Orange County NC Website
DRAFT <br />regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until 56 <br />such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed.57 <br />58 <br />AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS59 <br />There were no comments. 60 <br />61 <br />AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIEDDEVELOPMENTORDINANCE(UDO)TEXTAMENDMENTS–FLAGPOLEANDFLAG62 <br />REGULATIONS-To make a recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments 63 <br />to the text of the UDO that will add regulations pertaining to flagpoles and flags. This item is 64 <br />scheduled for public hearing on May 1, 201865 <br />66 <br /> PRESENTER:Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor67 <br />68 <br />Michael Harvey:Tonight I am going to review with you a proposed text amendment to the Unified Development 69 <br />Ordinance designed to clarify standards governing the height, number, and location of flagpoles as well as the size of 70 <br />flags erected on property within the County's planning jurisdiction. The amendment is contained within Attachment 3 71 <br />of your packet. Attachment 2 contains the statement of consistency outlining how the proposal is consistent with the 72 <br />provisions of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan.73 <br />74 <br />The overall purpose and intent of the amendment is to ensure uniformity with respect to the display of flags and 75 <br />the allowable height of flagpoles within Orange County. Although there are regulations contained within the UDO 76 <br />regulating flags, there is a concern said regulations are unclear.77 <br />78 <br />As you are already aware concerns have been expressed to the elected officials over the lack of clear, definitive 79 <br />standards, governing the erection of flagpoles and size of flags that can be erected/flown.80 <br />81 <br />The Board of County Commissioners directed the County's Attorney officeto reviewpotential language designed to 82 <br />clarify existing regulation(s) with respect to the overall allowable height of flagpoles as well as the allowable size of 83 <br />flags in an effort to ensure the display of flag(s) does not dominate local skylines.84 <br />85 <br />Planning staff, consistent with established protocols, sought approval of an Amendment Outline Form (AOF) by the 86 <br />Board of County Commissioners establishing the parameters of such an amendment as well as anticipated 87 <br />timeline(s) for review and action. At its March 20, 2018 regular meeting the Board approved the Form scheduling a 88 <br />public hearing to review the amendment at its May 1, 2018 regular meeting.89 <br />90 <br />The County's Attorney office provided language deemed to meet legal sufficiency requirements, which again is91 <br />contained within Attachment 3 of your package.92 <br />93 <br />As part of the review of this item, staff has supplied the Board members with an e-mail from Mr. John94 <br />Roberts concerning the review of this item, which I would like to read into the minutes: 95 <br />96 <br />“Michael- 97 <br />98 <br />Although it does regulate flags, the current UDO is not clear that it regulates flags. The Board of Commissioners 99 <br />directed us to amend the UDO to clarify this and to draft content neutral restrictions on flag size and height to address 100 <br />resident concerns of individuals or groups erecting enormous flags in residentially zoned areas. With that in mind the 101 <br />proposed language was drafted to be content-neutral so that if challenged it may survive judicial scrutiny:102 <br />103 <br />Regarding content-neutrality: The U.S. Supreme Court held government may impose reasonable restrictions on the 104 <br />time, place, and manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve a significant 105 <br />government interest, are without reference to content, and leave open sufficient alternate means of communicating 106 <br />the message. There is ample case law applying this principle to signs, flags, etc. The proposed language solely 107 <br />focuses on these categories and does not contemplate what message may be communicated. Further the proposed 108 <br />language regarding the number of flags allowed, dimensions, and height leaves open a property owner’s ability to fly 109 <br />reasonably flags conveying whatever message they choose.110 <br />11