Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
definitions associated with sexually oriented businesses, most notably <br />an Adult Cabaret. <br />Defining the term, in and of itself, does not create a land use regulation <br />allowing Planning staff to regulate nudity. For example the adoption of <br />the proposal does not preclude individuals from swimming, skinny <br />dipping, or sunbathing on private property, walking through their <br />residence(s) in a state of nudity, or swimming in a public pool. <br />What the definition is designed to do is provide context to other terms <br />defined as being considered a sexually oriented business allowing staff <br />to make the determination if said activity qualifies as a sexually oriented <br />business or not. <br />• A BOCC member asked if the proposal should include a setback from bars <br />and/or restaurants that serve alcohol. <br />STAFF COMMENT: Staff believes it would be difficult to argue a <br />bar/restaurant where alcohol is served is a sensitive use whose <br />business would be negatively impacted by the location of a sexually <br />oriented business near them. We do not believe such a regulation <br />would withstand a legal challenge. <br />As an aside restaurants and bars are not listed as allowable uses within <br />the general use zoning districts (i.e. I-1 and I-2) where sexually oriented <br />businesses are proposed to be allowed. <br />• A BOCC member commented he was not comfortable with the proposal to <br />restrict/prohibit the sale or consumption of alcohol at a sexually oriented <br />business. <br />• There was general discussion on where the businesses would be allowed <br />within the County. <br />February 2, 2016 – Receive Planning Board Recommendation <br /> <br />d. Other <br /> N/A <br /> <br />2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM <br />Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and <br />Orange County ordinance requirements <br /> <br />a. Planning Board Review: <br />September 2, 2015 – Ordinance Review Committee <br />The ORC met and reviewed this item at its September 2, 2015 meeting where the <br />following comments were made: <br />• A Board member asked if there was sufficient legal precedent for the <br />establishment of separation requirements. <br /> 48