Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
55 <br />reference may.be a full service station or quickie -mart. Another individual <br />noted the absence of prices with logo signs. <br />John Bivins cited the benefit realized through outdoor advertising on 1 -E5 <br />to the Colonial Inn. <br />Jim Paliourus, Chris' Restaurant and Sunoco,- indicated that outdoor <br />advertising signs are invaluable and account for 10% increase of his business. <br />Lloyd inquired about legal ramifications of the proposed regulations. <br />Gledhill responded the five year amortization period specified in the <br />ordinance already with regard to removal of non - conforming signs was <br />-- constitutionally proper. He noted a recent North Carolina Appellate court case <br />suggests that three years is a proper period and another that allows zoning <br />solely on the basis of aestketics. <br />Smith clarified that the five year period for removal or compliance is <br />appliable upon application of the standard and a finding that a sign is <br />non- conforming. <br />Proposed Text Amendments to Article 22 Definitions <br />Presented by Smith <br />This agenda item is to receive public comment on the proposed text <br />amendments to Article 22 DefiniIiDDa associated with the establishment of <br />the MTC District. <br />The proposed sign requirements associated with the IBTC district limits <br />signs within the district to informational and incidental signs. Definitions <br />of these two sign types are not presently contained within the zoning <br />ordinance. <br />The amendments to Article 22 Definitions are as follows: <br />Sign. Ujentif_jrd jna_ On- premise sign identifying a business person, <br />service, activity, commodity or product. <br />Sign incidental - on premise sign providing information for the <br />convenience and necessity of the public, such as "exit" "no admittance ", <br />"parking ", etc. <br />Proposed 'Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments - Landscaping and Screening <br />Requirements. <br />This agenda item is to receive public comment on proposed text amendment to <br />the Orange County zoning Ordinance regarding landscaping and screening <br />requirements. <br />Presented by Collins. <br />Mr. Olive inquired if Chapel Hill had a landscaping ordinance. He noted <br />there should be compatibility between Chapel Hill's and Orange County's <br />ordinances on landscaping. He further stated that comments and suggestions on <br />th proposal should be received from landscape architects. <br />Commissioner Marshall notes that Chapel Hill, through experience, found it <br />desirable to tie the landscape provisions to the planting seasons with regard <br />to the certificate of occupancy. <br />Mike Foods, developer, inqurred if an engineer must do the site plan or if <br />there were guidelines that could be handled by a layman. Collins responded <br />yes, the site plans do not require an engineer. <br />Woods also inquired about screens. Collins responded giving a list of <br />screen types. Woods inquired about the cost of a 20' tree. Collins responded <br />the last word he had was $125.00 per tree. Woods noted this would cause a <br />delay in acquiring building permits. Collins responded that review and <br />approval of landscape plans should only take 1 -2 days. <br />i <br />