Browse
Search
OCPB agenda 050218
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2018
>
OCPB agenda 050218
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2018 2:02:52 PM
Creation date
4/24/2018 2:53:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/2/2018
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OCPB minutes 050218
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Minutes\2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DRAFT <br /> <br />51 <br />Planning staff, consistent with established protocols, sought approval of an Amendment Outline Form (AOF) by the 52 <br />Board of County Commissioners establishing the parameters of such an amendment as well as anticipated 53 <br />timeline(s) for review and action. At its March 20, 2018 regular meeting the Board approved the Form scheduling a 54 <br />public hearing to review the amendment at its May 1, 2018 regular meeting.55 <br />56 <br />The County's Attorney office provided language deemed to meet legal sufficiency requirements, which is contained 57 <br />within Attachment 2 of your package.58 <br />59 <br />Theproposed regulation(s) are necessary to ensure uniformity with respect to the size and number of flags that can 60 <br />be displayed on property as well as clarify the measurable standard that will be employed relating to the allowable 61 <br />height any erected flagpole. 62 <br />63 <br />The proposed language, however, is content-neutral. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously held local 64 <br />governments may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of what is viewed as protected 65 <br />speech, provided the restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, are without 66 <br />reference to content, and leave open sufficient alternate means of communicating the message.67 <br />The proposed language solely focuses on these categories and does not contemplate what message may or may not 68 <br />be communicated on any erected flag.69 <br />70 <br />As written, the amendment would clarify existing regulations to ensure adherence to the following specific standards:71 <br />72 <br />1. Within a residential general use zoning district (including Rural Buffer, Agricultural Residential, and Rural 73 <br />Residential) the amendment allows for the erection of a single flagpole with a maximum height limit of 24ft. A 74 <br />maximum of 3 flags could be displayed, with each flag being a maximum of 24 sq.ft. in area (or 4ft. by 6ft. in size) on 75 <br />a residentially zoned parcel;76 <br />77 <br />2. Within all other general use zoning districts, the amendment allows up to 3 flags and 3 individual flagpoles. Each 78 <br />flag can be a maximum of 96 sq.ft. in area (or 8ft. by 12ft. in size). Flagpoles shall be a maximum of 54 ft. in height; 79 <br />80 <br />3. In all general use zoning districts a flagpole shall be required to observe a 50 ft. setback from all property lines81 <br />82 <br />4. As written Section 6.12.12 of the UDO would contain an amortization provision requiring nonconforming flags and 83 <br />flagpoles, legally erected prior to the adoption of this amendment, to be brought into compliance within 1year from 84 <br />the Ordinance being adopted.85 <br />86 <br />5. As written Section 6.12.13 of the UDO contains language exempting flags, no greater than 12 inches in height, 87 <br />displayed on individual grave sites within a cemetery from the provisions of the Ordinance.88 <br />89 <br />As previously indicated the proposed language is content neutral and does not establish a ban on any flag.90 <br />91 <br />Staff has no additional comments on the proposal, which has already received approval from the County's Attorney 92 <br />office as meeting legal sufficiency.93 <br />94 <br />David Blankfard asked for clarification that any flags flying now that do not meet this ordinance would have one year 95 <br />to come into compliance. 96 <br />97 <br />Michael Harvey confirmed that. 98 <br /> 99 <br />Meeting was adjourned and was to reconvene after Planning Board Item 7 on Flagpole/ Flag regulations.100 <br /> 101 <br />7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.