Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-28-2011 - C.1
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2011
>
Agenda - 02-28-2011
>
Agenda - 02-28-2011 - C.1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2012 10:48:23 AM
Creation date
2/21/2011 10:29:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/28/2011
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
C.1
Document Relationships
Minutes 02-28-2011
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2011
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
302
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
104 <br />Comments related to proposed Section 50 -116 — Sign: <br />S absection: <br />(b) The recommendation is made to add item 14 at the end of subsection be to include temporary <br />signs among others not requiring a zoning permit. Suggested wording would include: <br />Temporary signs or banners announcing special events or activities. (i.e. Baseball <br />registration, Hog Day, etc.) These signs and banners may be off site and on site. <br />Temporary signs must be removed no later than ? ?? 14 days ? ?? after installation. <br />(c) Item 11 seems overly prohibitive, especially in the case of temporary signs or election <br />signs. The recommendation is made to eliminate this item. <br />(d) Item 2 may require clarification. Are non -profit organizations to be prohibited from the <br />display of their logo or advertisement? This restriction seems unnecessarily prohibitive. <br />(d) Item 5. Why prohibit a sod farmer or even a strawberry farmer from erecting a permanent <br />sign? Permanent signs are generally more aesthetic and in the case of strawberries, could <br />indicate when strawberries are generally available (i.e. May — June) <br />(d) Item 7. This restriction would represent a conflict with existing conditions in parks: Some <br />parks have hundreds of small ones. Generally, they are placed every quarter mile on trails for <br />directional, informational and emergency purposes. Each sign post may have 2 -4 markers (or <br />signs) on it. It would be difficult for OC Parks and Recreation to comply with the restriction of <br />no more than 3. We might comply if we would fall under subsection (b) 1 for this purpose. <br />Others, such as Duke Forest Properties may not fall under that category and as such may have <br />difficulty with compliance. <br />(f) There are signs in and around the county, not within the public right of way, but which are <br />mounted on large boulders. The boulders are effectively the structure to hold and secure the <br />signs. These are generally of good aesthetic value. Could this sill be allowed? <br />(i) Item 3 — Wall Signs. Could a section be added to allow murals as in Chapel Hill? <br />(i) Item 8 — Special Event Signs — It is recommended that consideration be given to removing <br />this category from the requirement for a permit. Hundreds of special events exist and most have <br />more than one sign. The volume of work associated with this item might make management and <br />enforcement difficult. In addition, many of these signs are typically places off site. <br />(i) Item 9 — Political Signs — these are often on single posts as would be prohibited in section (c) <br />item 11. <br />(j) This subsection goes from item five (5) back to one (1) — required re- numbering. <br />0) Item 4 v (the second item 4) The restriction of seven feet in height is too low due to potential <br />head hitting hazard of roof overhang. Ten (10) feet is recommended. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.