OCPB agenda 050416 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

residential project on a larger parcel of property. The amendment was previously also attempting to revise existing regulations to address a US Supreme Court decision. After reviewing the issue with the County Attorney’s office, work these revisions will be delayed to afford additional review time. 2. Analysis As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: ‘cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners’. There has been an increase in inquires and interest with respect to development of large-scale commercial operations within the County. Current sign regulations limit the total allowable square footage for freestanding and wall signs for most non-residential general use zoning districts to 32 square feet (8 feet by 4 feet in size) regardless of the property’s location, size of parcel, or amount of road frontage. The ‘one-size fits all’ sign limit may, in fact, be a deterrent to non- residential development. There is also a noticeable lack of clarity within the UDO addressing what constitutes a blinking/flashing sign, or digital signage with scrolling messages, leading to enforcement concerns. The amendments are necessary to address current concerns over advertising needs for non-residential development on larger parcels within the County and clarify the prohibition on the use of blinking/flashing signage by incorporating new definitions into the UDO. As the Board is aware from past discussion, recent court decisions impact the County’s sign regulations. In the Reid versus Town of Gilbert US Supreme Court case, the court found sign regulations cannot be seen as allowing/disallowing a sign based on its content. For more information on the case and its potential impacts please refer to the following: http://canons.sog.unc.edu/?p=8167. While work had commenced on amendments designed to address the impacts of Gilbert, the Attorney’s office has recommended additional time be allotted to the review and processing same. Staff will be bringing forward a new Amendment Outline Form in the near future outlining the timeline for completion and review of these revisions but is proceeding with an amendment package to address the concern(s) detailed herein. 3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives) Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques, and/or incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals. 4. New Statutes and Rules Proposed amendments are designed to offer clarity on existing regulations and expand advertising opportunities for large parcels of property. Future amendments will be necessary to address the impacts of the Reed versus Town of Gilbert US Supreme Court case. 91