Browse
Search
Agenda 5-a - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment - Flags and Flagpoles
OrangeCountyNC
>
BOCC Archives
>
Agendas
>
Agendas
>
2018
>
Agenda - 05-15-2018
>
Agenda 5-a - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment - Flags and Flagpoles
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/10/2018 5:05:03 PM
Creation date
5/10/2018 5:04:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/15/2018
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5-a
Document Relationships
Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Board Meeting
(Message)
Path:
\BOCC Archives\Agendas\Agendas\2018\Agenda - 05-15-2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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
Approved 5/2/2018 <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 COMMENTS 59 <br />There were no comments. 60 <br /> 61 AGENDA ITEM 7: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS – FLAGPOLE AND FLAG 62 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, 2018 65 <br /> 66 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 67 <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 office to review potential 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 is 91 <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. John 94 <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 />9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.