Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Attachment 4 9 <br /> Approved 1/6/2010 <br /> 1 MINUTES <br /> 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD <br /> 3 DECEMBER 2,2009 <br /> 4 REGULAR MEETING <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Members Present: Brian Crawford,At-Large-Eno Township;May Becker,At-Large-Chapel Hill Township; <br /> 7 Rachel Phelps Hawkins,Hillsborough Township Representative;Peter Hallenbeck,At-Large-Cheeks Township; <br /> 8 Mark Marcoplos,At-Large-Bingham Township;Jeffrey Schmitt,Cedar Grove Township Representative; <br /> 9 Larry Wright,At-Large-Cedar Grove Township;Tommy McNeill,Eno Township Representative <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Members Absent: Samantha Cabe,Chapel Hill Township Representative;Mary Bobbitt-Cooke,Cheeks Township <br /> 12 Representative;Judith Wegner,Bingham Township Representative;Earl McKee,Little River Township Representative; <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Staff Present: Craig Benedict,Planning Director;Michael Harvey,Zoning Administration;Tina Love,Administrative Assistant II <br /> 15 <br /> 16 <br /> 17 Agenda Item 8: Sign Ordinance Amendment-Outdoor Advertising Signs <br /> 18 To make a recommendation to the BOCC on this proposed text amendment heard at the November 23,2009 <br /> 19 Quarterly Public Hearing. <br /> 20 Presenter: Michael Harvey <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Michael Harvey: Starting with page 51 of the packet you will see the abstract prepared by staff relating to a zoning text <br /> 23 amendment specific to Article 9,signs dealing outdoor advertising issues. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 At a previous County Commissioner work session on September 10,2009,staff was directed to prepare an amendment outlining <br /> 26 the County's limitations with respect to regulations of outdoor advertising. There have been recent Court cases that have limited <br /> 27 local governing body's ability to regulate outdoor advertising as there are federal and state standards that actually usurp the <br /> 28 County's authority to do so. <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Given the recent Court decisions,the county attomey and the planning director presented the Board with several options <br /> 31 addressing two existing billboards with respect to lighting. It was determined that staff needed to amend the sign ordinance to, <br /> 32 include a statement as it related to what the limitation are with respect to regulations to outdoor advertising. This language is <br /> 33 presented in the abstract on page 51. <br /> 34 ' <br /> 35 The simple fact is of the matter is that it says that where there is a conflict with federal/state law then federal/state will tramp local � <br /> 36 zoning authority. Cases where there is not a standard,local zoning authority will take precedence. This is essen6ally what the <br /> 37 Court has said the County should do. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 There were several questions brought up at the Quarterly Public Hearing relating to the conversion of outdoor advertising into <br /> 40 digital billboards. The department of transporta6on policy is not to allow nonconforming billboards to be converted to digital <br /> 41 billboards. What we have on I-40/85 is going to stay the same. There will be no digital billboards according to NCDOT. We <br /> 42 have something in wri6ng coming from the NCDOT. Commissioner Yuhasz stated in the Quarterly Public Hearing that he had <br /> 43 been in touch with DOT and been provided the same information. We are going to provide additional language in future <br /> 44 amendments to address a County <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Commissioner's concern related to encouraging or even mandating solar powered lighting. With this amendment all we are <br /> 47 attempting to do is spell out our limitations with respect to outdoor advertising. <br /> 48 <br /> 49 MOTION made by Larry Wright to accept staff's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the Ordinance <br /> 50 Amendment as detailed within Attachment 1 limiting the County's regulation and enforcement on outdoor Adve�ising.Seconded <br /> 51 by Jeff Schmitt. <br /> 52 <br /> 53 VOTE:Unanimous <br /> 54 <br /> 55 <br />