OCPB minutes 040616 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED 5/4/16 4 the content of the wording. Our ordinance, with two or three notable exceptions, treated signage the same. It was 160 universally the same. And again, there are two or three exceptions to that where what I just said is incorrect, and 161 that’s precipitated all of these changes. But, the further problem is as James and I have gotten into it is you’re 162 establishing a standard based on the content. For example, if we said you’re allowed 8 square foot of signage on a 163 residential building if it has to convey hazardous material being store on site. 164 165 Tony Blake: That’s a bad example because that’s public safety. 166 167 Michael Harvey: Unfortunately, that’s not necessarily true. If you’re saying you can have this sign because it’s 168 conveying this message, that’s illegal. If you say you can have hazard identification signs that’s perfectly legitimate. 169 170 James Lea: So this ordinance now will be based on content. 171 172 Michael Harvey: It’s content neutral. Each district is going to be treated the same. Each land use in certain districts 173 are going to be treated the same. 174 175 Tony Blake: What’s your reason for treating the rural buffer different than our 1 or our 2? 176 177 Michael Harvey: Bluntly, it’s the rural buffer. It is by definition, by law, a less intensive district than our R1 and AR 178 zoning districts. And as a result, it has less allowable signage. 179 180 Lisa Stuckey: Try to expect more non-commercial 181 182 Michael Harvey: Correct… More single-family residential development versus any other allowed activity, yes… The 183 reason for the difference is because the inherent nature of the district is different than the other. 184 185 Lisa Stuckey: So that means that a sign for a temporary event is going to have the same status as a sign for a 186 permanent situation. You’re not able to make the distinction? 187 188 Michael Harvey: We can establish regulations for temporary signage, for temporary events. And there are still 189 standards that exist in here for that. But for example, what we have in here for the residential district is no sign on a 190 residential land use can be bigger than 12 square feet. We can’t even regulate political signs anymore. 191 192 Tony Blake: So the difference would be you could have your standard real estate sign out front and Sunday you’re 193 having an open house, you could put in a bigger open house sign and then that would have to come down? 194 195 Michael Harvey: Yes, because it’s a temporary component. 196 197 Michael Harvey continued presentation. 198 199 Maxecine Mitchell: So if I put a sign up and it said, “I hate all white people” you can’t come and tell me that I have to 200 take it down based on the content? 201 202 Michael Harvey: Correct. From a zoning stand point… Just because there’s a zoning component that says we don’t 203 regulate the content doesn’t mean that the sheriff’s department or law enforcement entities don’t have the authority to 204 say that you’re sign violates x,y, or z. This doesn’t eliminate or stop the enforcement of other applicable regulation. It 205 just says that the county, I, can’t drive down your road and say, “I don’t like that sign, it has to come up” based solely 206 on the message it conveys. 207 208 Maxecine Mitchell: One more question, Michael. I think we were talking about these topless bars and stuff, does that 209 mean they’ll be able to put up…? 210 211 Michael Harvey: This was actually a 6 week argument. I took the position, and after James and I looked at court 212 cases and we both agreed, that we could still say you cannot have a sign that contains lewd or lascivious letters, 213