Browse
Search
OCPB agenda 010616
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2016
>
OCPB agenda 010616
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2018 11:40:56 AM
Creation date
3/8/2018 11:37:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/6/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OCPB minutes 010616
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Minutes\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
83
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
SUMMARY NOTES ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 2, 2015 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE (ORC) <br />NOTE: A quorum is not required for Ordinance Review Committee meetings. <br /> MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Vice Chair), At –Large Chapel Hill Township; James Lea, Cedar Grove Township <br />Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Buddy Hartley, Little River Township Representative; Herman <br />Staats, At-Large; Patricia Roberts; Cheeks Township Representative <br /> <br />STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, Perdita Holtz, Special <br />Projects Coordinator, Meredith Pucci, Administrative Assistant II <br /> <br />AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL <br />Planning Board and staff introduced themselves. <br /> <br />AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – SIGNS <br />TO REVIEW AND COMMENT UPON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE UDO REGARDING SIGN REGULATIONS. <br />PRESENTER: MICHAEL HARVEY, CURRENT PLANNING SUPERVISOR <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: This item was presented for review to the Planning Board in April. Since then a U.S. Supreme Court case <br />has forced us to change our outlook regarding a few standards in the UDO. That information is provided on page 4 of your <br />packet regarding Reed v. Town of Gilbert. The thing to take away from the court case is that signs cannot be regulated <br />based on content. They are a couple provisions in our UDO that allowed signs to be regulated based on content that had to <br />be removed. That is the major difference that you may recall from the April meeting. Continued to review abstract starting <br />on page 9. <br /> <br />Lydia Wegman: So there are no off premise signs permitted at all? <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: They are prohibited from the stand point that we do not allow a business to post a sign somewhere in the <br />county saying shop this way. Billboards are basically off site advertising signs and are the only permitted offsite advertising <br />signage. Those are regulated on page 9. Remind everyone that there are state and federal laws that preempt our <br />enforcement of outdoor advertising. <br /> <br />James Lea: Religious facilities that currently have signs up that are not consistent with this will be allowed to keep their signs <br />up? <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: Yes, as consistent with the non-conforming standards. <br /> <br />James Lea: But they cannot add anything additional? <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: Correct. No new signage and they can’t modify the current signage. <br /> <br />Paul Guthrie: Can they rehabilitate them? <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: They can, but there are limitations to rehabilitate them related to cost. You are allowed to paint them or <br />general maintenance needs; however, if someone hits it with a car you are out of luck. <br /> <br />Michael Harvey continued to review the abstract. <br /> <br /> 5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.