Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 8/3/2016 <br />3 <br /> 108 <br />Michael Harvey reviewed the abstract 109 <br /> 110 <br />Paul Guthrie: Why did the attorneys make the decision to wait? 111 <br /> 112 <br />Michael Harvey: I think their concern is that there are other court cases pending that could clarify what Reed vs. 113 <br />Gilbert. I also believe they wanted more time to review the proposal to ensure we did not create additional legal 114 <br />hardships for the County. Finally there was a concern the proposal was becoming too complex and might create 115 <br />further compliance issues associated with the Reed decision. 116 <br /> 117 <br />Lisa Stuckey: Isn’t this a nationwide problem? 118 <br /> 119 <br />Michael Harvey: Yes, we are not the only Planning Board reviewing this. A lot of communities are choosing not to 120 <br />deal with it and just wait to get sued or wait to see if another community adopts an ordinance that survives a court 121 <br />challenge to use as a model. There are several communities that are doing the same thing we are doing, specifically 122 <br />trying to figure out how best to address the implications of the Reed case. 123 <br /> 124 <br />Lydia N. Wegman: Why are the on premise commercial signs within the agricultural support enterprises being 125 <br />added? 126 <br /> 127 <br />Michael Harvey: They were supposed to be added when we originally created the zoning district but they were not 128 <br />and we didn’t want to deny them signage. So as indicated within the footnote we are correcting a previous omission. 129 <br /> 130 <br />Tony Blake: Is there any attempt to align the two sign ordinance between the ETJ and rural areas? 131 <br /> 132 <br />Michael Harvey: No there is not currently a move to do so. Frankly I believe our policy with respect to signage is 133 <br />differently from our municipal planning partners and we should not necessarily be looking for parity. 134 <br /> 135 <br />Lisa Stuckey: On page 107 and 109 I found the language very confusing. 136 <br /> 137 <br />Michael Harvey: This is language that has been approved by the county attorney’s office. 138 <br /> 139 <br />Michael Harvey: If you have any further questions outside of the meeting tonight I am happy to communicate further 140 <br />with you about this item. 141 <br /> 142 <br />Paul Guthrie: What if you regulate the structure or the materials in the structure of the sign? 143 <br /> 144 <br />Michael Harvey: We could do that and in certain aspects of this ordinance we can still do that. 145 <br /> 146 <br />Lydia N. Wegman: Will the results of these court cases are going to address content? 147 <br /> 148 <br />Michael Harvey: Possibly which is why we are waiting on revising the ordinance. 149 <br /> 150 <br /> 151 <br />MOTION by Maxecine Mitchell to recommend approval to the BOCC on the statement of consistency and the 152 <br />proposed amendment package. Seconded by Tony Blake. 153 <br />VOTE: UNANIMOUS 154 <br /> 155 <br />AGENDA ITEM 10: AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGIC PLAN - To receive a presentation on the draft 156 <br />Affordable Housing Strategic Plan and provide input and comments on the draft plan. 157 <br /> 158 <br />Presenter: Audrey Spencer-Horsley 159 <br /> 160 <br />Audrey Spencer-Horsley reviewed the abstract 161