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