Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> 1 Commissioner Price asked if the pending lawsuit is related to the type of sign or the <br /> 2 content of a sign. <br /> 3 Michael Harvey said the Gilbert lawsuit said offsite signs cannot be regulated on their <br /> 4 content. He said Orange County is not the only community that will have to address this issue. <br /> 5 James Bryan said signage regulations can be split into two broad camps: content base, <br /> 6 such as the Gilbert case; and time, place and manner restrictions. <br /> 7 Commissioner Price asked if other ordnances around the State are being challenged. <br /> 8 She said Orange County is trying to regulate electronic signage, and she asked if the County is <br /> 9 opening itself up to lawsuits. <br /> 10 James Bryan said he does not see a viable legal challenge to this, but he said due to <br /> 11 technology changes, many areas are changing their ordinances. <br /> 12 Commissioner Jacobs said if this item comes back to the Board, one issue to consider is <br /> 13 that in Orange County there are few places where residential and commercial do not mix. He <br /> 14 said digital signs located in close proximity to residential areas provide distraction and intrusion. <br /> 15 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a specific definition of content in this discussion. <br /> 16 Michael Harvey said content cannot be defined, because of the Gilbert lawsuit. <br /> 17 Michael Harvey said he is hearing that the Board would like to revisit this item with staff <br /> 18 at a future date. <br /> 19 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the size of a sign can be regulated. <br /> 20 Michael Harvey said yes, but in that scenario, it would be necessary to state that no <br /> 21 electronic display sign could be bigger than a certain size, regardless of content. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 RECOMMENDATION: <br /> 24 The Administration recommends the Board: <br /> 25 1. Receive the proposed amendments to the UDO as detailed in this abstract and <br /> 26 attachments. <br /> 27 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments. <br /> 28 3. Close the public hearing. <br /> 29 4. Decide on one of the following options: <br /> 30 — Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency <br /> 31 (Attachment 4) and Revised Ordinance Package (New Attachment 5). <br /> 32 — Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date. <br /> 33 — Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Commissioner Rich asked if the Planning Board has seen the revised documents. <br /> 36 Michael Harvey said no. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 PUBLIC COMMENT: <br /> 39 NONE <br /> 40 <br /> 41 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to <br /> 42 close the public hearing. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 45 <br /> 46 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to: <br /> 47 <br /> 48 a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 4) <br /> 49 and Ordinance (Attachment 5). <br /> 50 <br /> 51 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 52 <br /> 53 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to bring <br /> 54 the sign ordinance discussion back at a work session in the fall 2016, with the goal of getting it <br />