Agenda 5-a - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment - Flags and Flagpoles

Browse Search

Approved 5/2/2018 wonderful but it can be hateful and divisive. She urged the board not to be concerned that this is a slippery slope that 222 will lead to other regulations. 223 224 Latarndra Strong addressed the board. She said she is with Hate-Free Schools Coalition, which worked to remove 225 symbols of hate from the Orange County Public Schools. The coalition was started because a huge flag was flown on 226 the back of a truck and driven into a school parking lot. When the size became so large that a normal person could 227 not ignore it, she felt like it was important to do something for the students who did not want to see it as their school. 228 The issue for her was she felt that large flags should be regulated on public property until these large flags started to 229 be erected alongside roads on private property. She said she would be opposed to a large flag if it held different 230 content such as a huge retail symbol. She said the regulation is about keeping our community neutral and safe. She 231 supports the amendment. 232 233 Nan Fulcher addressed the board. She said planners restrict outdoor advertising and other signage and banners. 234 She thinks this proposed amendment is logical and preserves freedom of speech. 235 236 Randy Marshall asked if there was anyone else who did not sign up who would like to speak. There was no one. He 237 invited planning board comments. 238 239 Laura Nicholson said as a representative of the Eno Township and as a member of the Nicholson family, she would 240 like to speak. She has family members of multiple races and viewpoints and her vote is going to be content neutral 241 but reflect how we feel about multiple flags hanging on one property. 242 243 Paul Guthrie said he supported the previous statement. He is distressed that this is a divisive issue. He has family 244 members who have served in the armed forces going back to the American Revolution. He was educated in several 245 states and he is distressed that there are people stirring up divisiveness on this issue and he advised that the 246 gentleman who came from Sanford to speak would be better off speaking to the board of commissioners in Sanford. 247 Paul Guthrie said he will vote in support of this ordinance amendment. 248 249 Adam Beeman said he did some research today and found these proposed regulations are not out of the ordinary for 250 other jurisdictions. 251 252 Michael Harvey said that this will only be applicable within Orange County’s planning jurisdiction and not within the 253 town or city jurisdictions. 254 255 MOTION by Hunter Spitzer to recommend that the Orange County Board of Commissioners approve the UDO text 256 amendment. Seconded by David Blankfard. 257 VOTE: Unanimous 258 259 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 260 261 MOTION by Paul Guthrie to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. after reconvening the ORC and addressing the rest of 262 the items on that agenda. Seconded by Adam Beeman. 263 VOTE: Unanimous 264 ____________________________________ 265 Lydia N. Wegman, Chair 266 267 12