Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
ORANGE COUNTY <br />PLANNING BOARD <br />ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br /> Meeting Date: May 4, 2016 <br /> Action Agenda <br /> Item No. 9 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment – Sign Regulations <br /> <br />DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections <br /> <br /> <br />ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: <br />1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified <br />Development Ordinance Outline Form <br />(UDO & Zoning 2015-01) <br />2. Statement of Consistency <br />3. Proposed UDO Text Amendment <br />Michael D. Harvey, Planner III (919) 245-2597 <br />Craig Benedict, Director (919) 245-2575 <br />James Bryan, County Attorney (919) 245-2319 <br /> <br /> <br />PURPOSE: To review and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners <br />(BOCC) on text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) initiated by the <br />Planning Director modifying existing sign regulations. <br /> <br />BACKGROUND: As the Board is already aware, staff has been working on amendments to <br />existing sign regulations for approximately 1 year focusing on expanding advertising needs for <br />non-residential development on larger parcels, establishing uniform standards for digital <br />signage, and ensuring consistency with the recent Reid versus Town of Gilbert US Supreme <br />Court decision. Please refer to Section B of Attachment 1 for more background information. <br /> <br />At the recommendation of the County Attorney’s office, amendments designed to address the <br />impacts of the aforementioned US Supreme Court decision will not be included as part of this <br />package. As a result the amendment package contained within Attachment 3 does the <br />following: <br />1. Eliminates superfluous sign regulations contained in Section(s) 5.5.4 and 5.5.6 of the <br />UDO; <br />2. Corrects identified grammatical errors and contradictory language in Section(s) 6.12.1 <br />and 6.12.3; <br />3. Establishes standards defining what constitutes an electronic scrolling message sign in <br />Section 6.12.6; and <br />4. Recommends the adoption of new standards allowing for larger signage within specific <br />non-residential zoning districts based on the size and road frontage of a parcel of <br />property. <br />The Attorney’s office needs more time to review and discuss the impacts of the Gilbert court <br />case before proceeding with a comprehensive amendment package. <br /> <br /> 88