Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Attachment 2 55 <br /> DRAFT <br /> 1 MINUTES <br /> 2 PLANNING BOARD <br /> 3 MAY 4,2016 <br /> 4 REGULAR MEETING <br /> 5 <br /> 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman-At-Large Chapel Hill Township (Chair); Tony Blake, Bingham Township <br /> 7 Representative (Vice-Chair); Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Lisa Stuckey, Chapel Hill Township <br /> 8 Representative; Maxecine Mitchell, At-Large Bingham Township; Kim Piracci, At-Large; James Lea, Cedar Grove <br /> 9 Township Representative; Patricia Roberts; Cheeks Township Representative; <br /> 10 <br /> 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Rohrbacher, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township <br /> 12 Representative; Laura Nicholson, Eno Township Representative; <br /> 13 <br /> 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; Ashley Moncado, <br /> 15 Special Projects Planner; Meredith Pucci Administrative Assistant; Audrey Spencer-Horsley, Housing, Human Rights <br /> 16 and Community Development Director; <br /> 17 <br /> 18 AGENDA ITEM 9: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE(UDO)TEXT AMENDMENT-To make a <br /> 19 recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the <br /> 20 UDO regarding sign regulations. This item is scheduled for the May 23, 2016 quarterly <br /> 21 public hearing. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Presenter: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Paul Guthrie: Why did the attorneys make the decision to wait? <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Michael Harvey: I think their concern is that there are other court cases pending that could clarify what Reed vs. <br /> 30 Gilbert. I also believe they wanted more time to review the proposal to ensure we did not create additional legal <br /> 31 hardships for the County. Finally there was a concern the proposal was becoming too complex and might create <br /> 32 further compliance issues associated with the Reed decision. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Lisa Stuckey: Isn't this a nationwide problem? <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Michael Harvey:Yes,we are not the only Planning Board reviewing this.A lot of communities are choosing not to <br /> 37 deal with it and just wait to get sued or wait to see if another community adopts an ordinance that survives a court <br /> 38 challenge to use as a model.There are several communities that are doing the same thing we are doing, specifically <br /> 39 trying to figure out how best to address the implications of the Reed case. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Lydia N. Wegman: Why are the on premise commercial signs within the agricultural support enterprises being <br /> 42 added? <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Michael Harvey: They were supposed to be added when we originally created the zoning district but they were not <br /> 45 and we didn't want to deny them signage. So as indicated within the footnote we are correcting a previous omission. <br /> 46 <br /> 47 Tony Blake: Is there any attempt to align the two sign ordinance between the ETJ and rural areas? <br /> 48 <br /> 49 Michael Harvey: No there is not currently a move to do so. Frankly I believe our policy with respect to signage is <br /> 50 differently from our municipal planning partners and we should not necessarily be looking for parity. <br /> 51 <br /> 52 Lisa Stuckey: On page 107 and 109 I found the language very confusing. <br /> 53 <br /> 54 Michael Harvey: This is language that has been approved by the county attorney's office. <br /> 1 <br />