Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
5 <br /> 1 <br /> 2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 3 <br /> 4 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs <br /> 5 to: a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency <br /> 6 (Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3). <br /> 7 <br /> 8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 9 <br /> 10 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich that <br /> 11 staff make a presentation to both Board of County Commissioners and Planning boards, before <br /> 12 the next public hearing, on their investigation of their TDR programs and is it viable in Orange <br /> 13 County. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 16 <br /> 17 4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government- <br /> 18 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding signs. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, reviewed the background information <br /> 21 below: <br /> 22 <br /> 23 BACKGROUND: As the Board may already be aware, staff has been working on amendments <br /> 24 to existing sign regulations for approximately 1 year. Originally staff focused on expanding <br /> 25 advertising needs for non-residential development on larger parcels of property and establishing <br /> 26 uniform standards for digital signage. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 During the course of working on the amendment package the US Supreme Court issued a ruling <br /> 29 in Reid versus Town of Gilbert impacting the regulation of signage by local governments. <br /> 30 During the summer/fall of 2015 and spring of 2016, staff worked with the County Attorney's <br /> 31 office to modify the proposed amendment package to address the Court's findings. Several <br /> 32 iterations of potential sign amendments were reviewed and discussed at the Planning Board's <br /> 33 Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)with the plan for eventual presentation at the May 23, <br /> 34 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing. Please refer to Section B of Attachment 1 for more background <br /> 35 information. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 At the recommendation of the County Attorney's office, amendments designed to address the <br /> 38 impacts of the aforementioned US Supreme Court decision will not be included as part of this <br /> 39 process. The Attorney's office would like more time to work with staff and discuss the impacts <br /> 40 of the Gilbert court case before proceeding with a comprehensive amendment package. As a <br /> 41 result staff has proposed an amendment package, as contained within Attachment 3, which <br /> 42 does the following: <br /> 43 1. Eliminates superfluous sign regulations contained in Section(s) 5.5.4 and 5.5.6 of the <br /> 44 UDO; <br /> 45 2. Corrects identified grammatical errors and contradictory language in Section(s) 6.12.1 and <br /> 46 6.12.3; <br /> 47 3. Establishes standards defining what constitutes an electronic scrolling message sign in <br /> 48 Section 6.12.6; and <br /> 49 4. Recommends the adoption of new standards allowing for larger signage within specific non- <br /> 50 residential zoning districts based on the size and road frontage of a parcel of property. Work to <br /> 51 address the impact of the Gilbert US Supreme Court case will be presented at a future public <br /> 52 hearing once a new Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment <br /> 53 Outline Form is reviewed and acted upon by the BOCC. <br /> 54 <br />