CITY OF GRAHAM AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, :00 P.M.

Transcription

1 CITY OF GRAHAM AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, :00 P.M. 1 of 50 Meeting called to order by the Mayor Pledge of Allegiance 1. Proclamation: Red Ribbon Week 2. Proclamation: National Community Planning Month 3. CONSENT AGENDA: a. Approval of Minutes September 2, 2014 Regular Session. b. Tax Releases and Refunds 4. OLD BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: Grace Bible Multifamily (RZ1408). Request by Rev. Ken Harmon to rezone property located on Ivey Rd (GPIN ) from Residential (low density) (R-18) and Light Industrial (I-1) to Residential (multifamily) (R-MF). 5. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PLANNING BOARD: a. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing: Wendy s at Kourescent (SUP8301). Request by Chris Clayton of Commercial Site Design for an amendment to the Special Use Permit for a Unified Business Development for property located at 835 S Main St (GPIN & ). 6. First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4: Animals and Fowl (Requires 2/3 vote to pass) 7. Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Property to Alamance County from the City of Graham 8. Issues Not Included On Tonight s Agenda 9. Closed Session Pursuant to the Terms of: N.C.G.S (a) (3): To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged.

2 2 of 50 WHEREAS, communities across America have been plagued by the numerous associated with illicit drug use and those that traffic in them; and WHEREAS, there is hope in winning the war on drugs, and that hope lies in education and drug demand reduction, coupled with the hard work and determination of organizations such as the General Nathaniel Greene Young Marines to foster a healthy, drug-free lifestyle; and WHEREAS, governments and community leaders know that citizen support is one of the most effective tools in the effort to reduce the use of illicit drugs in our communities; and WHEREAS, the red ribbon has been chosen as a symbol commemorating the work of Enrique Kiki Camarena, a Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent who was murdered in the line of duty, and represents the belief that one person can make a difference; and WHEREAS, the Red Ribbon Campaign was established by Congress in 1988 to encourage a drug-free lifestyle and involvement in drug prevention and reduction efforts; and WHEREAS, October has been designated National Red Ribbon Week, which encourages Americans to wear a red ribbon to show their support for a drug-free environment; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jerry Peterman, Mayor of the City of Graham, do hereby proclaim October 23 rd -31 st as RED RIBBON WEEK In the City of Graham, and urge all citizens to join me in this special observance. This the 7 th day of October 2014.

3 3 of 50 WHEREAS, change is constant and affects all communities; and WHEREAS, community planning and plans can help manage this change in a way that provides better choices for how people work and live; and WHEREAS, community planning provides an opportunity for all residents to be meaningfully involved in making choices that determine the future of their community; and WHEREAS, the full benefits of planning requires public officials and citizens who understand, support, and demand excellence in planning and plan implementation; and WHEREAS, the month of October is designated as National Community Planning Month throughout the United States of America and its territories, and WHEREAS, the celebration of National Community Planning Month gives us the opportunity to publicly recognize the participation and dedication of the members of planning commissions and other citizen planners who have contributed their time and expertise to the improvement of the City of Graham; and WHEREAS, we recognize the many valuable contributions made by professional community planners of the City of Graham and extend our heartfelt thanks for the continued commitment to public service by these professionals; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jerry Peterman, Mayor of the City of Graham, do hereby proclaim the month of October as COMMUNITY PLANNING MONTH in conjunction with the celebration of National Community Planning Month. This the 7 th day of October 2014.

4 112 4 of 50 CITY OF GRAHAM REGULAR SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER :00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Graham met in Regular Session at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 2, 2014 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building located at 201 South Main Street. Council Members Present: Mayor Jerry Peterman Mayor Pro Tem Jimmy Linens Council Member Jim Albright Council Member Chip Turner Council Member Lee Kimrey Also Present: Frankie Maness, City Manager Abby Burgess, City Clerk Jimmy Lloyd, Chief Code Enforcement Officer 1. Proclamation: ABWA Day

5 5 of Proclamation: Hunger Action Month Mayor Peterman read aloud and presented the following Proclamation to Jesse London with Dream Align Ministries: 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Peterman asked if any Council Members would like to pull items A through C from the consent agenda. Council Member Lee Kimrey asked to pull item B. a. Approval of Minutes August 5, 2014 Regular Session c. Tax Releases and Refunds Council Member Chip Turner made a motion to approve items A and C. Council Member Jim Albright seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion.

6 114 6 of 50 b. Request by Graham UMC to close E. Market Street on September 13th from 3-5 pm. Council Member Kimrey wanted to know which block of the street was going to be closed and if the residents were aware of this closure. Mayor Peterman said they are aware, as this takes place every year. Mayor Peterman also said that the Church wanted to close the street from 1-7pm instead of 3-5pm so they will have enough time to clean up. Council Members agreed this wouldn t be an issue. Council Member Kimrey made a motion to approve item B, seconded by Council Member Turner. All voted in favor of the motion. 4. OLD BUSINESS a. Public Hearing: 910 Washington Industrial (RZ1406). Request by Hernan A Alas to rezone property located at 910 Washington St (GPIN ) from Neighborhood Business (B-3) to Light Industrial (I-1). City Manager Frankie Maness explained that this is a request to rezone the subject property from B-3 to I-1. The applicant is looking to expand his business in order to place a car lot on the property. The Planning Board did not have a recommendation last month but have since met and recommend the application not be approved. Council Member Turner asked if there is a plan to build a sales office on the property. City Manager Maness said that because this is a traditional rezoning, we re not privy to any specific development plans. Council Member Kimrey asked if there was any discussion with the applicant to rezone this property to another zoning because I-1 is unrealistic in this area. City Manager Maness said he was unsure. Mayor Peterman opened the Public Hearing. Arnold Lee Foust of 600 Ward St. said he believes this isn t a good ideal because it will clog up the street. Mayor Peterman closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Kimrey said that the applicant can come back to Council with a different zoning request within the next 6 months if the application is denied. Council Member Turner said that it bothers him that the applicant is not present to discuss this matter. Mayor Pro Tem Linens made a motion that the application be denied and the application is not fully consistent with the City of Graham Growth Management Plan as stated by the Staff. Council Member Turner seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion.

7 7 of b. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing: Harden 5600A Group Home (SUP1404). Request by LaToya Murphy for a Special Use Permit for a Group Home for property located at 630 W Harden St (GPIN ). Mayor Peterman recessed the regular Council meeting in order to convene a Quasi-Judicial Hearing. Attorney Keith Whited explained that this is a continuation of a Quasi-Judicial Hearing from last month. Attorney Whited explained that a Quasi-Judicial Hearing is considered a court proceeding; therefore, any information offered during the hearing is considered evidence. Each speaker for and against, including staff, are administered an oath prior to giving testimony at the hearing. Mayor Peterman polled the Council for any financial interests, fixed opinions or communications regarding the property. None were forthcoming. Attorney Whited swore in City Manager Maness and Granetta Enoch. City Manager Maness explained that this is a request for a Special Use Permit for a group home at 630 W Harden St. This was reviewed by the Planning Board and recommended for approval. Granetta Enoch of Ethan Pointe Dr. in Burlington stepped forward to speak. Ms. Enoch explained that this is a group home for people with mental illness. The house would have 6 residents with 1 Staff member per shift. Council Member Turner asked what age groups would live at this home and if any of the residents work. Ms. Enoch said the residents are 18 and above and some of them do work, which the facility provides transportation for. Council Member Kimrey asked if any of the residents would have a substance abuse or addiction diagnosis and Ms. Enoch said yes, some may. Council Member Kimrey asked how many other group homes Ms. Enoch manages. Ms. Enoch said there are 5 additional homes, all of which are located in Burlington and one has been operating for 8 years. Council Member Kimrey asked if there were any recent health inspections completed at any of the homes or if there are letters of accreditation or recommendations from family members. Ms. Enoch said there have been recent health inspections but she does not have any documentation to submit as evidence. Council member Jim Albright asked what the name is of the organization that owns the homes. Ms. Enoch said all of the homes have different names. Council Member Kimrey said it specifically states in the R-7 zone in our Development Ordinance that the regulations regarding an R-7 residential are intended to prohibit any use, which because of its character would interfere with the residential nature of this district, being the smallest single family district. He further explained that this troubles him because this is a business. Mayor Peterman said historically these homes have been in this area. Council Member Chip Turner made a motion that the application be approved as presented and Mayor Pro Tem Linens seconded. Motion passed 4:1 with Council Member Kimrey dissenting. Council Member Turner made a motion to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as presented in the staff report and the application is consistent with the City of Graham Growth

8 116 8 of 50 Management Plan Council Member Albright seconded the motion. Motion passed 4:1 with Council Member Kimrey dissenting 5. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PLANNING BOARD a. Public Hearing: Woodard General Business (RZ1407). Request by Donald R. Woodard to rezone property adjacent to 307 S Marshall St (previously a portion of GPIN ) from Residential (high density) (R-7) to General Business (B-2). City Manager Maness explained this is a request to rezone the subject property from R-7 to B-2. The property has a 20 wide portion that was previously part of the lot at 307 S Marshall St and was recombined with the lot at 304 S Main St on July 14, The reason behind this rezoning is to place a driveway on the property. The Planning Board recommended this item be approved. Council Member Kimrey asked what landscaping requirements there would be for this rezoning. City Manager Maness said landscaping would be required if the improvements exceed 3,000 square feet. Mayor Peterman opened the Public Hearing. Dr. Reid Woodard stepped forward to speak. Dr. Woodard explained that he is requesting this small piece of property to be rezoned so that he can construct a driveway for patients to exit back on Marshall St. Jimmy Collins of 5556 Friendship Patterson Mill Rd. stepped forward to answer any questions related to the construction of the driveway. Council Member Turner asked for clarification on the type of driveway this would be. Mr. Collins said that it would consist of 6 of concrete with the water falling off both sides, curb and gutter will come at a later time to the Main St. portion of this project. Mayor Peterman closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Kimrey made a motion that the application be approved and the application is consistent with the City of Graham Growth Management Plan Mayor Pro Tem Linens seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. b. Public Hearing: Grace Bible Multifamily (RZ1408). Request by Rev. Ken Harmon to rezone property located on Ivey Rd (GPIN ) from Residential (low density) (R- 18) and Light Industrial (I-1) to Residential (multifamily) (R-MF). City Manager Maness explained this is a request to rezone the subject property from R-18 and I- 1 to R-MF. There is no particular use identified for this property. Planning Board recommended this application not be approved. Mayor Peterman asked that the Developer step forward to speak.

9 9 of Developer Representative Brian Sanders of 517 Elm Avenue, Wake Forest stepped forward. Mr. Sanders explained that single family dwellings, potentially townhomes, are the only thing the property would be used for. Mayor Peterman said neighboring citizens are concerned that apartments will be constructed on this property and without a site specific plan, approval for R-MF rezoning would most likely not be granted. Council Member Kimrey explained that he felt it would be best to rezone this property to R-7, R- 9 or R-12 which would restrict what can be put on the parcel instead of an R-MF rezoning which would allow 12 different uses. Mayor Peterman explained that it would be best to postpone this agenda item until it s determined exactly what will be constructed on this piece of property. Council Member Kimrey made a motion to table this item, seconded by Council Member Turner. All voted in favor of the motion. c. Public Hearing: Text Amendment for Historic Resources. Request by staff to amend the Development Ordinance related to historic resources. City Manager Maness explained that Staff proposes to adopt revised versions of Division 9 and Division 10 of Article IV of the Development Ordinance. These revisions are in response to the following: It was brought to staff s attention that there was confusion between the City and Alamance County regarding jurisdiction over the designation of local historic landmarks. The Historic District Commission voted for the City to have jurisdiction to designate local historic landmarks and requested that staff make the necessary ordinance revisions. In making revisions, staff took the opportunity to update the ordinance to reflect current state statute and reorganize it to be easier to understand and apply. Staff also researched the opportunity for the City to become a Certified Local Government (CLG) which would provide the City with access to resources for the work we are already doing. Staff consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officer to ensure that the proposed new ordinance meets their criteria for becoming a CLG should the City decide to pursue that opportunity. City Manager Maness further explained that this would change the name of the Board to the Historic Resources Commission and the number of members would be reduced from 9 to 7. Mayor Peterman opened the public hearing for public comment. No comments were received and the hearing was closed.

10 of 50 Council Member Kimrey made a motion the application be approved and the application is consistent with the City of Graham Growth Management Plan Council Member Albright seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. 6. Discussion and Presentation Regarding Proposed Animal Abuse and Tethering Ordinance City Manager Maness explained that Staff has been investigating the development of an ordinance to regulate animal abuse and tethering for several months now. To pursue such, Staff research and analysis breaks the process down into 3 basic steps, with each successive step depending on the previous step: Adoption of Ordinance, Implementation and Enforcement. Currently the Police Department does not have an Animal Control Officer. The Police Department received 660 animal related calls last year. Council Member Kimrey explained that he is concerned of how we can better enforce the laws we already have in place, specifically how a Police Officer can contact individuals that do not respond when an Officer is at their door. Chief Prichard was present to answer Council Member Kimrey s concern. Chief Prichard explained that in order to be more successful in making contact with individuals in violation of our animal ordinance, Police Officers would need specialized training. Mayor Pro Tem Linens said he feels that if we re going to implement this type of Ordinance, we need an Animal Control Officer in Graham. Mickey Cheek of 402 Ashburn Dr. said that things have changed as he sees more wildlife around his neighborhood than ever before. Jess Arias with Burlington Animal Services explained that Burlington has 2 full time officers that respond to around 3,200 calls per year. Animals come into the shelter many times with injuries related to tethering or injuries directly related to exposure to extreme cold and heat. Ms. Arias brings her experience from Orange County, where a tethering ban was implemented in Council Member Kimrey asked if there was an increase in the amount of animals that came into the shelter as a result of the tethering ban in Orange County. Ms. Arias said that overall, fewer animals came in. John Harris of 314 E Pine St. expressed his support for implementation of this Ordinance. Mr. Harris also shared personal stories of animal abuse he s witnessed in Graham. Mayor Peterman asked that Staff look into the cost to have a designated Animal Control Officer. Mayor Pro Tem Linens said he s concerned with having animals present at public events. 7. Public Hearing: First Amendment to and Ratification of Performance and Purchase Agreement with Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

11 11 of In December 2013, Alamance County and the Cities of Graham and Mebane entered into a Performance and Purchase Agreement with Wal-Mart Stores East, LP. City Manager Maness said that recently it was discovered that it is necessary to amend the Agreement as outlined below: 1. To extend the date for 450 employees to be hired by August 1, 2019 instead of This change is necessary since the project was originally scheduled to open in 2015 with a three year employment plan completed in Early in the project search process, the project opening date changed to 2016 with the three year employment plan completed in The One NC Fund Grant, which is participating in the inducement package, has always reflected the correct 2016 and 2019 dates. The City s Golden Leaf grant also references the dates of 2016 and 2019 since it is based on the One NC Fund. 2. The second change clarifies that the identified debris and structures are to be properly removed from the site, which has been completed by the Cities. Council Member Kimrey asked if any changes were made to the minimum salary requirement to meet incentives. City Manager Manes said there is no change specific to the jobs, only these two changes. Mayor Peterman opened the public hearing for public comment. No comments were received and the hearing was closed. Council Member Albright made a motion to approve the First Amendment to and Ratification of Performance and Purchase Agreement with Wal-Mart Stores East, LP. Council Member Kimrey seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. 8. Resolution Dissolving the Certified Local Government Certification Agreement between The City of Graham and Alamance County City Manager Maness explained that on December 14, 1987, the City of Graham entered into an agreement with Alamance County whereby their Historic Properties Commission would perform the duties of a Certified Local Government (CLG) within Graham s jurisdiction. With the adoption of the Text Amendment for Historic Resources, the duties associated with being a CLG are being assumed by the City of Graham, so the agreement is no longer needed. Council Member Turner made a motion to adopt the resolution dissolving the Certified Local Government Certification Agreement between the City of Graham and Alamance County dated December 14, Council Member Albright seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion.

12 of 50

13 13 of Historic District Commission Appointments City Manager Maness explained that the Historic District Commission currently has nine members serving. Since the Text Amendment for Historic Resources was approved with the option to reduce the number of commission members from 9 to 7, it will be necessary to remove two current members from the Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Linens said that he would like to serve on the Board as the Council Liaison. Mayor Peterman made a motion to change the number of the Historic District Commission to 7 voting members, keeping Mayor Pro Tem Linens as a Council Representative only and dropping Stephen West as a voting member. Council Member Kimrey seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. 10. Interlocal Agreement with Alamance County for Addressing City Manager Maness explained that Alamance County has been providing addressing services for the City for many years through an informal partnership. The City amended its ordinances in 2010 during a recodification project and our ordinances now reference compliance with the Alamance County Address Program Administrator in Article V of Chapter 18. While this arrangement has worked well for both parties, a formal agreement outlining the responsibilities of each party is absent. Council Member Turner made a motion to approve the Interlocal Agreement Providing Addressing Functions with Alamance County. Council Member Albright seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion. 11. Issues Not Included On Tonight s Agenda City Manager Maness reminded Council Members that if they would like to attend the League Conference this year in Greensboro, registration needs to be completed by Sept. 19 th. Council Member Kimrey asked Council Members if there is a renewed interest in asking Frankie Maness to fill the position of Assistant City Manager. Mayor Peterman and Council Member Albright said they recognize things are busier these days and Frankie could use some assistance. Mayor Peterman asked that a proposal be submitted in the next month or two. Council Member Kimrey asked that a reasonable time period for the process of hiring an Assistant City Manager be included in the proposal. Mayor Peterman invited everyone to attend the marker unveiling at 11am at Graham High School Saturday (September 7 th ) morning. Mayor Peterman said they carried the Proclamation to the Alamance Burlington School System Board and it was received fairly well.

14 of 50 At 9:11 p.m. Council Member Kimrey made a motion to adjourn the meeting seconded by Council Member Turner. All voted in favor of the motion. Abby Burgess

15 15 of 50

16 16 of 50

17 17 of 50 STAFF REPORT Prepared by Melissa Guilbeau, City Planner Grace Bible Multifamily (RZ1408) Type of Request: Rezoning Meeting Dates Planning Board on August 19, 2014 City Council on September 2, 2014 Contact Information Rev. Ken Harmon 2228 Moran St, Burlington, NC ; Summary This is a request to rezone the subject property from R-18 and I-1 to R-MF. The stated reason for this rezoning request is to reflect the City of Graham Growth Management Plan. Rezoning to R-MF would permit the following uses (this list is not exhaustive): ambulance, fire and rescue stations; bed and breakfast; day care center, adult (less than 6); day care center, child; dwelling, duplex; dwelling, condominium; dwelling, multifamily; dwelling, single family detached; dwelling, townhouse; nursing home. Location Ivey Rd, to the east of the Pines Apts GPIN: Current Zoning Residential (low density) (R-18) & Light Industrial (I-1) Proposed Zoning Residential (multifamily) (R-MF) Overlay District none Surrounding Zoning R-18, R-MF & I-1 Surrounding Land Uses Single family, Multifamily and Light Industrial Size 6.14 acres Public Water & Sewer Yes, on Ivey Rd Floodplain No Staff Recommendation Approval

18 18 of 50 Conformity to the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Other Adopted Plans Applicable Goals to Guide Us into the Future Prohibit residential development that is in close proximity to incompatible uses or provide proper buffering to protect existing uses and new development. Rezoning to R-MF would permit a number of residential development types adjacent to existing single family, multifamily and light industrial development Encourage new industries to locate within existing industrial parks within the City or designated areas located on the future development map. Rezoning the property would change the current I-1 zoning designation, which is not an existing industrial park or consistent with the Neighborhood Residential development type. Applicable Planning District Policies and Recommendations Encourage neighborhood residential development in remaining undeveloped areas that are adjacent to existing residential developments. Additionally, interconnectivity between neighborhoods should be a priority for new developments. Rezoning to R-MF would permit a number of residential development types adjacent to existing single family and multifamily development. Interconnectivity will be as required by the Development Ordinance. Planning District Central Development Type Neighborhood Residential Located near a major thoroughfare For single family residential and townhouses Characteristics include open space; parks included with development; pedestrianoriented; automobile-oriented; sidewalks; street trees; landscaping Density of 3+ DU/acre Infrastructure includes water, sewer, street connectivity and underground utilities Staff Recommendation Based on the Growth Management Plan and the City of Graham Development Ordinance, staff recommends approval of the rezoning. The following supports this recommendation: Rezoning the property to R-MF would further some goals and policies of the Growth Management Plan. Because rezoning to R-MF would permit the development of apartments, it would not be entirely consistent with the Neighborhood Residential development type. However, staff feels that the Growth Management Plan may not provide adequate guidance in this case, with existing apartments and R-MF and I-1 zoning immediately adjacent to this parcel, and considering the other types of residential development that are also permitted in the R-MF zone.

19 19 of 50

20 20 of 50

21 21 of 50 PLANNING ZONING BOARD Tuesday, August 19, 2014 The Planning & Zoning Board held their regular meeting on Tuesday, August 19, 2014 in the Council Chambers of the Graham Municipal Building at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were Ricky Hall, Bill Teer, Andy Rumley, Dean Ward, Michael Benesch, and Bonnie Blalock. Tim Beshel was absent. Staff members present were Melissa Guilbeau, City Planner and Martha Johnson, Zoning/Inspections Technician. Chairman Andy Rumley called the meeting to order and explained the function of the Board. Invocation was given by Ricky Hall. 1. Approve minutes of the July 15, 2014 meeting. Bonnie Blalock made a motion to approve, second by Ricky Hall. All voted in favor Washington Industrial (RZ1406). The request by Hernan Alas was continued from the last meeting to rezone property located at 910 Washington St. from B-3 to I-1. Oscar Santana of 1720 Berkley Rd, Burlington, NC spoke for Mr. Alas. Mr. Rumley asked if they had discussed changing the request to Conditional Business. Ms. Guilbeau stated she tried to contact them by but got no response. Mr. Rumley said that last month s discussion was that Conditional Business would be a better fit and they had been asked if they would amend their proposal. Dean Ward said we are currently where we were a month ago when it was tabled. Ricky Hall recommended denial because it doesn t meet the definition that the Board wants, second by Michael Benesch. All voted for denial 6 to 0. Mr. Rumley told the applicant to take some time during the coming week and speak with the Planner. 3. Woodard General Business (RZ1407). Request by Donald Woodard to rezone property adjacent to 307 S Marshall St from R-7 to B-2. Ms. Guilbeau said the stated reason for the request is to install a rear drive for Woodard Eye Care. Jimmy Collins of 5556 Friendship Patterson Mill Rd spoke representing Mr. Woodard. Mr. Collins said Mr. Woodard had a lot combination done to put a 20 rear entrance in so customers could exist on to S Marshall St. Dean Ward made a motion to approve, second by Bonnie Blalock. All voted aye. 4. Grace Bible Multifamily (RZ1408). Request by Rev. Ken Harmon to rezone property located on Ivey Rd from R-18 & I-1 to R-MF. The stated reason for the rezoning was to reflect the City of Graham Growth Management Plan. No one was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Tom Ernest of 817 Ivey Rd spoke expressing his concerns about changing the zoning that could lead to many more things which could happen at that location. Mr. Ernest said he was in favor of houses going there but no businesses or apartments. Mr. Ernest also read a note to the Board from Jean Ezzell of Ivey Rd who was currently out of town expressing similar concerns with the rezoning. Also Betty Jenks of 811 Ivey Rd spoke in opposition to the rezoning, saying she would be glad to see houses there but not apartments. Ms. Jenks talked about the school traffic issues currently on Ivey Rd with the schools full now and apartments would be too much for that area. Dean Ward was concerned that the applicant was not at the meeting to answer questions and not sure if apartments would be the right fit. Ms. Blalock agreed with Mr. Ward and said she would like to know what the owner had in mind because he didn t state exactly what he was doing and the neighbors do have a valid point about being overrun by apartments in that area. Mr. Benesch had concerns with no one there to answer questions and Mr. Hall agrees with them. Mr. Hall said if we pass this it will be giving them a blank check to put anything out there. Mr. Rumley agreed with the other Board members along with not having any knowledge of the use intended. Ricky Hall made a motion to recommend denial of this application, Michael Benesch seconded. All voted for denial 6 to 0.

22 22 of Text Amendment for Historic Resources. Request by staff to amend the Development Ordinance related to historic resources. Ms. Guilbeau said the changes were in Article IV, Divisions 9 & 10. Ms. Guilbeau said it would provide that the Commission designate local landmarks, to update and organize, and to modify to make it easier to understand. Ms. Guilbeau said they also looked at becoming a Certified Local Government (CLG). The state of North Carolina can designate you as such and it gives you additional resources, assistance and grant opportunities. We are currently doing most of the things that make you a CLG so we made sure that anything we were proposing would allow us to be a CLG. Ms. Guilbeau said the major highlights to what was changing was the name of the Historic District Commission would change to Historic Resources Commission, set up regular dates for meetings, procedures for designating historic districts and historic landmarks, and a lot of updating and reorganization. Ms. Guilbeau said the Commission endorsed the idea of reducing the members from 9 to 7. Ricky Hall made a motion to approve the text amendment as written with changing the number of Board members from 9 to 7, second by Dean Ward. All voted aye. 6. Rules of Procedures. Ms. Guilbeau stated that this was given to the Board at last month s meeting and there have been no new changes. Ricky Hall made a motion to adopt the Rules of Procedure, Dean Ward seconded. All voted aye. Bonnie Blalock asked about the status of the old Nicks Building in Court Square concerning the steps falling on the side of the building facing the Courthouse. Ms. Guilbeau said she wasn t sure but could speak to James Lloyd, Chief Code Enforcement Officer, about the situation. Mr. Benesch was concerned about the liability to the City of Graham if anything was to happen. Ms. Guilbeau stated she would speak to both Mr. Lloyd and Frankie Maness about this. Mr. Teer felt like this was an eye sore to visitors coming to our City. Andy Rumley had some concerns about the downtown area since the Carver s restaurant burned down. Mr. Rumley would like for the City of Graham to take on a more active role in the redevelopment of our downtown area. Mr. Rumley wasn t sure if this would be a function of this Board and it may not be something City Council can do but we would like to hear input from city staff, Frankie Maness or anyone who has a valid point. The Board agreed and thanked Mr. Rumley for his input concerning this matter. No further business the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Martha Johnson Inspections/Zoning Technician

23 23 of 50 City Council Decision & Statement of Consistency Per NCGS 160A-383, zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with an adopted comprehensive plan and any other officially adopted plan that is applicable. When adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the City Council shall also approve a statement describing whether its action is consistent with the comprehensive plan and briefly explaining why the City Council considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest. The Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the City Council, but a comment by the Planning Board that a proposed amendment is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan shall not preclude consideration or approval of the proposed amendment by the City Council. Grace Bible Multifamily (RZ1408) Type of Request Rezoning Meeting Dates Planning Board on August 19, 2014 City Council on September 2, Choose one I move that the application be APPROVED. I move that the application be DENIED. 2. Choose one The application is consistent with the City of Graham Growth Management Plan The application is not fully consistent with the City of Graham Growth Management Plan State reasons This action is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: [insert reasons] This report reflects the decision of the City Council, this the 2 nd day of September, Attest: Jerry Peterman, Mayor Abby Burgess, City Clerk

24 24 of 50 STAFF REPORT Prepared by Melissa Guilbeau, City Planner Wendy s at Kourescent (SUP8301) Type of Request: Special Use Permit amendment Meeting Dates Planning Board on September 16, 2014 City Council on October 7, 2014 Contact Information Chris Clayton, Commercial Site Design 8312 Creedmoor Rd, Raleigh, NC (919) ; clayton@csitedesign.com Summary This is a request to amend the Special Use Permit for a Unified Business Development currently known as Kourescent Square, located on S Main St, W Crescent Square Dr and Auto Park Dr. Specifically, the proposal is to demolish and rebuild the Wendy s restaurant located at 835 S Main St. The Special Use Permit for this shopping center was approved on October 4, 1983 and included a site plan. Because that site plan has been lost, an amendment to the Special Use Permit is needed in order to change the site layout of the Wendy s restaurant. Location 835 S Main St GPIN: & Proposed Special Use amendment for Unified Business Development Current Zoning General Business (B-2) Overlay District Hwy 87/S Main St Surrounding Zoning R-18, R-7, R-12, R-MF, O-I, B-2 & I-1 Surrounding Land Uses Single Family Houses, Multifamily, Offices & General Businesses Public Water & Sewer Yes Floodplain No Staff Recommendation Approval

25 25 of 50 A preliminary site plan, prepared by Commercial Site Design, was submitted as part of the application and was revised on 9/11/14 based on TRC comments. The proposal is to demolish the existing Wendy s building and parking and construct a new building and site improvements as shown on the preliminary site plan. Major changes compared to the existing site include rotating the building by ninety-degrees so that the building faces S Main St with the drive-thru on the side near W Crescent Square Dr, and controlled access between the Wendy s site and the rest of the shopping center parking lot. Technical Review Committee The TRC reviewed the preliminary site plan and met with the applicant on September 2, A revised preliminary site plan was submitted on September 29, 2014 that addressed all TRC comments related to the preliminary site plan.

26 26 of 50 Conformity to the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Other Adopted Plans Applicable Goals to Guide Us into the Future Reduce and restrict the number of curb cuts and driveways along major arterials. The proposal uses existing driveways and does not create any new driveways along S Main St or W Crescent Square Dr Encourage commercial development within designated village centers as opposed to continued commercial strip development. This commercial development is an amendment to a Special Use Permit for a unified business development that was approved in Applicable Planning District Policies and Recommendations Limit direct highway access or the number of curb cuts to commercial activities by directing development to proposed regional and village centers and requiring internal connectivity between commercial uses, as well as uniformity in design standards. The proposal uses existing driveways and does not create any new driveways along S Main St or W Crescent Square Dr. Graham Pedestrian Plan Recommends a five-foot sidewalk on this section of S Main St as the third highest priority project. A sidewalk along both S Main St and W Crescent Square Dr are provided. Planning District Central Development Type Highway Commercial Located near a major thoroughfare For commercial and office/institutional Characteristics include automobile-oriented; design requirements; sidewalks; street trees; landscaping; buffering/screening; parking provided on-site; height of structures regulated; controlled access; building orientation 10,001 to 100,000sf of retail Infrastructure includes water, sewer, street connectivity and underground utilities DRAFT Findings of Fact and Conclusions In granting a special use permit, the City Council shall find that all of the six conditions listed below have been met, or it shall be denied. Staff has prepared the following DRAFT findings of fact for each of the six conditions. These findings should be modified by the Council as it considers its decision. 1. All applicable regulations of the zoning district in which the use is proposed are complied with. The property is zoned B-2 and Highway 87/S Main St Overlay. Unified Business Development is permitted in the B-2 zoning district with a Special Use Permit and is not prohibited in the overlay district. The proposed development meets the area, height and yard regulations. Signs will require a sign permit. The proposed development complies with the site standards of the overlay district. All other standards specific to the overlay district will be complied with prior before a building permit is issued. 2. Conditions specific to each use, identified by the Development Ordinance, are complied with. The following requirements are specific to this use: o Such developments shall abut a major thoroughfare, minor arterial, or collector street (existing or proposed). This existing Unified Business Development abuts NC 87/S Main St, which is a major thoroughfare.

27 27 of 50 o All uses permitted in the B-2 district are permitted in a Unified Business Development, with the exception of certain uses which are not permitted. Restaurants (with drive-thru) are permitted in the B-2 district and are not prohibited in a Unified Business Development. o Drive-in establishments offering goods or services directly to customers in parked cars shall be permitted only when the locations of the buildings and access drives have been approved by the city council. This proposal includes a drive-thru restaurant, which is seeking the approval of City Council. o All business establishments shall be retail or service establishments dealing directly with the public. The proposed drive-thru restaurant directly serves the public. o All uses shall be completely enclosed in buildings except for plant sales, sidewalk cafes, and permitted drive-in uses. The proposed restaurant is completely enclosed. o An opaque screen shall be provided wherever, in the city council s judgment, such screening is necessary to shield adjacent residential districts. There are no adjacent residential districts that would require screening. 3. The use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted. The proposed restaurant with drive-thru, to be located within an existing Unified Business Development, will not materially endanger the public health or safety. 4. The use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property or that the use is a public necessity. The proposed restaurant with drive-thru, to be located within an existing Unified Business Development, will not substantially injure the value of adjoining property. 5. The location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for the Graham planning area. The proposed restaurant with drive-thru, to be located within an existing Unified Business Development, is a commercial use that will be located in an existing highway commercial corridor and is in general conformity with the Growth Management Plan Satisfactory provision has been made for the following, when applicable: vehicle circulation, parking and loading, service entrances and areas, screening, utilities, signs and lighting, and open space. Satisfactory provision has been made for vehicle circulation, parking, service entrances and areas, utilities, and lighting. Staff Recommendation Based on the Growth Management Plan and the City of Graham Development Ordinance, staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit amendment. The following supports this recommendation: The development furthers goals of the Growth Management Plan and is in conformance with the Highway Commercial development type. The development complies with the standards of the Development Ordinance. The development meets all six conditions required by Section of the Development Ordinance.

28 28 of 50

29 29 of 50

30 30 of 50

31 31 of 50

32 32 of 50

33 33 of 50 PLANNING ZONING BOARD Tuesday, September 16, 2014 The Planning & Zoning Board held their regular meeting on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 in the Council Chambers of the Graham Municipal Building at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were Ricky Hall, Bill Teer, Dean Ward, Michael Benesch, and Tim Beshel. Andy Rumley and Bonnie Blalock were absent. Staff members present were Melissa Guilbeau, City Planner and Martha Johnson, Zoning/Inspections Technician. Vice Chair Ricky Hall called the meeting to order, led the Invocation and gave the Overview of the Board and general meeting rules. 1. Public comment on non-agenda items. There were none. 2. Approval of the August 19, 2014 meeting. Dean Ward made a motion for approval, second by Bill Teer. All voted in favor. 3. Committee Reports. There were none. 4. Old Business. There were none. 5. New Business a. Wendy s at Kourescent (SUP8301). Request by Chris Clayton of Commercial Site Design for an amendment to the Special Use Permit for a Unified Business Development for property located at 835 S Main St (GPIN & ). Melissa Guilbeau said this was a request to amend the Special Use Permit for a Unified Business Development that was issued in 1983 which is known currently as Kourescent Square. The amendment is specifically to demolish the Wendy s and rebuild it on the site. Ms. Guilbeau gave the Board a revised copy of the preliminary site plan. Dean Ward stated he had done work for Walker Holding approximately 7 to 8 years ago but is not doing any work with them at this time. The Board all agreed that this would not call for Mr. Ward to be recused. Chris Clayton from Commercial Site Design spoke representing the project. Mr. Clayton stated they had presented a site plan to TRC and the major issue was the 2 curb cuts into the shopping center parking lot. NCDOT wanted them to do away with the one near S Main St, which they did, and they also added sidewalks. Mr. Clayton distributed colors pictures of the site to the Board. Mr. Teer asked if this would be a larger building and Mr. Clayton said if it was it wasn t significantly larger. Mr. Clayton said they are proposing only one menu board for now but they are planning for two for future use. Mr. Teer asked when they proposed to start the project. Mr. Clayton said they will start construction early to mid-november and that construction would take 3 to 4 months. Dean Ward asked if they were going to change the existing lighting for the parking lot. Mr. Clayton said they will have new lighting since it is a total redo of the property. Ricky Hall asked what the major concern from the TRC meeting was. Ms. Guilbeau said it was the sidewalks and to do away with the entrance closest to S Main Street so it would eliminate people blocking traffic there. Mr. Hall also asked if they had met stormwater requirements and Ms. Guilbeau said there were no stormwater requirements.

34 34 of 50 Mr. Hall stated he would like to see a right in and right out from the shopping center onto S Main Street which would eliminate the potential of blocking traffic there. Mr. Clayton said that NCDOT didn t have issues with it and that his concern was that this was bringing the shopping center owner into the picture and that is more in their court than his clients. The right in and right out would affect the shopping center more than his client s development. Mr. Ward asked what the traffic count per day is and Mr. Clayton said during peak hours it would be around 120. Mr. Benesch suggested widening the driveway into the shopping center parking lot. Mr. Clayton said Wendy s shouldn t have a problem with widening the driveway. Mr. Ward stated he has issues with the one point of egress. Mr. Ward said there are tons of cars at Wendy s during the day with the traffic bad at certain times of the day, turning the building he feels is a very good idea but he feels there needs to be another way in and out of that parking lot. Mr. Clayton said that NCDOT was adamant about closing the access that is closer to the nearest travel lane on S Main St. Bill Teer made a motion to approve, second by Tim Beshel. Mr. Hall requested an amendment to the proposal with a right in and a right out and Mr. Teer agreed with that addition. Mr. Beshel was concerned about slowing down the process for Wendy s. It sounds like NCDOT has shot it down definitely. This project will be better for the City of Graham when it is finished and is definitely better than it is currently. Ricky Hall said he would withdraw his amendment and that the Board goes with what the recommendation was originally. All members voted aye 5-0 and this is consistent with the City of Graham Growth Management Plan. Dean Ward stated that he saw in the local paper that the Nicks Building was sold in a foreclosure proceeding and now we might be able to contact the new owner and address the issues there concerning the code violations. Mr. Ward wasn t sure who bought the property. No further business the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Martha Johnson Inspections/Zoning Technician

35 35 of 50 City Council Decision & Statement of Consistency Per NCGS 160A-383, zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with an adopted comprehensive plan and any other officially adopted plan that is applicable. When adopting or rejecting any zoning amendment, the City Council shall also approve a statement describing whether its action is consistent with the comprehensive plan and briefly explaining why the City Council considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest. The Planning Board shall provide a written recommendation to the City Council, but a comment by the Planning Board that a proposed amendment is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan shall not preclude consideration or approval of the proposed amendment by the City Council. Wendy s at Kourescent (SUP8301) Type of Request Special Use Permit amendment Meeting Dates Planning Board on September 16, 2014 City Council on October 7, Choose one I move that the application be APPROVED as presented. I move that the application be APPROVED with the following conditions: o [Insert additional or other conditions] I move that the application be DENIED. 2. Choose one I move to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as presented in the staff report. I move to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law presented in the staff report with the following revisions: o [Clearly describe revisions] 3. Choose one The application is consistent with the City of Graham Growth Management Plan The application is not fully consistent with the City of Graham Growth Management Plan State reasons This action is reasonable and in the public interest for the following reasons: o [insert reasons] This report reflects the decision of the City Council, this the 7 th day of October, Attest: Jerry Peterman, Mayor Abby Burgess, City Clerk

36 36 of 50 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: ANIMAL ABUSE AND TETHERING ORDINANCE FRANKIE MANESS, CITY MANAGER REQUESTED ACTION Consider an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4: Animals and Fowl. BACKGROUND/SUMMARY The attached ordinance is intended to expand the current prohibitions on animal cruelty that are found in the Code of Ordinances and NC General Statutes. FISCAL IMPACT $45,000 in estimated recurring costs would be realized if an additional staff member dedicated to animal control is hired. One-time costs for equipment and training are not included in this estimate. The proposal prohibits failure to provide adequate food, shelter, and water as well as a ban on continuous tethering, elevated penalties, and a ban on animals at certain public events. Various exceptions and standards are outlined. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval with an extended effective date or implementation phase of not earlier than January 1, SUGGESTED MOTION(S) I move we approve the Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4: Animals and Fowl. I move we not approve the Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4: Animals and Fowl.

37 37 of 50

38 38 of 50

39 39 of 50 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRAHAM, AMENDING CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF GRAHAM, NORTH CAROLINA The City Council of the City of Graham, North Carolina, does ORDAIN: Sec. 1. That Chapter 4, Section 4-1 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Graham, North Carolina, is hereby repealed; Sec 2. That Chapter 4, Sections 4-37 through 4-45 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Graham, North Carolina, is hereby repealed and replaced to read as follows: Sec Definitions. As used in this article, unless the context indicates otherwise: Animal Cruelty means every act, omission, or act of neglect whereby unjustifiable pain, suffering or death is caused or permitted, or attempted to be caused or permitted against animals, and includes acts or attempted acts of beating, torturing, poisoning, injuring, tormenting, mutilating, teasing, molesting, baiting, or harassing animals, the trapping of animals unlawfully, and overworking or overdriving animals. At large means the animal is not under the control of its owner, a member of its owner's immediate family or its keeper and is off the premises of the owner or person authorized to be in possession of the dog. Authorized officer means a police officer specifically authorized by the chief of police or city manager to fulfill the duties of the chief of police under this article. Dangerous dog means a canine over the age of four months that without provocation has either killed or inflicted serious injury to a person, been declared vicious by the local health director pursuant to G.S. 130A-200 or is determined by the chief of police or the authorized officer to be potentially dangerous and, after this determination, engages in one or more of the behaviors listed under the definition for potentially dangerous dogs. Domestic animal means an animal such as is accustomed to live in or about the habitation of men, including but not limited to cats, dogs, fowl, horses, and domesticated wild animals. Keeper means a person having custody of an animal or who permits an animal to remain for more than one week on or about any premises occupied or controlled by that person. Excluded from this definition are veterinarians or persons who own or work for bona fide businesses which board, groom or train dogs.

40 40 of 50 Notice. Unless the context indicates otherwise, notice under this article shall be written and service shall be complete upon personal service on the owner or keeper of the dog, or sending such notice by first class mail to the owner or keeper of the dog as determined by the chief of police or the authorized officer. The date of service shall be the date of personal service or the date of mailing such notice, whichever occurs first. Owner means any person or legal entity owning a dog. Owner's property means any property, residence or business completely or partially owned by or under the control of the owner or keeper of the dog, but does not include any public right-of-way or a common area of a condominium, apartment complex, or townhouse development. Potentially dangerous dog means a canine over the age of four months that the chief of police or the authorized officer has determined to have inflicted injury by biting a person, killed or inflicted serious injury to another domestic animal when the canine is not on its owner's or keeper's property, or approached a person when not on its owner's or keeper's property in a vicious or terrorizing manner in a mode of attack or displays vicious tendencies which would cause a reasonable person to be in fear. Restrained means confinement within an enclosure or carrying case or controlled by a responsible person with a suitable device. Review board means a three-member review board with one member appointed from the Alamance County Humane Society or the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or a similar entity independent from the city and two members appointed by the city council. The chief of police will request the independent entity to make such an appointment. Tethering means the tying or fastening of a dog to a stationary object outdoors on a rope, chain or other type of line for holding a dog. This shall not include tying out or fastening a dog outdoors on an attended leash. (Code 1983, 3-21; Ord. of ) Sec Vaccination required. Every year, or as otherwise required by the local health director, each owner shall have each dog, cat and ferret vaccinated against rabies by a licensed veterinarian or rabies inspector, who shall furnish a certificate and a numbered metal tag to the owner for such animal. (Code 1978, ch. L, art. V, 16; Code 1983, 3-22; Ord. of ) Sec Running at large.

41 41 of 50 It shall be unlawful for any owner or keeper of a dog to permit any dog, at any time, to run at large on the streets or sidewalks of the city or off the premises of the owner or keeper. Outdoor enclosures cannot be smaller than ten feet by ten feet. (Code 1978, ch. L, art V, 12, 17; Code 1983, 3-23; Ord. of ; Ord. of ) Sec Collar, tag, etc. All dogs kept within the city shall have a collar with the name of the owner or a dog tag attached at all times except when such dogs are confined on the premises of the owner. Any dog found at large without a collar with the owner's name or a metal vaccination tag shall be considered a stray dog and may be impounded by the police department or the county animal control officer. (Code 1978, ch. L, art. V, 13; Code 1983, 3-24; Ord. of ) State law reference Dogs not wearing tags, G.S Sec Restraint of dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs. (a) It is unlawful for an owner or keeper to permit a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog to go beyond the owner's or keeper's property unless the dog is adequately restrained and muzzled or to leave a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog unattended on the owner's or keeper's property unless the dog is confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen as herein described or in another structure designed to adequately restrain the dog. (b) Although each police officer shall enforce the provisions of this article, the determination of a dog being dangerous or potentially dangerous shall be made by the chief of police or the authorized officer as described herein. (c) Notice of a violation of this article or a determination a dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous shall be made within 24 hours of a reported violation or determination if the owner or keeper of the dog is readily known. If the owner or keeper is not readily known after reasonable efforts are made to determine the owner or keeper, notice shall be given to a person who may own or reside on the premises where the dog is known to inhabit, be kept or found. (d) The chief of police or the authorized officer shall give notice in writing to the owner or keeper, if the owner is not available or known, giving the reasons for the determination or possible determination, the right of hearing and appeal of such a determination, where the appeal shall be filed and the deadline to file an appeal. (e) The owner may appeal the determination of the chief of police or the authorized officer to the review board by giving written notice of the appeal to the city clerk within five days of receipt of the determination. The dog will be subject to the provisions for restraint of dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs as provided under section 4-42 until a final determination. Appeal

42 42 of 50 from a determination by the review board shall be by writ of certiorari to the court of proper jurisdiction. (Code 1983, 3-25; Ord. of ) Sec Enclosure requirements for dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. (a) Once a dog has been found to meet the criteria for a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog, the owner of the animal must take certain measures to ensure the animal does not escape from restraint before possession is returned. Said dogs shall be restrained in the following manner: (1) The dog must be kept in a secure enclosure that has a cement floor. The enclosure cannot be smaller than ten feet by ten feet. (2) The kennel must have a cement floor and the fencing must be securely attached to the cement to prevent the animal from digging under or moving the pen off of the cement floor. (3) The kennel must have a continuous top that completely covers the enclosure. (4) Any entrance to the enclosure must be secured with a combination or keyed lock. (5) The owner or keeper of any dangerous dog must post signs on the property where the animal is kept letting citizens know that there is such an animal that is being kept on the property. (b) The enclosure where a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog is being kept shall be inspected by the chief of police or his designee to ensure that all requirements are met. (c) Any owner or keeper of a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog that does not meet the requirements will be notified that the enclosure is insufficient and must comply before the dog will be allowed to remain or be kept in the enclosure. (d) If the owner of a dangerous dog or a potentially dangerous dog transfers ownership or possession of the dog to another person, the owner shall provide written notice: (1) To the chief of police, stating the name and address of the owner of the dog; and (2) To the person taking possession of the dog, specifying the dog's dangerous behavior and the chief of police or review board's determination. (e) A violation of this section shall, in addition to the maximum penalties for local ordinances provided by law, be subject to a $ fine. Each day the dog shall not be adequately restrained shall be considered a separate violation. (Code 1983, 3-26; Ord. of ) Sec Disposal of dangerous dogs.

43 43 of 50 A dog that has been determined to be dangerous may be humanely euthanized in the following instances: (1) If the chief of police or the authorized officer determines that a dog that was previously determined to be dangerous or potentially dangerous either bites a person so as to cause a break in the skin or was at large after such determination, the chief of police or his authorized police officer may seek to have the dog humanely euthanized under whatever authority exists under the laws of the state. (2) If the chief of police or the authorized police officer in determining that a dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous also determines that the dog without provocation has killed or inflicted serious injury on a person, the chief of police or the authorized police officer may seek a court order that the dog be euthanized under whatever applicable law exists in the state. (3) The keeper or other custodian of any dog that has been determined to be dangerous shall report immediately to Alamance County Central Communications through telephone number 911 if the dog gets loose or is otherwise unconfined or it attacks a person or another animal. (4) The chief of police or the authorized police officer upon notice to the owner of the property shall inspect the premises where a dog determined to be dangerous or potentially dangerous is kept to determine if there exists a violation of any provision of this article. (Code 1983, 3-27; Ord. of ) Sec Limit on number per owner. No owner shall keep, maintain or harbor more than three dogs 12 weeks old or older, within the corporate limits of the city at any time. It is the purpose of this section to prohibit the keeping of more than three dogs of such age upon the premises of any property owner or tenant at any time, and the fact that ownership of more than three such dogs is claimed or divided among two or more owners shall not be construed to allow the keeping of more than three dogs at any one location. The keeping of more than three dogs at any one location is unlawful and prohibited. (Code 1983, 3-28; Ord. of ) Sec Defecation on streets and private property. (a) Public Property. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any animal to fail or refuse to remove feces deposited by the animal on any street, sidewalk, park or other publicly owned area. (b) Private Property. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any animal to fail or refuse to remove feces deposited by the animal on any private property. Sec Animal Cruelty.

44 44 of 50 It shall be unlawful to engage in animal cruelty. However, this section shall not apply to the following activities: (1) The lawful taking of animals under the jurisdiction and regulation of the Wildlife Resources Commission, except that this section shall apply to those birds exempted by the Wildlife Resources Commission from its definition of "wild birds" pursuant to G.S (15a). (2) Lawful activities conducted for purposes of biomedical research or training or for purposes of production of livestock, poultry, or aquatic species. (3) Lawful activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption. (4) Activities conducted for lawful veterinary purposes. (5) The lawful destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health. (6) The physical alteration of livestock or poultry for the purpose of conforming with breed or show standards. (1) It shall be unlawful to fail to provide adequate feed, water and shelter that protect the animal from extremes of weather. This also includes failing to provide sufficient shade so that an animal may protect itself from the direct rays of the sun. Shelters that are not adequate include, but are not limited to the following: a. Underneath houses, outdoor steps, decks or stoops, or underneath motor vehicles; b. Inside metal barrels or cardboard boxes; c. Shelters prone to flood; d. Shelters surrounded by debris, obstructions or impediments that may endanger the animal; e. Confinement of the animal in storage rooms, sheds or other buildings without windows and proper ventilation. (2) It shall be unlawful to keep an animal under unsanitary and/or inhumane conditions which are detrimental to the animal s health and general welfare, which protects the City against the possibility of transmission of disease. (3) It shall be unlawful to provide inadequate medical attention for any sick, diseased or injured animal which is kept, owned, possessed or harbored within the City limits. (4) Whenever any animal is kept within any building or on any premises without food, water or proper care and attention, it shall be the duty of any officer to enter said building or premises to take possession of and remove said animal so abandoned or neglected. Sec Continuous Tethering Prohibited. (1) It shall be unlawful to tether a dog in any manner except specifically identified as: a. Any activity where a dog is temporarily tethered for a duration of time that does not exceed 2 hours in a 24 hour period b. Lawful animal event (such as a show or sporting event)

45 45 of 50 c. Lawful hunting activities, if reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog d. While a dog is actively engaged in shepherding or herding livestock e. Law enforcement activities; f. Camping or other recreation where tethering is required by the camping or recreational area where the dog is located; g. After taking possession of a dog that appears to be a stray dog and after having advised animal control authorities of the capture of dog, tether and restrain the dog in accordance with the provisions for a period not to exceed seven (7) days. (2) During periods of lawful tethering, the length of the cable along which the tethering device can move must be at least ten feet, and the tethering device must be of such length that the dog is able to move ten feet away from the cable perpendicularly and attached in such a manner as to prevent strangulation or other injury to the dog and entanglement with objects. Lawful tethers must be made of rope, twine, cord or similar material with a swivel on one end or must be made of a chain that is at least (10) feet in length with a swivels on both ends and which does not exceed ten (10) percent of the dog s body weight. Pulley, running line, or trolley systems must be at least 10 feet in length and less than 7 feet above the ground. No person shall tether with a chain or wire or other device a dog in such a manner that does not allow the dog access to adequate food, water and shelter. (3) Violations of this Section shall subject the owner to a penalty as follows except that a second offense citation may be waived if satisfactory evidence is presented within 14 days of such citation that the animal has been spayed or neutered: First Offense Written Warning Second Offense $100 Third Offense $250 Fourth and Subsequent Offenses $500 and seizure of the animal (4) Each day a violation of this section continues shall constitute a separate offense. In addition to or in lieu of the foregoing remedies, violations of this section may be enforced by a member of the Police Department or other employee designated the City Manager through any one (1) or more of the remedies authorized by the provisions of G.S G.S et seq,, G.S. 19A-1 et seq., or G.S. 160A-175. State law reference Power of city to define and prohibit the abuse of animals, G.S. 160A-182. Sec Parades, Concerts, and Special Events; Animals Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person owning or having possession, charge, custody, or control of any animal, to take that animal, whether or not under restraint, into, or allow the animal to enter,

46 46 of 50 the boundaries of any parade, concert or special event sponsored by the City. The boundaries of any special event to which these provisions apply, shall consist of any property that is part of the parade, concert or other special event and shall include any public street, sidewalk, or other publicly owned area that is within or constitutes the boundary of the event. This section shall not apply to 1. Those animals that are part of an authorized exhibit; 2. Service animals such as guide dogs or hearing-aid dogs in the company of the dependent person; 3. Law enforcement animals. Secs Reserved. Sec. 3. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on January 1, 2016 and upon publication, as provided by law This the day of, ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor

47 47 of 50 STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO ALAMANCE COUNTY FRANKIE MANESS, CITY MANAGER REQUESTED ACTION Approve Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Property to Alamance County from the City of Graham. BACKGROUND/SUMMARY The Recreation Center property on College Street ( ) borders property owned by Alamance County in which they are in the process of selling. While conducting the survey of the Alamance County Property ( ), it was discovered that there are certain overlap areas, encroachments and gores between the properties. This creates a cloud on the title of the Property FISCAL IMPACT None. The adjacent property is set to become taxable again, thus enhancing the tax base. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval SUGGESTED MOTION(S) I move we approve the Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Property to Alamance County from the City of Graham.