLY COMPLAINS ABOUT IT.
WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE ANY COUNTY REGULATION THAT SAYS YOU SHALL NOT DO WHATEVER IT IS.
>> THERE'S NOTHING AGAINST TRASH ACCUMULATION OTHER THAN IN HEALTH AND SAFETY.
WE'RE RELYING ON THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
>> IF THERE IS NOTHING RIGHT NOW STOPPING SOMEONE FROM JUST THROWING A PILE OF GARBAGE IN THE BACKYARD AND LETTING IT SIT THERE FOR MONTHS ON END AND CAN.
>> WE CAN CREATE REGULATIONS, HOWEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM.
IN TERMS OF HOW YOU STORE YOUR TRASH OR HOW MUCH YOU CAN ACCUMULATE.
>> SWEAR AND THIS WOULD BE RECREATIONAL, WHAT WOULD RECREATIONAL VEHICLES FALL UNDER IN THIS NUISANCE?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD.
UNLESS IT AGAIN, BECAME A PUBLICAN NUISANCE.
>> SCHEME OF THINGS AND I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT, BUT IT'S.
>> SHOULD SOMEBODY WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DO IS SHOULD SOMEBODY COME INTO THE COUNTY AND DIG A HOLE AND START DUMPING DIRT AND AFFECT THE ENTIRE TOWN OF GREENSBORO.
THEN, THE SMELL AND SAFETY OF PEOPLE THROWING UP IN THE STREETS BECAUSE OF THE SMELL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF.
WE COULD GO IN AND START THE PROCESS OF ABATING THAT NUISANCE THROUGH THIS.
SHOULD SOMEBODY COME IN AND YOU HAVE A PILE.
WELL, I GUESS MAYBE NOT WITH AGRICULTURE, BUT IF THEY HAD A PILE OF GREEN OR SOMETHING AND RATS GOT INTO IT, AND THERE WAS A RAT INFESTATION THAT AFFECTED A NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT DOOR, WE COULD COME IN AND ADDRESS THAT.
BUT IT'S GOT TO AFFECT AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
I MEAN, THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES IT HAVE TO AFFECT? IT'S NOT DEFINED.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING. WHERE'S THAT LINE? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LET'S SAY THIS.
YOU GOT A NEIGHBOR. HE'S THE OUTLIER, THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE WHOLE PEOPLE JUST SAY, HEY, THIS GUY'S A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
>> IT'S NOT CUTTING HIS GRASS.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES IT TAKE TO CREATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE? I KNOW I KNOW SOME SITS IT WOULD BE ONE.
>> IT JUST DEPENDS ON EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE, WE WOULD HAVE TO ASSESS ON EACH SITUATION AS TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING AND WHO IS IT ACTUALLY IMPACTING?
>> IF VISUAL NUISANCE IS NOT CONSIDERED A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
SOMEONE JUST LETTING THEIR PROPERTY GO.
>> A COMMON EXAMPLE IS WHAT'S CALLED A SPIKE FENCE WHERE YOU'RE MAD AT YOUR NEIGHBOR.
YOU HAVE A FENCE BETWEEN YOUR PROPERTIES? OR LET'S PUT AND IT'S YOUR FENCE.
ON THE NEIGHBOR'S SIDE OF THE FENCE, YOU HAVE ALL TERRIBLE STUFF WRITTEN OR DRAWN OR WHATEVER TO MAKE TO ANNOY THEM.
[00:30:06]
IT'S A SPIKE FENCE. THERE'S ARE TERRIBLE THINGS TO DO TO ANYBODY, BUT THAT HAPPENS.THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
IT MAY OR MAY NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY A CAUSE OF ACTION.
MOST OF THE TIME WHAT THE NEIGHBOR DOES IS PUTS UP THEIR OWN FENCE RIGHT UP NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND BLOCKS IT PLANTS A BUNCH OF TREES OR BUSHES.
BUT THIS IS THE WARFARE THAT GOES ON OUT THERE.
>> BASICALLY, I GUESS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A VERY EGREGIOUS SITUATION OCCURRING IN ORDER FOR THIS NUISANCE LAW TO BE ABLE TO BE USED FOR A [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T DISAGREE THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD TOOL TO HAVE IN THE TOOLBOX WHEN YOU NEED IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
>> THAT WE'VE EVER HAD A SITUATION AS LONG AS YOU'VE BEEN IN PLANTING AND CODES WHERE WE WOULD HAVE NEEDED THIS.
>> I KNOW A COUPLE OF SITUATIONS, BUT TO WHAT LEVEL, WE'VE SEEN CERTAIN LEVELS WHERE IS THIS NEEDS TO BE USED. YOU GOT ME?
>> I GUESS DEFINED IN THAT LEVEL, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT'S ALREADY DEFINED IN STATE LAW.
STATE LAW HAS A DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE?
>> THAT'S UNDER HEALTH GENERAL GENERAL.
>> BUT APPARENTLY, IT DOESN'T SPECIFY HOW MANY PEOPLE.
>> I WORRY, JUST LIKE WHEN WE PUT THE OLD CITY LIGHT OUT THERE, YOU GET TO SO IF THIS COMES TO TUITION, THEN FROM THE GET GO, FROM THE GATE, EVERYBODY, NOW WE HAVE A PUBLIC NUISANCE LAW.
NOW PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING RUN THE ROAD.
THAT'S A PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND IT JUST IT'S SNOWBALLS IN THE BEGINNING.
THAT'S WHAT WORRIES ME A LITTLE BIT TOO.
>> IF WE WERE TO ADOPT BURNING REGULATIONS AND USE OUR PROCESSES WE HAVE IN PLACE THROUGH CIVIL CITATION, THE HOPES ARE IF SOMEBODY DOES BURN, IT GENERATES A COMPLAINT, WE INVESTIGATE IT, FIND OUT IT HAPPENED.
THEY GET CITED. THEY DON'T DO IT AGAIN.
IF THEY DO IT AGAIN, THE AMOUNT GOES UP.
>> IT ALSO GETS DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THOSE SPECIFIC CASES, IT COULD BE MOVED ALONG UNDER MY CHANNELS TO MDES AIR QUALITY FOR INVESTIGATION AS WELL.
>> IN THE IN THE DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, AS WE TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT I THINK WILL APPLY TO THE LIVING IN CAMPERS.
>> I READ THIS AS SAYING BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ANYTHING IT HAS A INADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY.
>> WHEN WE RECEIVE COMPLAINTS ABOUT SOMEONE LIVING IN AN RV, IT'S INVESTIGATED AS THE CAPACITY FOR THE WATER AND SEWER SITUATION? WHAT'S GOING ON IN TERMS OF THAT? THAT'S HOW THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATES THOSE TYPES OF COMPLAINTS.
>> IT'S NOT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF.
>> ROBIN'S PROBABLY GOING TO LOOK AT, IS THERE CAMPER GOT A SELF CONTAINMENT UNIT? IS IT HOOKED TO THE EXISTING SEPTIC ON A PROPERTY THAT IT'S PARKED ON?
>> WHAT'S THE CAPACITY OF THAT PROPERTY SEPTIC SYSTEM?
>> I THINK THIS LEGISLATION IS GOING TO BE VERY CONTROVERSIAL, EVEN THOUGH IT PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE CONTROVERSIAL BECAUSE IT REALLY DOES NOT EXTEND ANY AUTHORITY TO THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THE HEALTH OFFICER DOESN'T ALREADY HAVE, RIGHT?
>> KRYSTAL AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE.
IT MEETS THE NEED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE BURNING.
YES, WE CAN INVESTIGATE THE BURNING, WE CAN MOVE IT ALONG.
IF YOU WERE TO INSTITUTE OR IMPLEMENT.
[OVERLAPPING] IT COULD BE YOU COULD ISSUE CITATIONS IMMEDIATELY, THOSE THINGS WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF.
THE SAME WOULD BE FOR SOMEONE LIVING IN AN RV, IF YOU WANTED TO GO THAT ROUTE.
THE CURRENT SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE IT'S WORKING, IT'S SLOW-MOVING, AND IT'S A LOT OF COORDINATION BETWEEN CRYSTAL AND I, WHICH WE'LL CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN.
WE REALIZE THAT WE NEED TO FIRM UP OUR PROCESSES WITH HOW WE'RE COMMUNICATING THOSE THINGS BETWEEN PROGRAMS TO ENSURE THAT WE DO.
[00:35:03]
BUT WILL SAY THAT OUR STAFF ON BOTH SIDES WORK VERY WELL TOGETHER IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.IT DEPENDS ON WHICH DIRECTION YOU GUYS REALLY WANT TO GO IN.
IF YOU WANT TO GO IN THE WAY OF SOMETHING THAT'S MORE STRICT IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO WRITE THE CITATION THEN AND THERE.
I THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE MORE [INAUDIBLE].
>> IT'S EASIER FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND AS WELL.
I'VE ONLY BEEN DOING THIS THREE YEARS, BUT I'VE SEEN ENOUGH CASES WHERE SOMEONE HAS AN ISSUE WITH SOMETHING THAT THE NEIGHBORS DOING.
IF THEY'RE RESOURCEFUL, THEY GO ON OUR WEBSITE AND THEY LOOK AT THE COUNTY CODE, AND THEY TRY TO FIND THINGS TO APPLY.
IF THEY SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS, I'M EDUCATED ON IT, AND I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRIVATE AND A PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND IT DOESN'T SOUND TO ME LIKE THE STATE DOES A REAL GOOD JOB OF DEFINING IT.
IT'S JUST GOING TO CONFUSE PEOPLE. I'M CONFUSED BY THAT.
>> THE PERFECT EXAMPLE ARE THAT MOST WILL GO ONLINE AND SEARCH THE CODE FOR THE WORD RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, AND THEY WILL COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT SAYS RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED AS LIVING QUARTERS, AND THEY COME AND SAY, WELL, IT SAYS RIGHT HERE.
YOU CAN'T DO THIS, BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHERE THAT'S LOCATED IN THE CODE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S LOCATED IN OUR MOBILE HOME.
>> I THINK OVERALL, THIS IS STEP ONE THAT I SEE.
I HAVE A FEELING DOWN THE LINE.
WE'RE GOING TO REFINE THIS, BUT IT DOES ADDRESS, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT FOR OVER THE YEARS WITH ABANDONED STRUCTURES THAT ARE ABANDONED OR THEY CATCH ON FIRE.
TREES FALL THROUGH THEM, AND THEY JUST SIT THERE.
THEY DO POSE TO ME, THEY DO GENERATE HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES? THEY ALSO ARE DETRIMENTAL TO PROPERTY VALUES OF THE HOUSES AROUND THEM.
TO ME, AND IN TIMES THAT I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN, IT HAS BEEN THAT THE BANK OR LENDING INSTITUTION EITHER FORECLOSES ON A PROPERTY, THE PEOPLE MOVE OUT, NOBODY MOVES IN.
THE NEXT THING YOU HAVE IS IT'S FALLING DOWN.
TO ME, THE BANK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING CARE OF THAT PROPERTY.
OR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WHO WILL CONSTANTLY TAKE YEARS TO INVESTIGATE. I'M DONE WITH THAT.
IT'S NOT FAIR TO PEOPLE WHO WORK TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTIES AND TAKE CARE OF THEIR PROPERTIES AND WANT TO HAVE THEIR KNOW THEIR PROPERTY VALUES UPHELD TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT'S CREATING A PROBLEM.
THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET TO THAT IS IF IT IS A HAZARD.
>> I THINK TOO, COMMISSIONER PORTER, WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN OUR CODE THAT CAN ADDRESS THOSE UNSAFE STRUCTURES.
WE JUST NEED TO TIGHTEN IT UP.
WE DO HAVE A COUNTY UNSAFE STRUCTURES CODE FOR A PROCESS IN TERMS OF CONDEMNING A PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, IT HAS ITS LIMITATIONS AS IT'S WRITTEN, AND THERE'S NO WE NEED TO CLEAN UP THE ABATEMENT PROCESS AND WHAT DETERMINES UNSAFE AND CONDEMNED TO THE POINT THAT THE COUNTY WOULD STEP IN AND SAY IT HAS TO BE TORN DOWN.
WE DO HAVE A MECHANISM THAT WE COULD CLEAN UP AND TIGHTEN UP TO ADDRESS THOSE ABANDONED STRUCTURES.
>> I THINK THAT THE OTHER THING, FINALLY, THAT WE HAVE TO REALIZE IS THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE IN FUTURE BUDGETS.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO STICK SOME MONEY SOMEWHERE BECAUSE THERE ARE GOING TO BE OCCASIONS WHEN PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO SAY, I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT.
YOU GUYS TEAR IT DOWN, AND IT GETS PUT ON AS A LIEN, BUT THE CONTRACTOR THAT TEARS THE STRUCTURE DOWN IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET PAID.
WE BETTER START THINKING ABOUT ALLOCATING SOME BUDGET.
>> IN THE PAST, WE'VE ALSO TALKED ABOUT MORE OF A LIEN AND CLEAN POLICY, WHERE IT'S NOT JUST A LIEN, IT'S IT BECOMES DUE AND PAYABLE WITH YOUR TAXES.
THERE MAY BE A MEANS OF ADDRESSING IT THAT WAY SO THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT BUDGET CONSTRAINT.
>> I'M NOT SURE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THESE STRUCTURES ARE GOING TO BE REAL INTERESTED ABOUT RUNNING IN THERE PAYING THEIR TAXES.
IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO END UP A TAX SALE ANYWAY.
BUT THE POINT IS, OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE GONE TO STRUCTURES AND DONE SOME RESEARCH IN WHAT I FIND OUT THE BANK OWNS IT.
BANK OWNS IT, THEY NEED TO START TAKING CARE OF, AND THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT BUILDING IS SAFE AND NOT PRESENTING WHAT IS IT CALLED AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE.
[00:40:05]
I LEARNED THAT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE.BUT IT'S DIFFICULT WHEN SOMEONE COMES TO YOU AND SAYS, I RUN A DAYCARE, AND RIGHT NEXT TO THE DAYCARE IS A HOUSE THAT JUST BURNED AND IS SITTING THERE, THE KID THAT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.
I THINK THIS WILL HELP WITH THAT.
AGAIN, MY CONCERNS ARE THE HEARING PROCESS.
>> I DON'T KNOW. I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT IT'S A LITTLE TOO BROAD BY REASON OF BEING UNDER THE PUBLIC NUISANCE, SO THE DEFINITION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE, I'M ON PAGE FOUR HERE.
MEANS ANY FENCE, WALL, SHED, DECK, HOUSE, GARAGE, BUILDING, STRUCTURE, OR ANY PART OF ANY OF THE AFORESAID, OR ANY TREE, POLE, SMOKES STACK, OR ANY EXCAVATION, HOLE PIT, BASEMENT CELLAR, SIDEWALK, SUBSPACE, DOCK WHARF OR LANDING DOCK, OR ANY LOT LAND, YARD, PREMISE OR LOCATION, WHICH IN ITS ENTIRETY, OR IN PART THEREOF BY REASON OF CONDITION IN WHICH THE SAME IS FOUND OR PERMITTED TO BE OR REMAIN SHALL OR MAY ENDANGER THE HEALTH SAFETY, LIFE LIMB OR PROPERTY OR CAUSE ANY HURT, HARM, INCONVENIENCE, DISCOMFORT, DAMAGE, OR INJURY TO ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PARTICULARS.
THAT'S PRETTY BROAD, AND THEN HE GOES IN UNPROTECTED SWIMMING POOL.
>> RIGHT OUT OF THE HEALTH GENERAL ARTICLE.
>> THOSE ARE THE LISTINGS OF THE NUISANCE IN HEALTH GENERAL.
WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT ONE, UNDER PUBLIC NUISANCE.
>> IN ADEQUATELY PROTECTED SWIMMING POOL.
IN MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE ARE SOME COUNTIES WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT A FENCE UP AROUND THE POOL.
>> WHAT'S AN INADEQUATE? THESE DEFINITIONS ARE JUST EXTREMELY BROAD TO ME.
WHAT'S INADEQUATELY PROTECTED?
>> IT DOESN'T HAVE A BARRIER TO SECURE IT FROM SOMEONE FALLING IN AND DROWNING.
>> BUT IN SOME COUNTIES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A FENCE?.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A BARRIER.
ARE ALL OF THEM ILLEGAL BY THE HEALTH ARTICLE?
>> I THINK IT'S DESIGNED, AND AGAIN, THIS LANGUAGE MAY GO BACK GENERATIONS BEFORE THERE WERE BUILDING CODES IN THE REGULATED [OVERLAPPING].
>> [INAUDIBLE]. THAT'S COLIN COUNTY [LAUGHTER].
>> IT'S BROAD. THIS IS THIS IS GOVERNMENT. I DON'T KNOW.
>> SOME OF THIS HAS TO BE CLEANED UP.
>> THAT'S IN STATE. IT IS IN THE STATE LAW ALREADY.
>> ROBIN. IF YOU HAVE, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE ARE PRACTICING THE AUTHORITY THAT A LOT OF THIS IS COPYING OVER.
ARE THERE PROCESSES OR SOME FURTHER COOPERATION THAT WE COULD PROVIDE TO HELP IN THAT MAYBE WOULD PREVENT US HAVING TO STAND UP A WHOLE NEW OPERATION FROM THE COUNTY SIDE? THEN ALSO FROM PLAN AND CODE SIDE, TAKE A LOOK AT THE OPEN BURNING, THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, CLEAN UP THE ABATEMENT TO TRY TO MASK.
>> SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT SITE, THE STUFF THAT PLANT AND CODES YOU GUYS WANT TO GO AFTER.
BUT THEN AGAIN, IT'S JUST A OPEN QUESTION.
PROCESSES THAT WE COULD DO THAT. WE COULD HELP.
>> BECAUSE I CAN WRITE THE ORDERS FOR THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS WHEN THE COMPLAINT IS INVESTIGATED.
MY ISSUE IS, WHERE'S MY REPRESENTATION? IF I'M MOVING IT THROUGH THE STATE SYSTEM, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A WHILE.
I HAVE TO PRESENT THE CASE AGAIN, ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
THE AG'S OFFICE THEY WRITE THE ORDERS.
IF I HAD THAT AT A LOCAL LEVEL WHERE IT'S BEING, I HAD LEGAL RESOURCE FOR ME TO SEND THE INFORMATION, WORK WITH THEM.
WE ALREADY WORKED WITH CRYSTAL IN TERMS OF ALL OF THE SITUATIONS AND REFERENCE TO COMPLAINTS ON LIVABILITY, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
IT WOULD, I THINK, KNOWING AND HAVING A PROCESS FOR WHAT'S THE TRIGGER FOR WHEN THOSE THINGS HAPPEN.
IF WE'RE WRITING AT THE STATE LEVEL, THEY GENERALLY WANT TO SEE TWO NOTICES OF VIOLATION IN ORDER OF ABATEMENT.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A PROCESS THERE.
I'M STILL WORKING WITH THE STATE.
[00:45:02]
I'M A MEMBER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LIAISON COMMITTEE, AND WE ARE WORKING ON WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKS LIKE IN REFERENCE TO SOME OF THESE COMPLAINT SITUATIONS TO MOVE IT FORWARD.BUT ON A LOCAL LEVEL, IF WE COULD WORK TOGETHER AND FIGURE OUT WHAT ARE THE TRIGGERS.
IF I HAVE A PERSON GOING OUT, WRITING THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, AND WE'RE SAYING 5-7 DAYS, YOU HAVE TO CLEAN IT UP.
DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION, THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE ABATED IMMEDIATELY.
IF THAT HAPPENS, I NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME LEGAL REPRESENTATION AS WELL.
I WILL SAY THAT ON THE STATE LEVEL, IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, I WOULD GET THAT EMERGENCY REPRESENTATION OR I WOULD GET THE REPRESENTATION FOR EMERGENCY ACTION, BUT I FEEL LIKE I NEED THAT HERE, TOO, TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
I THINK REALLY SOLIDIFYING WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FOR US OR FOR ME, IN TERMS OF DOING THAT.
I BELIEVE CRYSTAL, YOUR CODES ENFORCEMENT, THEY HAVE THE POWER TO WRITE CITATIONS, CORRECT?
>> THAT WE MAY LOOK AT DOING A COMBINED.
[OVERLAPPING] WE GOING AFTER CERTAIN THINGS.
YOU GUYS HAVE PRIORITIZED THAT. YOU WANT TO ADDRESS?
I BELIEVE STAIR PUT INTO COMMENTS HERE.
A PUBLIC NUISANCE AFFECTS AN INDEFINITE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
>> YOU WANT TO PUT SOMETHING IN OUR ZONING CODE TO SAY.
>> WHAT DOES THIS GOING TO DO, COMMISSIONER PORTER? THIS IS WHERE MY HEARTBURN IS AN INDEFINITE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
IF WE ORDER A CONDEMNED HOUSE TO BE KNOCKED DOWN, THE FIRST THING, IF AN ATTORNEY IS GOING TO DEFEND OUR DECISION TO FORCE AN OWNER PROPERTY OWNER TO KNOCK THE HOUSE DOWN, I'M GOING TO SAY, WELL, IT'S NOT AFFECTING AN INDEFINITE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
>> THAT LANGUAGE IS SIMPLY IN THE COMMENT, THOUGH.
>> IT'S NOT FROM THE STATE DEFINITION.
>> THE DEFINITION OF THOSE NUISANCES COME NOT ONLY OUT OF THE HEALTH GENERAL ARTICLE, BUT ALSO OUT OF CASE LAW.
WHICH DISTINGUISHES A PUBLIC NUISANCE FROM A PRIVATE NUISANCE IN THAT, IN EFFECT, THE PUBLIC HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION AS OPPOSED TO THE INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBOR.
IT'S ONLY AFFECTING THE ONE NEIGHBOR.
THAT NEIGHBOR HAS THE RIGHT TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY FILE A SUIT TO REMEDY THAT NUISANCE THAT'S DIRECTED AT JUST THIS ONE NEIGHBOR.
A PUBLIC NUISANCE IS ONE THAT GOES BEYOND THAT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO AFFECT TWO, THREE, FOUR, THERE'S NO THERE'S NO SET NUMBER.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT FITS WITHIN THE DEFINITION, THAT IT IS NOT CONFINED TO ONE PERSON WHO'S THE VICTIM.
THERE'S POTENTIALLY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAD AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE, AS COMMISSIONER PORTER WAS TALKING ABOUT, A SWIMMING POOL THAT'S GAUDILY ATTIRED AND NO FENCE AROUND IT, AND NOBODY'S WATCHING IT.
THERE'S AN INDEFINITE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY GO ONTO THAT PROPERTY, PARTICULARLY YOUNG PEOPLE, CHILDREN.
IS IT FIVE CHILDREN? YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT NUMBER.
IT'S JUST IT'S A WIDE OPEN POTENTIAL MENACE TO AN INDEFINITE NUMBER OF CHILDREN OR PEOPLE.
IT'S GOING TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
I ALSO THINK, AND I KNOW WE'RE REALLY SCRUTINIZING THIS LANGUAGE AS WE SHOULD BE, BUT YOU SHOULD ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PRECEDENT IN THE LAW FOR PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION.
IT'S GIVEN TO POLICE OFFICERS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE IN A STATUTE THAT PROHIBITS DRIVING FASTER THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH GIVES YOU FOG, STORM, WHATEVER.
IT'S THE OFFICER'S DISCRETION ON WHEN HE'S GOING TO WRITE A TICKET FOR THAT.
MANY TIMES THE LEGISLATURE HAS INTENTIONALLY GIVEN THAT DISCRETION TO THE PEOPLE IN THE FIELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S RISEN TO THE LEVEL OF SOMETHING TO BE PROSECUTED, OR IN THIS CASE, ABATED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
YOU CAN'T GET AWAY FROM IT. YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE IN THE FIELD, YOU HAVE TO TRUST THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING IT WITHIN THE GUARD RAIL.
OF COURSE, THIS IS ALL DESIGNED TO SELF-ABATE.
THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO ENCOURAGE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO DO THE WORK THEMSELVES.
[00:50:03]
WE DON'T DON'T IMMEDIATELY JUMP ON THEM.WE'RE GOING TO THEM AND COMMUNICATING THE PROBLEM AND SAYING, ABATE IT.
IT'S ONLY WHEN THEY'RE RESISTING THAT OR YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY, WHERE MAYBE THE OWNER IS NOT EVEN THERE, AND YOU'VE GOT TO STEP ONTO THE PROPERTY AND ABATE NUISANCE.
>> WITH REGARD TO THE APPEAL PROCESS, AS WRITTEN, WOULD COME TO THE COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD SAY, WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO BE A SPECIAL MEETING WHEN IT WOULD BE HANDLED, THE OTHER OPTIONS ARE TO CREATE ANOTHER BOARD OR SEND IT TO THE BZA, RIGHT?
>> AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO I'M NOT PREPARED TO KILL THIS THING BECAUSE OF THAT.
BECAUSE WHAT IT CALLS FOR FURTHER ON IN THAT LANGUAGE IT CALLS FOR A WRITTEN REPORT TO BE DONE ON THE DECISION.
>> THAT WOULD BE IN THE SAME FASHION IN THAT.
YEAH. OUR BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNSEL PREPARES THAT WRITTEN OPINION IN DECISION AND WOULD DO THE SAME IN THIS CASE.
>> IF SOMEONE SHOWS UP IN HERE TO APPEAL THIS WITH AN ATTORNEY, WE WILL WE WILL INCUR LEGAL TIME, RIGHT? YEAH, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT IT JUST WANT TO EXPRESS THAT CONCERN.
AGAIN, I'M THINKING THIS IS A STEP IN THIS ISN'T AS BIG A STEP AS I WOULD LIKE, BUT IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
I KNOW WE ALL GET IT, SO YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO LET ME HAVE TO LIVE NEXT TO THIS MESS.
ANSWER ALL WELL, WE DON'T HAVE IT WELL.
I MEAN, WHEN WE GET THE COMPLAINTS AND WHEN WE HAVE TO TELL THEM, WE'RE SORRY, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT, WELL. EVERY OTHER DAY.
>> BUT I JUST WANTED TO RAISE A CONCERN ABOUT THE APPEAL.
CERTAINLY, IF IT COMES DOWN THE ROAD, IF IT BECOMES MORE THAN COMMISSIONERS CAN HANDLE, THEY CAN CERTAINLY DECIDE TO APPOINT A BOARD OR TO USE THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
MAYBE THE BEST THING TO DO IS GIVE IT A TRY, SEE WHAT HAPPENS. SEE HOW MANY?
>> I THINK IT'S IT MIGHT BE WHY COCO HAS A I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S CALLED THE CODES ENFORCEMENT ADVISORY BOARD, BUT THERE IS AN ADVISORY BOARD THAT HEARS THESE CASES.
>> YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO KNOW THE BOARD.
[LAUGHTER] WE'VE GOT BOARDS NOW THAT FILL.
>> YEAH WHAT'S THE WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO WITH THIS? DO WE WANT TO MOVE IT ON TO THE INTRODUCTION? DO WE WANT TO SIT ON IT A LITTLE WHILE LONGER?
>> I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS HERE.
>> YEAH, THINK CRYSTAL AND I ARE CONTINUING TO WORK ON OUR PROCESSES TO ENSURE, AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, THE COMMUNICATION AND THE WORKING TOGETHER.
I KNOW THAT, DEFINITELY, I HAVE SOME WORK TO DO IN MY DEPARTMENT.
>> COULD I SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS THERE BE A CONFERENCE, MAYBE OVER AT YOUR OFFICE, ROBIN, WITH ME AND CRYSTAL? SUREPOSSIBLY KATHLEEN OR DANNY, SOMEBODY FROM THE ADMINISTRATION AND SIT DOWN AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO WITH THIS LANGUAGE THAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE USER-FRIENDLY FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW AND POSSIBLY UTILIZE SOME OF YOUR POWERS AS PART OF THIS? I MEAN, I KNOW THAT WE CAN MAKE REFERENCE TO YOU AS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU SAY SOMETHING TO US, I MEAN, THAT CAN TRIGGER SOMETHING, YOU'RE INVOKING YOUR POWERS THAT YOU HAVE UNDER THE STATE STATUTES, YOU HAVE TREMENDOUS POWER FIRST.
>> YEAH. BUT THE OTHER PART OF THAT IS THE BOARD OF HEALTH ALSO HAS TREMENDOUS POWERS IN TERMS OF THAT THEY CAN DIRECT ME, AS THE APPOINTED AUTHORITY, TO DO CERTAIN THINGS AS WELL.
THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE BOARD OF HEALTH IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR THERE AS WELL.
>> MAYBE WE'RE INVOLVED AT SOME POINT, IF WE'VE TWEAKED IT A LITTLE BIT, SEND IT TO AN AG.
>> YEAH. THEY HAVE BEEN SUPER HELPFUL IN TERMS OF THE PROCESSES THAT THIS LAST WE HAD A RECENT CASE AND MOVING THROUGH THAT.
THEY'VE BEEN VERY HELPFUL IN COMMUNICATING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THINGS.
[00:55:04]
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA TO MEET AGAIN AND HAVE AN ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION.>> THAT SOUNDS FINE TO ME. WE WANT TO MAKE THEM.
>> CAN YOU TELL ME, LIKE, SPECIFICALLY? I KNOW A COUPLE OF THE MAYBE THE PRIORITIES, RIGHT? LIKE, SO IS BURNING OF CERTAIN THINGS THAT'S A PRIORITY FOR YOU GUYS.
>> THE THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, IS THAT IS IT LIVING IN THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES?
>> AS FOR RECREATION. IN OTHER WORDS, YES.
YEAH, YOU HAVE WE'VE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST, LIKE YOU HAVE SOMEBODY BUILDING A HOUSE.
AS THEY'RE GOING TO BE HERE SIX MONTHS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF, YOU'VE GOT IN-LAWS VISITING FROM OUT OF STATE.
CRYSTAL, I'VE TALKED ABOUT IN-LAWS VISITING FROM OUT OF STATE, AND THEN YOU HAVE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE HERE FROM TIME TO TIME.
>> HUNTING, [OVERLAPPING] THAT YOU'RE USING IT FOR HUNTING.
>> I MEAN, I THINK IT GOES TO THE POINT WHERE, NOT YOUR ACTUAL LIVING PREMISES.
CREATES AN UNSANITARY CONDITION. GOT YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE VERY SPECIFIC THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO LOOK AT?
>> FOR ME, IT'S ABANDONED [OVERLAPPING] AND ABANDONED HOME CLOSURES, ABANDONED STRUCTURES.
>> THOSE ARE THE THREE MAIN THINGS.
RIGHT NOW, BURNING TRASH, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO PEOPLE TEMPORARILY LIVING IN CAMPERS, BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A PROCESS OF DOCUMENTATION AND KNOWING THAT IT IS A TEMPORARY USE.
>> WE'RE RESTRICTED NOW UNDER OUR UNSAFE STRUCTURES CODE, AND IT'S LIMITED TO THOSE STRUCTURES THAT ARE IN DANGER OF COLLAPSING OR PARTIALLY COLLAPSED.
BUT WE DO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF JUST ABANDONED VACANT STRUCTURES THAT ARE NOT IN DANGER OF FALLING DOWN RIGHT NOW UNDER THE CODE THAT WE HAVE.
ALL WE CAN DO IS REQUIRE THEM TO BOARD IT UP AND SECURE IT.
>> RIGHT, WE HAVE NICE NEIGHBORHOODS.
IF YOU RIDE DOWN ADAMS LANDING ROAD, THERE ARE TWO.
THERE'S ONE ON THE LEFT THAT HAS TREES GROWING UP ALL AROUND IT.
IT'S BEEN ABANDONED FOR FIVE YEARS OR LONGER.
THERE'S ONE IN THE WOODS TO YOUR RIGHT THAT'S PROBABLY BEEN THERE FOR TEN YEARS, ABANDONED.
THE TREES ARE JUST GROWING UP AROUND IT.
THEY'RE NOT MAINTAINING THE YARD.
THEY HAVE NICE PROPERTIES ON BOTH SIDES, BUT IT JUST LOOKS LIKE A DISASTER.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT RISES TO TO HEALTH AND SAFETY LEVEL TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT ISSUES.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE GOT TO ADDRESS IN CODE.
THEN WE HAVE IN OUR RURAL VILLAGES WHERE OLD HISTORIC STRUCTURES ARE JUST LEFT THERE, IT'S A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THEY'RE GOING TO FALL ON A NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
I THINK THOSE ARE THE THREE MAIN ISSUES THAT WE'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO ADDRESS RIGHT NOW.
>> I MEAN, WITH THE RECREATION VEHICLES, IT COMES TO A POINT WHERE SOME OF THERE'S A SQUATTING ISSUE WHERE PEOPLE ARE JUST, HEY, THERE'S AN OPEN LOT.
I'VE HEARD EVENTS WHERE PEOPLE LIKE, LIKE, HEY, MAN, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? OR THEY PULL UP ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY SAY, THE PERSON COMES OUT OF THE RECREATION VEHICLE AND SAYS, CAN I HELP YOU? HE'S LIKE, YEAH, IT'S MY PROPERTY'S LIKE IT'S I'VE HEARD OF INSTANCES OF PEOPLE SQUATTING, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES THAT HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING WHERE THEY NEED TO BE.
>> SOME ARE THERE FOR A WHILE BEFORE, PROPERTY OWNER EVEN KNOWS YOU'RE THERE BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIVE LOCALLY OR DON'T VISIT THE PROPERTY, THEY JUST OWN IT.
>> ALL RIGHT. YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO MEET AND TALK ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE DO THE INTRODUCTION ON IT.
>> ALL RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING] THANKS SOUNDS GOOD.
>> THE PROCESS. I DON'T HAVE TO BE AN EMERGENCY.
>> YEAH. WE WOULD DO IT THROUGH THE REGULAR LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AS A REGULAR BILL.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE GOT ANOTHER ONE.
THE NEXT ONE IS A PROPOSED SOLAR A SECOND.
[• Legislative Bill 2025-### Solar Energy Ordinance DRAFT – Crystal Dadds, Director, Planning and Codes]
I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE PACKET.I THINK IT SAYS DRAFT RIGHT HERELAR POWER.
YEAH. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW.
CRYSTAL, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THIS ONE THIS BILL IS GOING TO DO?
[01:00:02]
>> KATHLEEN HAD SENT YOU A CLEAN VERSION AND THEN A VERSION WITH THE COMMENTS FOR THE AMENDMENTS TO OUR SOLAR REGULATIONS.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE RETAIN IS OUR ACCESSORY SOLAR.
THAT WOULD BE YOUR RESIDENTIAL SOLAR THAT YOU'RE GENERATING POWER FOR WHAT'S THERE ON THE PROPERTY.
ALSO HAVE A PROVISION IN OUR ZONING CODE FOR NOT JUST THE RESIDENTIAL ONSITE SOLAR, BUT WE DO ALLOW GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR WHERE A PROPERTY OWNER HAS MULTIPLE PARCELS AND THAT ELECTRICITY BEING PRODUCED SUPPORTS ALL OF THOSE PARCELS, PARTICULARLY FARMS. WE HAVE UTILIZED THAT, I BELIEVE, FOR AT LEAST ONE FARMER THAT WAS ABLE TO PLACE THE SOLAR PANELS ON ONE PARCEL, BUT IT WAS GENERATING POWER FOR THE OTHER PARCELS AND WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT TIES IN WITH SENATE BILL 931 IN TERMS OF THAT WHAT IS IT TITLED IN HERE, [OVERLAPPING] MT? IT'S A NET METER. NET METERING, YES.
THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL IT IN HERE IS NET METERING.
>> WHICH IS WHAT WE HAD ISSUED PREVIOUSLY ON AN ACCESSORY FOR A FARM.
I THINK THEY HAD LUMPED IN SIX OR SEVEN PROPERTIES TO USE TO NET METER THAT USAGE TOWARDS PROPERTIES THAT THEY OWNED.
BUT THAT IS HOW IT READS IN THIS BILL; IT WOULD.
THE FALLING OF THIS NET METER, YOU HAVE TO MEET THE SITING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN HERE, WHICH ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM HOW WE DO ACCESSORY SOLAR NOW.
NOW, AS AN ACCESSORY SOLAR, YOU JUST HAVE TO MEET THE REGULAR ZONING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
IN THIS CASE, THEY'D HAVE TO FOLLOW WHAT A COMMERCIAL SOLAR SYSTEM JUST DOES.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE MORE THAN A MEGAWATT.
BECAUSE THAT WASN'T A QUESTION WE ASKED AT THE TIME WHEN WE WERE ALLOWING THIS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD RUN INTO A CIRCUMSTANCE OF ANYTHING MORE THAN A MEGAWATT IN THOSE INSTANCES FOR FARMS, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT TO SEE HOW THAT IMPACTS OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS.
>> I THINK THOSE ARE PROBABLY THE ONES THAT WE WOULD RUN INTO.
I THINK THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE ON THE FARM.
>> ALL RIGHT, IF YOU'RE IN A NET METERING PROGRAM, WHAT UNDER 1 MEGAWATT, ARE OUR SETBACKS LESS RESTRICTIVE OR MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE? THEY SOLAR.
>> THEY WOULD FOLLOW OUR TYPICAL.
MOST OF THIS IS IN A RURAL ZONING DISTRICT.
IT WOULD BE 40 FRONT AND 10 ON ALL OTHER SIDES.
I WOULD FOLLOW THE NORMAL SETBACKS.
>> WE COULD JUST IMPOSE THE STATE SETBACKS ACROSS THE BOARD AND KEEP IT SIMPLE.
>> THEN THE OTHER THINGS WOULD NOT JUST BE SETBACKS, BUT BUFFERING REQUIRE WHICH WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN REQUIRED PREVIOUSLY. WHAT ELSE IS IN THERE?
>> I THINK THE BIGGEST PIECE OF THIS IS, THEY SAY FOUND WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE FINANCIAL COMPENSATORY PRESERVATION CONTRIBUTION I THINK IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY COMISION PORTER WHO HAD RECEIVED COMPENSATION FOR QUEENS COUNTY WAS DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR, BUT REQUIRING ANY SOLAR PROJECT THAT IS DEFINED IN HERE, SOLAR ENERGY GENERATING SYSTEMS, ENERGY STORAGE DEVICES, WHICH ARE PLACED ON AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH IS CLASSIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AS EITHER PRIME FARMLAND OR FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE, ESSENTIALLY CALLING FOR A CONTRIBUTION.
TO OUR AGREEMENT AND THEN IT ALIGNS IT TO THE ALREADY EXISTING MOUTH PROGRAM AND COMPENSATION FORMULA THAT THEY'RE USING.
>> THAT PART'S NOT CONTROVERSIAL; ALL THREE OF US WANT TO DO THAT.
EASIEST YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF DOING THIS IS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE PRESERVING AG LAND THAT WE ARE LOSING TO SOLAR BY INSTITUTING THIS THE CONTRIBUTION THAT THEY HAVE TO MAKE TO OUR AG LAND PRESERVATION FUND, IF THEY'RE GOING TO PUT COMMERCIAL WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT EXTENDING THAT TO THE ACCESSORY OR THE NET METERING.
IT WOULD ONLY BE FOR COMMERCIAL.
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION HERE.
>> BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A SOLAR PANEL, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF IT'S COMMERCIAL OR IF IT'S NET METERING OR, YOU KNOW? RIGHT, THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING TO ALSO MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR MATT OR OUR REVIEW STAFF,
[01:05:05]
JUST MAKE THE STATE REQUIREMENT ACROSS ALL.>> BUT JUST NOT MAKE THE CONTRIBUTION.
>> APPLICABLE TO THOSE WHO ARE PRODUCING ELECTRICITY FOR THEIR FARMS. NET METERING CAPACITY.
BUT FOLLOW ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF SETBACKS AND BUFFERING.
>> WOULD THAT MAKE YOUR LIFE EASIER?
>> YES. WELL, IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE'VE NEVER DEFINED ANYTHING AS 1 MEGAWATT OVER TIME JUST CHANGED THE REGULATIONS.
THEY CHANGED WHAT A COMMERCIAL SOLAR PROJECT IS.
BEFORE, IT DIDN'T MATTER IF IT WAS OVER 2 MEGAWATTS; YOU NEEDED A CPCN.
RIGHT THEN, THEY CHANGED SOME REQUIREMENTS.
WELL, NOW, THESE COMMUNITY SOLAR FALL IN 2-10.
YES, THEY STILL NEED OR TWO AND FIVE, BUT THEY STILL NEEDED CPCN; THIS MAKES THOSE PROJECTS COMPLY WITH WHAT OTHER PROJECTS WOULD HAVE HAD TO COMPLY WITH PREVIOUSLY.
>> BUT FOR SOME REASON, SP 931 HR 1036 MENTIONS 1 MEGAWATT.
>> RIGHT, ANYTHING OVER 1 MEGAWATT PROTECTED BY THE STATE PREEMPTION OF COUNTIES?
>> IT APPEARS AS THOUGH ALL THE SIGHTING REQUIREMENTS WOULD COMPLY WITH THE STATE; THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO A 200-FOOT SETBACK LIKE WE WOULD REQUIRE.
RIGHT. YOU DO THE 150 FROM A DWELLING OR THE REGULAR ZONING SETBACKS.
>> IF IT'S UNDER 1 MEGAWATT, THEN THE 200-FOOT SETBACK THAT WE HAVE WOULD APPLY.
>> WELL, IF IT'S UNDER ONE, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE AN ACCESSORY.
>> RIGHT. THEN IT WOULD JUST BE OUR TYPICAL ZONING SETBACKS?
>> BUT NO SCREENING REQUIREMENT.
>> LET ME ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE ABOUT THE MONEY.
RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE AN AMOUNT OF MONEY EACH YEAR THAT WE BUDGET TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE MALPF PROGRAM.
>> BECAUSE THE MALPF PROGRAM WAS REDUCED OR BECAUSE WE DECIDED.
>> THE BOARD DECIDED NOT TO CONTRIBUTE THAT.
>> THIS MONEY THAT IS COLLECTED AS PART OF THE COMPENSATION WHO USES.
I GUESS THIS IS MY QUESTION FOR OUR DISCUSSION.
DO WE TAKE THAT MONEY AND SET UP OUR OWN AG PRESERVATION PROGRAM, OR DO WE TRY TO SUPPLEMENT SOMEHOW.
THE CONTRIBUTION THAT'S GOING TO MALPF NOW, IT'S REALLY TWO BUCKETS IS THE EASIEST WAY TO BREAK IT DOWN.
WE HAVE THE COUNTY CONTRIBUTION, WHICH IS THE $20,000 THAT WAS DONE HISTORICALLY.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE AG TRANSFER THAT COMES OUT.
A SOLAR PROJECT COMES IN, THEY WANT TO GO ON FARM THAT'S IN AG, THEY HAVE TO PAY THIS AG TRANSFER THAT GETS COLLECTED.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE USING NOW TO MATCH TO THE MALPF PROGRAM.
WE'RE CONSISTENTLY HAVE BEEN CONTRIBUTING BOTH BUCKETS OF MONEY TO THE PROGRAM.
THE EASIEST THING AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR CRYSTAL SHOP WOULD BE TO PROBABLY CONTINUE AND BEEF UP THAT CONTRIBUTION TO AN ALREADY EXISTING PROGRAM.
>> THEN STAND UP OUR OWN. WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT STANDING UP.
I KNOW SIMILAR OR OTHER COUNTIES HAVE DONE SIMILAR THINGS.
BUT JUST, WE ARE CONTRIBUTING THAT AG TRANSFER NOW TO THE PROGRAM.
>> THE STANDING UP OUR OWN PROGRAM, I THINK WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC.
JUST SIMPLY I SEE ANOTHER BOARD COMING FOR THAT ONE BECAUSE SOMEONE'S GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH FARMER GETS THAT MONEY, AND WE'D HAVE TO DEVELOP AN APPLICATION PROCESS AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE RATED AND I DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO DO ALL THAT.
>> IT WOULD BE VERY SIMILAR TO MALPF, AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE REGULATIONS THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW AND A PROCESS FOR WHEN THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF THAT SCOPE.
>> MY CONCERN IS THAT IF THE STATE HAS NOW TAKEN A PAUSE ON MALPF, IF WE COLLECT THIS MONEY, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE IT TO SOMEBODY AND HAVE THEM JUST SIT ON IT AND SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE THIS TO PRESERVE ANY LAND.
I DON'T KNOW HOW DO WE WORK? WHAT DO WE DO THERE? IT'S BAD ENOUGH THAT THE MONEY GOES TO MALPF.
IF WE COLLECT MONEY IN CAROLINE COUNTY, I WANTED TO BE USED TO PRESERVE FARM LAND IN CAROLINE COUNTY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT.
>> THERE ARE OTHER EASEMENT PROGRAMS, THAT MIGHT BE AN OPTION TO LOOK INTO SUPPORTING,
[01:10:02]
WHETHER IT'S ROLE LEGACY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT'S NOT MALPF.>> AGAIN, WE SIMPLY EARMARK THE MONEY.
WE PROVIDE A LETTER TO MALPF SAYING WE'RE CONTRIBUTING THIS AND THEN THEY COMMUNICATE THROUGH PLANNING CODES.
I WOULD CERTAINLY THINK IF WE GOT TO THAT NEXT FISCAL YEAR AND THIS ONE WAS IMPLEMENTED AND THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, HEY, WE'VE BEEN CUT WHATEVER PERCENTAGE THIS PROGRAM CAN'T STAND.
WE HAVE NOT GIVEN HIM THAT MONEY.
WE CAN IN TURN TAKE IT AND STAND UP OUR OWN PROGRAM IF THE DAY CAME THAT THEY STRIP THE PROGRAM MORE THAN IT CURRENTLY IS.
>> WELL, I GUESS I'LL BE CAREFUL HERE, BUT I DON'T SEE ANY APPETITE IN THE CURRENT STATE ADMINISTRATION TO PRESERVE FARMLAND.
I'VE NEVER TALKED TO ANY STATE OFFICIAL WHO WORK SEEMS TO BE A PRIORITY TO THE CONTRARY.
I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO START, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE ANY APPETITE TO PRESERVE FARM.
AS LONG AS THIS SOLAR INFATUATION STAYS, WHICH IS PROBABLY BASED ON WHO THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION IS GOING TO BE, BUT THERE'S NOT ANY APPETITE TO PRESERVE FARM LAND IN THE STATE.
I DON'T WANT TO COLLECT MONEY FROM A SOLAR COMPANY, SEND IT TO THE MALPF PROGRAM, AND THEN HAVE IT SIT THERE AND THEN SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PRESERVE ANY FARM LAND THIS YEAR.
WE MIGHT NEXT YEAR, BUT WE'RE NOT THIS YEAR.
I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT EITHER.
>> IF THERE ARE OTHER AVENUES WE CAN USE THAT MONEY THAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT TO FARMERS IN CAROLINE COUNTY, THEN THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR AS FAR AS WHERE THIS MONEY SHOULD GO.
>> SO AS DANNY SAID, EVEN THOUGH WE COLLECTED, IT'S NOT AN IMMEDIATE TRANSFER TO THE STATE?
>> THE RURAL LEGACY PROGRAM, I'M NOT TOTALLY FAMILIAR WITH THAT AS MUCH AS I AM MALPF, BUT WHAT IS THE RURAL LEGACY PROGRAM? TELL ME THAT REAL QUICK, WHAT'S THAT?
>> I'M NOT WELL VERSED ON THAT ONE.
>> THERE'S DESIGNATED AREAS THAT WE DESIGNATE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ON A YEARLY BASIS WHERE WE TAKE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, SAY, THERE'S TWO.
THERE'S THE TUCKAHOE RURAL LEGACY AREA AND THE MARSHYHOPE RURAL LEGACY AREA.
EACH YEAR, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DESIGNATE A PRIORITY WHERE IF FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE, WE WOULD WANT TO TARGET THAT AREA MORE THAN THE OTHER.
BUT THOSE EASEMENTS ARE TYPICALLY HELD BY EASTERN SHORE LAND CONSERVANCY OR MARYLAND ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST WITHIN THOSE DESIGNATED AREAS.
>> IT'S THE SAME PREMISE WHERE IT COULDN'T BE DEVELOPED.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF THE BASIC GUIDELINES, AND THE EASEMENT AGREEMENTS THAT I GET INTO ARE VERY SIMILAR.
>> THE RURAL LEGACY DECISIONS ON WHERE THAT MONEY GO, IS THAT THAT'S A BOARD THAT DECIDES THAT OR WHO DECIDES WHERE THE MONEY GETS SPENT?
>> THE BOUNDARIES THEMSELVES ARE DESIGNATED, I BELIEVE, BY THE STATE, THROUGH MARYLAND DEPARTMENT PLANNING, I BELIEVE, EITHER THAT OR MARYLAND DEPARTMENT.
BUT THOSE TWO AREAS WE DESIGNATE ON A YEARLY BASIS OF WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS FUNDS IF THEY BECOME AVAILABLE FOR A FARM TO BE PRESERVED.
PLANNING COMMISSION DOES THAT.
WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE STATE THAT THAT'S THE AREA THAT WE'VE PRIORITIZED.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE EASTERN SHORE LINE CONSERVANCY MARYLAND ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST OR ANY OTHER NATURE CONSERVANCY, THEY COULD ALL PURCHASE EASEMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THAT AREA.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MONEY COLLECTED HERE STAYS HERE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
>> TO CRYSTAL'S POINT AND SAY WE ONLY PAY THAT WHEN THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A PARCEL THAT'S GOING INTO THE PROGRAM.
WE HOLD THE MONEY UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY SUBMIT US A BILL SAYING PARCEL [OVERLAPPING] HAS SIGNED [INAUDIBLE] ACCEPT IT.
IF WE SEE THAT DROP OFF, AND WE WANT TO STAND, WANT TO LOOK AT ANOTHER PROGRAM, WE ARE STILL SITTING ON THAT MONEY IN OUR OWN BANK ACCOUNT AND CAN PIP AND DO THAT IN ANOTHER MANNER.
WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO MALPF AND TRY TO GET OUR MONEY BACK.
IT'S NOT UNLOCKING ANY STATE MATCH DOLLARS.
IT INCREASES THE STATE'S POT OF MONEY FOR THEM TO DISPERSE OR PURCHASE EASEMENTS WITH.
>> WE HAVE HAD YEARS WHERE IT IS THE $20,000, AND THAT'S ALL WE CONTRIBUTE.
WE'VE HAD YEARS WHERE IT'S BEEN UP TO $340,000.
>>BECAUSE SOLAR DEVELOPERS OR HOUSING DEVELOPERS HAVE PURCHASED OUT OF EASEMENTS.
>> A PORTION OF THE AG TRANSFER TAX GOES TO IT AS WELL?
>> YES. WHEN A PROPERTY IS COMING OUT OF AG AND GOING TO SOME OTHER USE,
[01:15:02]
THEY MUST GET A FIGURE FROM ACTUALLY THE STATE, AND THAT'S PAID AND COLLECTED.>> BECAUSE THAT INCLUDES LEASING AS WELL.
>> THEY MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
>> IT MANDATORY GOES TO [OVERLAPPING] A PORTION.
ONLY CHANGE OF USE THOUGH, BUT IF ONE FARMER SELLS TO ANOTHER FARMER THAT TRANSFER TAX DOES NOT.
>> YOU STAY IN AG IT'S THE CHANGE.
>> YOU HAVE TO SIGN A PIECE OF PAPER AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER THAT CONFIRMS THE ACREAGE AND SOMETIMES THE ACTUAL CROP THAT'S IN THE FIELD RIGHT NOW, SIGNED CONFIRMING THAT YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THAT USE.
>> THE OTHER THE OTHER MAJOR THING WOULD BE SURFACE MINING.
IF SOMEONE TAKES AND GETS A SURFACE MINING PERMIT, THEY'RE PAYING A TRANSFER.
WHAT IF IT DOESN'T TRANSFER OWNERSHIP? WHAT IF IT'S AG AND IT JUST GOES IN THE SAME OWNER TO THE COMMISSIONER PORTER'S POINT IF THERE'S IF THE MINING COMPANY IS JUST LEASING IT, WE DON'T NECESSARILY.
>> IF YOU'VE CHANGED THE USE, I DON'T CARE IF YOU THE PREVIOUS [OVERLAPPING]
>> DOESN'T REQUIRE A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP TO GIVE THEM THAT.
>> THEY SHOULD BE PAYING A TRANSFER TAX.
WHAT SHOULD GO TO AG LAND PRESERVATION?
>> WHICH WE'VE SEEN A LOT [OVERLAPPING].
>> BUT YOU'RE GETTING AT. NO SELF REPORTING?
>> CAN WE MAKE THIS RETROACTIVE?
>> TO WHEN THE SOWER COMPANY PURCHASED AN EASEMENT.
>> IF IT'S NOT IN OPERATION YET.
>> WHAT WE'VE OFTEN DONE IN OUR ORDINANCES IS STATE THAT TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE RETROACTIVE AND APPLY TO ALL PENDING PROCEEDINGS, APPLICATIONS, ETC THAT HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT.
WE'VE DONE THAT SEVERAL TIMES.
>> WELL, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THE TAX ASSESSIBLE CATEGORY CHANGES WHEN THE SOLAR OPERATION BECOMES OPERATIONAL?
>> YES. WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH THE SOLAR AS WELL AS THE MINING ONCE THEY'VE RECEIVED, WHETHER IT'S A TOWN OR COUNTY PERMANENT, THAT USE HAS CHANGED, AND THEN THEY ARE TAKING WHATEVER THAT DESIGNATED PERMANENT PORTION OUT OF BAG AND BRINGING IT TO FULL VALUE THAT DOES THAT. DO YOU SEE NECESSARY.
>> I THINK WE WOULD BUT IT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IT RETROACTIVE.
>> THEY'RE NOT IN OPERATION YET.
THEY GOT ALL THIS MONEY TO LEASE AND BUY PROPERTY THEY CAN PAY US.
>> PRACTICALITY OF THAT CURIOSITY.
>> WHAT DID YOU THINK ON THAT?
>> THE REST OF ACT IS [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK WE'LL END UP SUED, I THINK BY DOING THAT.
>> HOW MANY HAVE DONE [OVERLAPPING] PERMITTED IN THE COUNTIES?
>> IF THE THOUGHT IS THAT IT'S ALREADY BEEN PERMITTED, THEY'RE STARTING PROBABLY TOO FAR INTO THAT IF THEY'RE IN PROCESS.
>> THEY'RE JUST STILL UNDER REVIEW [OVERLAPPING] SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION.
>> THEY MAY HAVE PORTIONS OF APPROVALS THROUGH PZA.
>> I WAS JUST TRYING TO THINK WHERE WOULD YOU DEFINE THAT CLEAR LINE OF STOP AND START OF?
>> STILL WOULD YOU THINK AT PERMITTING IF YOU HAVE NOT SECURED A PERMIT OR ARE THEY GOING TO ARGUE VESTING?
THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAY AT LEAST START A CHANGE OF USE.
THERE'S STILL CORN IN THE FIELD, WHERE THERE'S WHEAT. IT'S STILL AG.
THEY MIGHT HAVE CONTRACTS PERMITS, BUT THEY HAVEN'T ACTUALLY CHANGED THE USE YET.
THEY'RE LETTING THAT FARMER TAKE THE CROPS OFF AT THE END OF THE SEASON, OR MAYBE THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR AN EXTENDED PERMIT BECAUSE THEIR FINANCING IS IN TROUBLE.
IT GOES A WHOLE OTHER CYCLE OF AGRICULTURAL USE.
>> SURE. WE HAVE LEASES THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING PAID FOR NOW WHERE THERE'S NOTHING HAPPENING.
THEY'RE JUST LEASING LAND FOR THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO IT WHEN THEY GET AROUND TO IT.
>>> I ALWAYS SAY THIS APPLIES TO ANYONE AT PERMIT.
IF YOU HAVE NOT SECURED A PERMIT YET AT PERMIT ISSUANCE BEFORE IT'S ISSUED, YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR PAYMENT.
[01:20:01]
>> ANYBODY WHO SECURED THEIR PERMIT WE WON'T BE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON THIS AG.
>> THE FEE IS ASSESSED WITH A PERMIT.
>> IF IT'S 10 ACRES AND IT'S 45,000 AND AN AG PRESERVATION FEE, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO PAY THE AG PRESS FEE.
IF IT'S 500 ACRES, THEN THEY MIGHT PAY ATTORNEYS AND TRY TO ARGUE VESTING.
>> WELL, THEY CAN ARGUE IF THEY WANT.
ANYBODY THEY CAN ARGUE ABOUT ANYTHING.
I DON'T CARE IF WE FIND OUT WE CAN'T DO IT, WE CAN'T DO IT.
>> WE'VE ALWAYS TAKEN THE APPROACH ON OTHER THINGS WITH BUILDING PERMITS.
WHEN SPRINKLER PASSED, WE HAD A MAD RUSH PERMIT APPLICATIONS TO SECURE THEM BECAUSE THAT WAS OUR DECISION THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE SECURED THE PERMIT TO BE EXEMPTED FROM THE SPRINKLER LAW.
WE HAD MANY PEOPLE COME IN AND QUICKLY GET THEIR BUILDING PERMITS TO AVOID THAT.
>> IS THAT THE TIME IT WOULD BECOME TO.
>> PAYMENT TO A PERMIT, I'M LOOKING TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> HOW IS IT WRITTEN IN THIS DRAFT?
>> I DON'T THINK WE'VE ADDRESSED IT IN THERE AS TO WHEN IT'S EFFECTIVE
>> NO. I THINK THE LANGUAGE LOOKS LIKE ON PAGE 9 CALLED AN F, SHALL MAKE COMPENSATORY PRESERVATION CONTRIBUTION TO THE COUNTY.
>> NO SHOULD THAT GO TO FINANCE OR SHOULD IT GO TO PLANNING AND CODES? I THINK THERE WAS REFERENCE TO FINANCE SOMEWHERE.
>> TYPICAL FASHION WITH THE PERMITTING, IMPACT FEE, ANY COLLECTION, IT GOES TO PLANNING AND CODES.
>> WE WOULD JUST NEED TO SET UP A FUND ACCOUNT AND SET UP THAT BASED ON THE PARAMETERS, HOW MUCH THAT'LL BE, AND THEN THAT WOULD JUST BE PAID AS PART OF THE PERMIT PROCESS.
>> WE NEED TO CHANGE, I THINK IN THE DRAFT, IT SAYS, FINANCE, DON'T IT?
>> PAGE 9, IT SIMPLY SAYS TO THE COUNTY.
>> TO THE COUNTY, AND IT DOES CALL FOR WHEN BUILDING PERMIT IS APPROVED.
>> I THINK CALLS OUT THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH THAT'S THE LOOKING DEFINITION, WHETHER THAT'S CALLED AS I ASSUME PLANNING.
>> TWO CALLS OUT THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, A2F.
>> IN THAT REFERENCE, SOUL THAT BE CHANGED TO PLANNING CODES?
>> SO THE DEPARTMENT WOULD JUST PLANNING THE CODES SHALL PAY ALL COLLECTIONS TO CAROLINE COUNTY OFFICE OF FINANCE.
THEY'RE COLLECTING IT AND BRINGING IT TO FINANCE, WHICH ALIGNS WITH OUR CURRENT PROCESS NOW.
>> I THINK AS FAR AS DANNY SPOKE, THAT THE BIGGEST THING WITH THESE SOLAR REGULATIONS AND CHANGES IS TALKING ABOUT THE COMPENSATORY FUND.
THE REST OF IT IS ALIGNING WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SENATE BILL WITH OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS AND FIXING THOSE AREAS THAT WE NEED TO FIX AND CHANGING OUR DEFINITIONS TO ALIGN WITH THE STATES DEFINITIONS AS FAR AS WHAT THESE ARE CALLED, AND THEY'RE MAINLY FOCUSING ON MEGAWATTS.
I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR TABLE USES AND NOT HAVE JUST SOLAR GENERATING SYSTEMS AS A WHOLE, BECAUSE OF HOW THESE ARE ALLOWED, WE MAY HAVE TO CALL THEM OUT SEPARATELY BY MEGAWATT.
ONE OF THE THINGS MATT AND I WERE LOOKING AT EARLIER AND KATHLEEN HAD MENTIONED WAS FOR THE OVER FIVE MEGAWATTS YOU DO NOT ALLOW THEM IN THE SEPTIC TIER 1 AND 2, AND YOU ALSO DON'T ALLOW THEM IN MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, BUT AS DEFINED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ARTICLE.
THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY ALIGN WITH OUR ZONING DISTRICTS, AND WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT A LITTLE MORE BECAUSE THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ARTICLE DEFINES IT BY DENSITY.
>> THAT'S ALLOWED IN STATE LAW.
THE THE STATE LAW ALLOWS AS TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE WOULD SAY YOU [OVERLAPPING].
>> STATE LAW ALLOWS AS AS TO RESTRICT TO TIER 1 THAT YOU CANNOT.
>> RIGHT. WE WOULD HAVE TO SAY THESE SOLAR GENERATING FACILITIES OVER FIVE MEGAWATTS WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED IN WHATEVER ZONING DISTRICTS.
[01:25:01]
SO WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW THEY DEFINE IT IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ARTICLE TO DETERMINE HOW THAT MATCHES WITH OUR ZONING DISTRICTS.>> WE CAN'T REFERENCE ZONING DISTRICTS THOUGH.
WE HAVE TO REFERENCE WHAT THEY REFERENCE IN THE STATE LAW.
>> WE CAN, BUT WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF OUR ZONING.
>> IN LINE WITH WHAT THEY CALL OUT IS.
>> DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY'RE CALLING OUT IS TIED IN WITH THE FOREST CONSERVATION CHAPTER.
>> THEY'RE USING THEIR DENSITY REQUIREMENTS.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY ZONING DISTRICT [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT TO CHANGE WITH THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE FOREST CONSERVATION.
>> I'M NOT SURE IF THAT SECTION HAD ANY CHANGES TO THAT.
SO WE GO TO LOOK THAT TO THEM.
>> BUT WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS, IS CAN WE EVEN REFERENCE ZONING DISTRICTS BECAUSE THE ZONING DISTRICTS DON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
IT'S WHETHER IT'S TIER 1, TIER 2 OR WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE A DENSITY THAT'S HIGH ENOUGH TO [OVERLAPPING] PROHIBIT SOLAR ANYWAY, DO WE?
>> OUR MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY WOULD BE ANYTHING R1, AND GREATER. OR R2, AND GREATER.
>> SO WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROHIBIT IT IN R2?
SO THE DENSITY IS IN HERE FOR THE OVER FIVE MEGAWATTS, AND THE TIER 1, AND TIER 2.
THAT'S WHERE ALL THE PROJECTS ARE OVER FIVE.
THAT'S WHY I THINK WE HAVE TO CARVE OUT IN THE TABLE USES BY MEGAWATT SO THAT WE CAN DETERMINE WHAT THE RESTRICTIONS ARE.
>> THEN TO THROW IN THE ONE MEGAWATT.
>> SO YOU HAVE A ONE MEGAWATT TO FIVE MEGAWATT WINDOW.
>> YES. THERE'S ALSO THAT OTHER CPCN PROJECT, WHAT WAS IT CALLED A DGCPCN, WHICH THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SET UP THEIR PROCESSES THAT THEY PLAN TO HAVE DONE BY 2027.
I THINK IT IS, AND THEY DON'T FEEL CONFIDENT ANYBODY'S GOING TO SEEK THAT EXPEDITED OPTION FOR THOSE PROJECTS.
>> THAT'S THE ONE THAT BRINGS IT DOWN TO A 30 DAY REVIEW.
I THINK INSTEAD OF A 90 DAY REVIEW.
>> WE'LL BE OUT OFFICE FOR THAT.
FOR THE ACCESSORY, SO BACK TO THE ACCESSORY USE CURRENTLY 40 FEET OFF IN THE RURAL DISTRICT.
SO IT'S 40 FEET OFF THE ROAD OR RIGHT AWAY IN 10 FEET.
>> BACK INSIDE WITH NO SCREENING REQUIREMENT.
THAT'S IF IT'S YOU'RE USING AT YOUR HOUSE OR YOUR FARM.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR.
THE MAJORITY OF OUR SOLAR IS ROOFTOP.
THERE'S NOT A LOT, AND FOR MOST RESIDENTIAL HOMES, IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PANELS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE GROUND MOUNT.
>> OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU GO UP TO THE MULTIPLE PARCELS FOR FARMS, YES, BUT WE ONLY HAVE ONE PROPERTY OWNER THAT HAS UTILIZED THAT.
>> THAT WAS I THINK IT WAS A HALF A ACRE SIZE.
>> WE HAVE PROBABLY HAVE SOME POULTRY OPERATIONS.
>> SOME OF THE LARGER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES HAVE BEEN FOR POULTRY OPERATION.
>> WITH UTILITY COSTS, MAYBE WE MAY SEE MORE OF THEM WITH OUR POULTRY FARMS THAT WANT TO DO ON SITE SOLAR.
>> THEN THE QUESTION IS THE BACK OF THE METERING SYSTEMS. DO WE WANT TO KEEP THEM, CLASSIFY THEM UNDER THE ACCESSORY? CURRENTLY, THEY WOULD BE CLASSIFIED UNDER THE ACCESSORY.
>> IF THEY'RE ON ONE MEGAWATT.
>> TO ME, IT READS THAT IF THEY'RE OVER ONE, EVEN IF IT'S ACCESSORY.
>> THEY COMPLY WITH THE SIGHTING REQUIREMENTS.
>> THE STATE SIGHTING REQUIREMENTS.
ALL RIGHT, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
AS LONG AS IT STAYS UNDER ONE, IT WOULD BE MINIMAL SETBACKS, AND NO SCREENING.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
>> THE OTHER THING I THINK THAT'S JUST NOT REALLY CLEAR IN THE LANGUAGE IS THE BEST.
DIDN'T SEEM TO GET ANY CLEAR ANSWERS AT MAKE ON THAT EITHER.
>> WELL, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES
[01:30:01]
THAT HAD A BOOTH AT THE MARYLAND STATE FIREMAN'S ASSOCIATION.HE WAS VERY ADAMANT THAT WITHIN THE LAST 60 DAYS, THERE HAD BEEN A CODE CHANGE REGARDING THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. THE PROBLEM WAS HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS.
HE TOOK A LITTLE BIT OF UMBRAGE AT ME SAYING THAT THEY HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING.
SO HE GOT UPSET, AND THEN I SAID, WELL, THEN, TELL ME WHAT IT SAID, OH, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT YET.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THEY STILL DON'T COME.
I THINK THAT'S THE LINE IN THE SAND FOR ME, THEY DON'T COME HERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CODE CHANGE WAS.
HE WENT THROUGH A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED, AND I ALREADY TOLD HIM WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.
WE WERE BASICALLY TOLD THAT THE CODE WAS GOING TO BE CHANGED.
THEN THEY PULLED IT BACK, AND THEN IT WAS, I MEAN, SO AS WE SIT HERE RIGHT NOW, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN CHANGED, AND THERE IS, I THINK THE GUY IN THE RURAL BREAKFAST MEETING THE OTHER DAY WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE EXPERT CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THIS BILL THAT ADDRESSED BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SAFETY.
>> EVEN THOUGH DELEGATE [INAUDIBLE] IN TESTIMONY IN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, ASSURED ME THERE WAS.
>> I THINK THE OTHER THING I HAD, THE AREAS WHERE WE SAY LANDSCAPE BUFFER OR VEGETATIVE SCREENING.
I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SECTIONS IN HERE WHERE WE REFERENCE THAT, IT SAYS, SHALL BE UP MORE THAN EITHER 25 OR 35 FEET.
I'M SURE THAT'S RIGHT OUT OF THE STATE STATUTE.
DOES IT MAKE MORE SENSE FOR US TO JUST SAY THEY SHALL BE, AS OPPOSED TO EVEN OPENING THE DOOR TO REDUCE IT? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO REDUCE THE BUFFERS ANY LESS THAN WHAT THE STATE ALLOWS.
SO I'D RATHER NOT EVEN OPEN THAT DOOR, AND JUST CHANGE IT.
IS THERE ANY PROBLEM IN DOING THAT IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM?
>> I THINK IN ANY CASE WHERE WE CAN IMPOSE THE MAXIMUM BY STATE LAW, CHANGE IT FROM THE DISCREPANCY, AND JUST IMPOSE THE MAXIMUM.
THE OTHER THING THAT WE'VE SEEN IS UTILIZING EXISTING VEGETATION.
>> I GUESS THE STATE LAW MANDATES THAT WE DO THAT.
BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF INSTANCES WHERE DEVELOPERS HAVE OR AT LEAST ONE THAT I'M AWARE OF [OVERLAPPING] WHERE THE DEVELOPER HAS INDICATED THAT THE NATURAL VEGETATION PROVIDED SCREENING, AND IT DIDN'T SCREEN ANYTHING.
THE LIMBS WERE ACTUALLY TRIMMED, LIKE 25 FEET UP, AND THE TREES WERE SO FAR APART THAT [OVERLAPPING] SO HAS THE STATE HAS THE STATE TAKEN AWAY OUR DISCRETION?
>> IT SAYS, THE BUFFER OR VEGETATIVE SCREENING REQUIRED.
>> WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON FIRST?
>> BE PROVIDED ALONG ALL PROPERTY LINES.
>> DO WE HAVE TO GIVE CONSIDERATION FOR STATE VEGETATION? WELL, IF IT DOESN'T, I'D TAKE THAT OUT, MAKE THEM SCREEN EVERYTHING.
>> ALL RIGHT, HERE IT IS. IT IS ON NUMBER 2.
>> WHERE EXISTING WOODED VEGETATION OF 50 FEET OR MORE, AND WIDTH DOES NOT EXIST.
SO IF THEY'VE GOT AT LEAST 50 FOOT ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, THEY CAN USE THAT.
BUT IT ALSO HAS TO BE FOUR SEASON, DEPENDING ON WHAT'S ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.
>> THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THE REVIEWER IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO OUT, AND PROBABLY LOOK AT IT EVERY APPLICATION THAT IMPLIES THAT THERE IS NATURAL SCREENING.
>> MATT, WE'VE HAD AN ISSUE IN A PRIOR SOLAR CASE SITE PLAN WHERE THEY WERE CLAIMING THAT THE VEGETATION ON A NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY WAS SUFFICIENT?
>> TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVIDING THE VEGETATIVE SCREENING.
I THINK OUR PREFERENCE WAS OR YOUR DEPARTMENT'S PREFERENCE WAS THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BOOTSTRAP OR PIGGYBACK ONTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S SCREENING TREES, VEGETATION.
[01:35:05]
>> THE NEIGHBOR CAN TAKE IT DOWN. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO
>> EXACTLY. IT'S NOT [OVERLAPPING] ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE NEIGHBOR.
I THINK IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO CLARIFY THAT, PERHAPS WE SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT THAT THE SCREENING HAS TO BE ON THE SUBJECT PARCEL, YOU CANNOT BE.
>> BECAUSE THE STATE LAW DOESN'T MENTION THAT.
>> I KNOW [OVERLAPPING] IT'S AN OPENING.
>> THOSE DOESN'T SAY IT CAN BE ON THE NEIGHBOR PROPERTY.
SO I DON'T SEE WHY WE CAN'T SAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE EXISTING VEGETATION THAT IT NEEDS TO BE ON THE SUBJECT PARTIAL.
THAT WOULD BE THE PREFERENCE IN ANY SITUATION.
>> BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY GO OUT, AND LOOK AT BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY RUN INTO THAT SITUATION, AND WHEN TALKING TO THE SOLAR COMPANY, AND TO HOW DID YOU DETERMINE WHEN YOU SHOWED THERE WAS AN EXISTING VEGETATIVE BUFFER? HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THAT TO BE A SUFFICIENT BUFFER? THEY WERE NOT GOING OUT THERE, AND LOOKING.
I MEAN, THEY WERE JUST PRETTY MUCH LOOKING FROM AN AERIAL TO SEE THERE'S AN EXISTING TREE LINE, AND CANOPY OF TREES.
BUT THAT WAS AN AREA WHERE TREES WERE LIMNED UP TO PROVIDE A CLEAR VIEW OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
LOOKING AT IT FROM AN AERIAL, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT, EXCEPT FOR TO GO OUT TO THE PROPERTY, AND ACTUALLY VIEW IT.
>> ALL RIGHT. WELL, IF YOU GUYS WANT TO GET TOGETHER, AND MAKE THESE DRAFT THESE CHANGES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED.
>> CLARIFY THE ZONING DISTRICTS, AND THEN THIS ONE, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, READY FOR INTRODUCTION.
>> YEAH. I THINK JUST THE ONE MORE PIECE WE NEED TO ADD TO IT WOULD BE THE TABLE OF USES.
>> CALLING OUT THOSE INDIVIDUALLY SO THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY WHAT ZONING DISTRICTS THEY WOULD BE PERMITTED IN BASED ON THE MEGAWATTS.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WE JUST HAVE THE STANDALONE.
>> MATT THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN ONE MEGAWATT, AND ABOVE WE'RE IMPOSING THE MINIMUM STATE STANDARDS ON.
>> THAT WOULD BE ALL WE COULD.
>> ALL WE COULD ANYWAY, AND THEN THE ACCESSORY STUFF, WE'RE JUST GOING TO LEAVE ALONE, LEAVE THE WAY IT HAS BEEN.
THE NET METERING, WE'LL LEAVE AS LONG AS IT'S BELOW ONE MEGAWATT.
I CAN'T SEE ONE GETTING OVER ONE.
>> ONE MEGAWATT WOULD HAVE TO BE FIVE OR SIX ACRES.
DON'T THEY SAY A MEGAWATTS LIKE SIX ACRES?
I MEAN, I GUESS IF YOU HAD A FARMER THAT HAD MULTIPLE.
>> GRAIN OPERATIONS, CHICKEN HOUSES.
>> YOU NEED A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT.
>> BUT THEY'RE ALSO TYPICALLY PUTTING THEM CLOSER TO THE HOUSES ANYWAY, AND WE HAVE A 200 PER SET BACK IN THE HOUSES.
>> AT THAT POINT, IT MIGHT JUST BE A SCREENING ISSUE MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
>> JUST CURIOSITY, SO THE SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THESE, WE'VE CALLED OUT BY ACREAGE.
SO THE NET METER, I'D ASSUME IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE FIVE OR LARGER, THEY WOULD FALL ON THE ABOVE FIVE LESS THAN $1,200 SITE PLAN.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD.
>> DO YOU HAVE TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> BASED ON MEGAWATTS VERSUS ACREAGE.
>> THAT'S WHERE I WAS THINKING ABOUT.
>> I THINK IT WAS CALLED AS COMMERCIAL THOUGH.
>> AS ACREAGE FROM THAT. THIS CHANGES THAT.
>> YES. WELL, I'LL MAKE NOTE FOR.
>> WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AS WELL.
>> YOU WANT TO CALL OUT, AND FIGURE OUT THE DIFFERENTIATION OF THOSE?
>> IF I'M HEARING CORRECTLY, WE'LL WORK ON THIS AT THE STAFF LEVEL, AND THEN BRING THIS BACK FOR FIRST INTRODUCTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ONE? NO. THANKS. ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WE HAVE A LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THIRD READING, AND POTENTIAL ENACTMENT.
>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
WELL, AND SHE CAN'T TURN THE CAMERAS OFF. GO AHEAD, FRANK.
>> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THIRD READING, AND POTENTIAL ENACTMENT.
>> I MOVE. WE GO TO A LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
>> SECOND. MOTION SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE?
[01:40:03]
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. WE ARE HERE FOR THE THIRD READING WITH THE POTENTIAL TO AMEND OR ENACT AN EMERGENCY BILL TO REPEAL SECTION 175-34 AGRICULTURAL, AND FISHERY PRODUCTS PROCESSING PLANTS OF ARTICLE 5 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS OF CHAPTER 175 ZONING OF THE CODE OF PUBLIC LOCAL LAWS OF CAROLINE COUNTY, MARYLAND.
TO REENACT THE SAME WITH AMENDMENTS, CHANGING THE TEXT OF SECTION 175-34, IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECTS.
ONE, IN SUBSECTION A, CHANGING THE SECOND CONJUNCTIVE TO THE DISJUNCTIVE, AND REDUCING THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SETBACK FOR FLOWER, FEED, AND GREEN PACKAGING, BLENDING, STORAGE, OR MILLING FROM 500 FEET TO 200 FEET FROM ALL LOT LINES WHEN SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE PERMITTED IN THE R-RURAL ZONING DISTRICT.
TWO, IN SUBSECTION B, CHANGING THE FIRST DISJUNCTIVE TO THE CONJUNCTIVE SO THAT THE TEXT READS, "ANY COMMERCIAL SLAUGHTERING, AND PROCESSING OF FARM ANIMALS, FISH, OR SEAFOOD SHALL BE LOCATED AT LEAST 500 FEET FROM ALL LOT LINES."
[• (Emergency) Legislative Bill #2025-008 and Calendar, Chapter 175 – Zoning – Article V. Supplementary Regulations – Section 175 – 34 Agricultural and Fishery Products Processing Plants – Repeal and Reenactment]
THIS BILL WAS INTRODUCED ON JULY 22, WITH THE FIRST READING.THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON AUGUST THE 5TH.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT.
WE ARE SCHEDULED TODAY FOR THE THIRD READING, AND THE POTENTIAL ENACTMENT.
AS THIS IS AN EMERGENCY BILL, IT WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE TODAY, IF IT IS PASSED.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT LEGISLATIVE BILL 2025-008.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THAT CONCLUDES A LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
>> MOVE THAT WE GO BACK TO OPEN SESSION.
>> I'LL SECOND THAT TO GO BACK TO REGULAR SESSION.
>> AYE. ONTO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS?
[Consent Agenda]
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION AND WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA?
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
CONSENT AGENDAS APPROVED COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT OR COUNTY DEPUTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT. MR. FOX?
>> AS YOU KNOW, KATHLEEN IS OFF CRUISE IN ALASKA, SO [INAUDIBLE] FOR THE WEEK.
[County Administrator’s Report]
RIGHT NOW, REALLY DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH.OUR OFFICE IS GOING THROUGH OUR YEARLY AUDIT RIGHT NOW, SO A LOT OF TIME IS BEING SPENT ON THAT AS WELL AS PLAYING CATCH UP FOR MACO THAT WE ALL ATTENDED LAST WEEK.
I KNOW WE HAVE SEVERAL PROJECTS THAT ARE MOVING THROUGH, JUST A QUICK UPDATE ON DOUBLE HILLS.
I KNOW I HAVEN'T HIT ON THAT ONE IN A WHILE.
ROBIN HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE FARMER WHO CURRENTLY IS TILLING THE SITE TO WORK OUT CLEARING OFF THE AREA OF DISTURBANCE FOR THAT PROJECT.
WE'RE HOPING IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
THAT WILL BE COMPLETED AS WELL AS HAVING THE CONTRACTED VENDOR ON SITE TO START WORK WITH THE IDEA THAT THAT WILL BE FINISHED BEFORE THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR.
I BELIEVE I HAD CIRCULATED A DRAFT MOU BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF DENTON TO THE BOARD HERE SEEKING ANY COMMENT OR QUESTIONS.
IF YOU HAVE ANY, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT, SEND ME AN EMAIL BACK TO GO THROUGH THOSE.
IF I HEAR NONE, THEN I'LL PROBABLY GET IT ON AND BACK SENT TO THE TOWN FOR THEIR REVIEW AND WHEN THEY PROVIDE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, WE'LL TRY TO GET BACK A COMPLETED COPY FOR THE BOARD'S FINAL APPROVAL.
OTHER THAN THAT, JUST CONTINUING THROUGH.
COMMISSIONER BARKS, YOU WERE OUT, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? WE WE PASSED IT.
[01:45:01]
>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS.
YOU COULD ALWAYS MAKE A MOTION WE COULD GO BACK AND REVISIT SOMETHING.
BUT IF YOU'RE GOOD, WE'LL MOVE ON.
>> COUNTY COMMISSIONER OPEN DISCUSSION PERIOD. COMMISSIONER BARKS?
[County Commissioners’ Open Discussion Period]
>> I JUST WANT TO CONGRATULATE JAMIE AND THE TOWN OF DENTON AND EVERYBODY ON A NICE SUMMER FEST.
WEATHER COOPERATED A LITTLE HOT, BUT TOWARDS THE EVENING, IT GOT VERY NICE.
I THINK IT WAS A LOT OF ENJOYMENT.
ROBIN, I SEE YOU HAD SOME OF YOUR STAFF THERE, SO THANK YOU AS WELL.
I TALKED TO AMANDA FROM BSA-C FOOD YESTERDAY.
SHE SAID SHE STILL COMMITTED TO CAROLINE COUNTY TO TRY TO IF THE ORIGINAL LOCATION DOESN'T WORK OUT, SHE'S STILL COMMITTED TO COMING TO CAROLINE COUNTY, SO THAT'S POSITIVE. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I GOT.
>> I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE THAT PARTICIPATES IN MACO OR SUMMER FEST.
I'M SURE THAT THERE WERE SOME PROBLEMS THAT WE PROBABLY DIDN'T SEE THAT WERE TAKEN CARE OF, BUT I THINK EVERYTHING WENT VERY SMOOTHLY.
EVERYONE SEEMED TO HAVE A GOOD TIME, SO THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO WORKS ON THAT EVERY YEAR.
WE WE ALL ATTENDED MACO GOT TO DO SOME NETWORKING DOWN THERE.
I'LL JUST MENTION, I RAN INTO TODD MOHN DOWN THERE, WHO ASKED ME IF WE COULD CONSIDER RESURRECTING THE REGIONAL LANDFILL DISCUSSION.
>> DETENTION CENTER. SORRY. NOT LAND FILL.
THE REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER, I JUST TOLD HIM THAT IF WE FELT IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE, WE WOULD CONSIDER DOING THAT, BUT CERTAINLY MADE NO COMMITMENT TO HIM.
4-H FAIR, WE ALL WENT OUT AND DIPPED ICE CREAM AND BOUGHT A PIG.
I THINK THAT WAS GOOD EXPERIENCE AS WELL.
EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THAT DOES A GREAT JOB.
KIDS WORK HARD ON THOSE LIVESTOCK, RAISING THOSE ANIMALS AND ALL THE KIDS IN THE BUILDING TO DO THEIR 4-H PROJECTS AS WELL.
THEY WORKED HARD ON THAT, AND IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHAT THEY DO AND TO SEE THEM RECOGNIZED.
JAMIE, CAN I ASK YOU ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THE HARMONY PARK.
>> YES, SIR. WHERE ARE WE ON THAT?
>> I HAVE SOURCED THE [INAUDIBLE].
HIS PASSING WAS IN LATE SEPTEMBER, LIKE AROUND 22ND.
COMMISSIONERS, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE FAMILY BE OKAY.
I THOUGHT IT'D BE A NICE TRIBUTE FOR ANNIVERSARY FOR THAT TO THINK ABOUT SOMETHING POSITIVE.
>> I MENTIONED A BATTERY STORAGE DISCUSSION THAT I HAD, SO WE'LL FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT DECISIONS WERE MADE, SO AS FAR AS I KNOW, AT THIS POINT, NOTHING HAS CHANGED FOR THE VETTER, SO THAT'S IT FOR ME.
>> I FORGOT. CAN I ADD TO THAT? I RUN INTO THE FAMILY MEMBER AND SISTER, AND ANYTHING THEY'RE ASTATIC THAT SOMETHING'S BEING DONE, SO I THINK THEY WILL BE HAPPY WITH ANYTHING YOU DECIDE ON TIMING, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE GOOD CONTACT FOR THEM? I DO NOT.
>> I RUN INTO HER ALL THE TIME, BUT, IT'S GOING TO BE A WHILE FOR US HERE AGAIN.
>> I MAY HAVE A CONTACT FOR HIS WIFE.
>> I FORGOT TO MENTION, DAN WELCOME BACK TO JENNIFER.
>> WELCOME BACK. I'VE BEEN USED TO SEEING DANNY OVER HERE.
>> HE WAS TRYING TO GET HIM TO STAY OVER HERE.
>> A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I HAD.
WE BRIEFLY GLOSSED OVER THIS LAST MEETING, AS FAR AS ATTORNEY ASSIGNMENT FOR PAB, ACC, I THINK, STEWART, IF YOU CAN DO THAT, AND THEN WE'LL JUST CODE YOUR TIME TOWARDS THE PAB GRANT, AND WE CAN PAY THE COVERAGE OUT OF THAT.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU GUYS THAT HOW YOU GUYS WANT TO HANDLE IT?
[01:50:01]
HOPEFULLY, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF WORK INVOLVED [LAUGHTER]>> IF YOU COULD JUST GENERALLY KNOW HOW MANY HOURS, AND WE'LL PROBABLY WORK IN BETWEEN TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT IS.
>> OUR ATTORNEY FOR THE PAB IS NO LONGER IN PRACTICE.
>> HE'S RETIRED. MEDICAL REASONS.
>> THE OTHER THING I HAD WAS HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH STEWART ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY.
COMMISSIONER COMPENSATION IN CAROLINE COUNTY HAS NOT BEEN ADJUSTED.
WE BELIEVE SINCE 2009, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU CAME IN OFFICE IN 2010, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES. WE PULLED UP THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ARTICLE AND WHAT STATE STATUTE AND IT LAYS OUT THE PROCESS FOR EVALUATING COMMISSIONER COMPENSATION.
BASICALLY DIRECTS THIS BOARD BY ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE COMPENSATION FOR THE OFFICE IN WHICH THE THREE OF US HOLD.
THAT COMMITTEE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT OR GENERATE A RESOLUTION AND DELIVER THAT TO US BY THE 15TH DAY OF THE LAST YEAR OF OUR TERM.
STEWART AND I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONVERSATION.
DOES THAT MEAN BETWEEN JANUARY 1ST AND JANUARY 15TH OR DOES THAT MEAN BETWEEN DECEMBER 6TH AND DECEMBER 21ST? I THINK OUR EARLY CONSENSUS WAS BETWEEN DECEMBER 6TH AND THE 21ST.
AT WHICH TIME WE TAKE THAT RESOLUTION AND THIS BOARD WILL MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OR ANY REDUCED COMPENSATION FROM WE CANNOT GO ABOVE WHATEVER THAT BOARD RECOMMENDS.
I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT THE OFFICE OF LAW TO GO AHEAD AND DRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT WE COULD PASS TO ESTABLISH THE, SO BY ORDINANCE IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, RIGHT?
>> IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY TIGHT TO GET THIS ORDINANCE IN PLACE AND THEN STAND UP A COMMITTEE AND HAVE THAT COMMITTEE REPORT BACK IN THAT TIME FRAME, SO WE GOT TO MOVE PRETTY QUICK ON THIS THEN.
IT ONLY GOES INTO EFFECT FOR THE NEXT BOARD.
I WOULD NOT GO INTO WHATEVER CHANGE WE MADE WOULD NOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL THE NEXT BOARD.
>> WE HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS?
>> BY ORDINANCE WE'LL HAVE TO APPOINT FIVE MEMBERS.
>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I WILL GET RIGHT TO WORK ON THAT.
SHOULD BE READY BY THE NEXT MEETING.
>> THEN WHEN YOU WANT TO ADVERTISE, DO YOU HAVE TO WAIT TIL THE ORDINANCE PASSES?
>> I TELL YOU WHAT, JEN, ONCE I'VE GOT IT IN PRETTY CLOSE TO FINAL FORM, I'LL SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE SO THAT YOU CAN START TO PUT THE AD TOGETHER.
>> I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST INTRODUCE IT BEFORE WE ADVERTISE FOR THE POSITION.
>> THE PEOPLE COULD LOOK AT WHAT IT IS THEY'RE ACTUALLY APPLYING TO BE PART OF.
[Public Comment]
WE I HAVE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE? MR. DEAN, COME FORWARD.
>> GOOD MORNING, GENTLEMEN. IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
I DIDN'T COME TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS, BUT THE LAST THING YOU DISCUSSED, I HAVE TESTIFIED ABOUT COMMISSIONER COMPENSATION VIS-A-VIS, OTHER COUNTIES, COMPARABLE COUNTIES AROUND THE STATE.
ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO, AND ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO.
WOULD BE HAPPY TO SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE IF SO CHOSEN.
BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT WHY I'M HERE.
I CRAWLED OUT FROM UNDER MY ROCK THIS MORNING TO DO SOMETHING UNUSUAL AND UNEXPECTED.
THAT IS TO PUBLICLY COMMEND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR
[01:55:02]
THE PROPOSED POLICY CONCERNING ABANDONED STRUCTURE, ABANDONED PROPERTY ABATEMENT.I HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY BANGING THE DRUM FOR THE COUNTY, AT ANY LEVEL OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE NUMEROUS CONDEMNED COLLAPSING, OBVIOUSLY, UNLIVABLE PROPERTIES AROUND THE COUNTY.
I HAVE BEEN POSTING PICTURES AND LOCATIONS OF THEM ON SOCIAL MEDIA.
I'VE BEEN TALKING IN PERSON AT VARIOUS HISTORICAL SOCIETIES AND OTHER FORUMS ABOUT LITERALLY DOING SOMETHING ANYTHING.
I'VE COME BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING TO CATEGORICALLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
YOU ARE CORRECT THAT THE LANGUAGE IN SOME AREAS DOES NEED WORK.
WORDS LIKE CONTROVERSIAL WERE USED, AND I CAN GUARANTEE THAT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS CROWD WILL COME OUT, AND I WOULD FURTHER SAY IF THIS COMMISSION IS GOING TO PASS THE LEGISLATION, THEN THIS COMMISSION SHOULD BE THE ONE TO HEAR THE APPEALS.
I COULD GO ON, BUT I COULD FURTHER SAY THAT IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT PRIVATE NUISANCES, WE CAN PUT THOSE OFF TO THE SIDE.
BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TOUR THE COUNTY, I'D BE GLAD TO SHOW YOU WHERE THESE PLACES ARE AND EXPLAIN OR JUSTIFY HOW THEY ARE PUBLIC NUISANCES THAT AFFECT ONE OR MORE PEOPLE.
QUITE FRANKLY, LOOKING AROUND THE COUNTY, ALL OF THESE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURES DO AFFECT PROPERTY VALUES THAT AFFECTS EVERYBODY.
I'D BE GLAD TO SIT DOWN WITH CRYSTAL.
I'D BE GLAD TO SIT DOWN WITH ROBIN.
THIS IS ONE OF MY FOCUSES AS A PROFESSIONAL HISTORIAN.
IN THE FUTURE, WE CAN'T DO A LOT ABOUT PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALREADY TOO FAR GONE, BUT WE CAN HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE FUTURE.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF PROPERTIES THAT COULD BE SAVED.
THAT HAVE HISTORIC VALUE, AND THAT'S WHERE I'D LIKE TO JUMP IN, AND SO I'M GLAD TO HELP.
YOU HAVE MY CONTACT INFORMATION.
I COME TO YOU HUMBLY AND IN GOOD FAITH IN AN EFFORT TO BEAUTIFY THE COUNTY AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND UPLIFT ITS HISTORY, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE A BROKEN RECORD.
EVERY TIME I COME HERE, IT'S A VARIANCE OF THAT THEME.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE FORM. HAVE A GOOD DAY.
>> THANKS SIR. ANYONE ELSE? IF NO ONE HAS ANYTHING ELSE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> THE AYES HAVE IT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.