Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
13 <br />1 <br />Efland-Mebane Small Area PlanImplementation Focus Group and Planning Board <br />2 <br />Review <br />3 <br />February 2, 2015 –Implementation Focus Group voted unanimously to recommend <br />4 <br />approval of the proposed amendments <br />5 <br />March 4, 2015 –Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the <br />6 <br />proposed amendments <br />7 <br />8 <br />Attorney’s Office Direction <br />9 <br />Received direction in late March to modify some proposed language. <br />10 <br />Color coded in orange text in the amendment package (Attachment 3) <br />11 <br />-Does not substantially change the amendments <br />12 <br />13 <br />Recommendation for Tonight <br />14 <br />Receive the Planning Board’s recommendation <br />15 <br />Close the public hearing <br />16 <br />Deliberate as desired <br />17 <br />Decide accordingly <br />18 <br />-Adopt the Statement of Consistencyin Attachment 2 <br />19 <br />-Adopt Ordinance in Attachment 3 <br />20 <br />21 <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if the intention was to make the language more clear. <br />22 <br />Perdita Holtz said the feedback received from some of the resident groups <br />23 <br />recommended clarified language. <br />24 <br />Commissioner Jacob asked if the language is thought to be clearer than it was or if it <br />25 <br />was the group’s attempt to make it clearer. <br />26 <br />Perdita Holtz said she is confident the language can be interpreted in the way it was <br />27 <br />intended. <br />28 <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if the intention will be that of the resident’s group or that of <br />29 <br />the original committee that met for several yearsto create the original language. <br />30 <br />Perdita Holtz said some of the Small Area Plan recommendationsare not part of the <br />31 <br />proposal as they were recommended for exclusion by the group of residents. <br />32 <br />Commissioner Jacobs clarified he was not discussing the recommendations but rather <br />33 <br />clarity of language. He said some of the changes in languagemake the document very difficult <br />34 <br />to read. He gave the example of 6.6.3 c 1 as onethat is very difficult to understand. <br />35 <br />Perdita Holtz said it was clear to her. <br />36 <br />Commissioner Price asked for clarification of item e.4 of page 34 regarding a “digital <br />37 <br />sign not being permitted except as an incidental addition to a permitted sign”. <br />38 <br />Perdita Holtz said a primary sign cannot be a digital one in the Efland Overlay District. <br />39 <br />Commissioner Price clarified that a digital sign is permitted as long as it is not a primary <br />40 <br />one. She asked who determines the classification of a sign. <br />41 <br />Perdita Holtz saidsuch details are determined during the sign permitting processby <br />42 <br />staff. <br /> <br />