Agenda - 11-28-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

93' The staff has, over the last six months, photographed and documented all commercial signs in zoned areas of the County, and received public comments from sign manufacturers and business persons. There were no citizen comments. b. AKtiOle lUpD nczrni tie S_ J1O ncyrifgrldna StrII.OklUea Susan Smith made the presentation. (See permanent agenda file) A discussion at the May 23, 1983 meeting again centered on the perception by some that: (1) an individual owning a one-acre lot ("lot of record") in a protected watershed with a two and/or five acre minimum lot size requirement, could not build a dwelling on that lot, and (2) a dwelling constructed on a non-conforming lot destroyed by fire to the extent of 75% or more of the floor area, could not be reconstructed. The Board of Commissioners had asked on flay 23, 1983 that amendments be drawn to clarify these questions that persist. Attorney Gledhill noted that the proposed amendment did indeed clarify the intent of the Ordinance, though in his opinion they were unnecessary. Be suggested to the Board that the dimensional requirements regulating front setback, side and rear setback and maximum building height be waived entirely rather than on a case-by-case basis. There were no citizen comments. s- Articla_a_Epaz.izI_Uarl_anf_Bri _21Lafferglaealt.5 Nolisa_iaazaizeaenta Susan Smith made the presentation. (See permanent agenda file) The changes proposed would bring the period for notification provided in the ordinance in compliance with the 1981 amendments to the General Statutes. Commissioner Willhoit questioned the purpose of the amendment, having assumed it merely applied to computation of the period of notification. Ns. Smith stated that the proposed amendment would both reduce the minimum notification period from fifteen to ten days and specify the manner of computation. Attorney Gledhill indicated the computation method was commonly utilized by the legal profession but included for clarification. There were no citizen comments. clg_22 DefinitinD3 Susan Smith made the presentation (See permanent agenda file) The inclusion of the definition of "on-premise sign" was needed given proposed changes to Article 9, Signs. In response to Sharlene Pilkey's concern for the use of flashing lights, Ns. Smith stated that these were viewed as hazards and were not permitted under the current ordinance. Ms. Pilkey then questioned the continued existence of such signs in Eno Township, and was told that the staff had conducted a sign survey identifying such signs and they are now waiting for approval of the proposed text amendments before notifying owners of non-compliance. She added that new non-conforming signs, however, would have to be removed immediately. There were no citizen comments. 2 _RED2DSBD RODIDENTATION AVD_LED,S=11 COMM, OPAIBUCE_MBEDMENTS a.____EectiLID_E_LanexLl_EtaZar_eEeEts Warren Faircloth reviewed the proposed changes. (See permanent agenda file) In response to Commissioner Lloyd's concern for the costs of permits, Mr. Faircloth noted that fees vary with the amount of land disturbance, but would equal approximately $50.00 per acre. Commissioner Lloyd questioned whether seeding a yard would require a permit. Mr. Faircloth noted that if the activity covered more than 1/2 acre it would technically require a permit.