Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
46 <br /> ORANGE COUNTY <br /> BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br /> QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br /> Meeting Date: May 23, 2016 <br /> Action Agenda <br /> Item No. C.2 <br /> SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment — Sign Amendments <br /> DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections <br /> ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: <br /> 1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 <br /> Development Ordinance Outline Form Craig Benedict, Planning Director <br /> (UDO & Zoning 2015-01) (919) 245-2575 <br /> 2. Draft May 4, 2016 Planning Board James Bryan, Staff Attorney (919) 245-2319 <br /> Minutes <br /> 3. May 4, 2016 Planning Board Statement of <br /> Consistency <br /> 4. Statement of Consistency <br /> 5. Proposed UDO Text Amendment <br /> PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated text amendment to the <br /> Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) modifying existing sign regulations. <br /> BACKGROUND: As the Board may already be aware, staff has been working on amendments <br /> to existing sign regulations for approximately 1 year. Originally staff focused on expanding <br /> advertising needs for non-residential development on larger parcels of property and establishing <br /> uniform standards for digital signage. <br /> During the course of working on the amendment package the US Supreme Court issued a ruling <br /> in Reid versus Town of Gilbert impacting the regulation of signage by local governments. <br /> During the summer/fall of 2015 and spring of 2016, staff worked with the County Attorney's <br /> office to modify the proposed amendment package to address the Court's findings. Several <br /> iterations of potential sign amendments were reviewed and discussed at the Planning Board's <br /> Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) with the plan for eventual presentation at the May 23, <br /> 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing. Please refer to Section B of Attachment 1 for more background <br /> information. <br /> At the recommendation of the County Attorney's office, amendments designed to address the <br /> impacts of the aforementioned US Supreme Court decision will not be included as part of this <br /> process. The Attorney's office would like more time to work with staff and discuss the impacts <br /> of the Gilbert court case before proceeding with a comprehensive amendment package. <br />