Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 5/2/2018 <br /> 111 <br />With regard to the proposed dimensions these numbers are, as you previously noted, /{an amalgamation of all 112 <br />previous drafts" and are proposed merely as reasonable suggestions. Size limitations may not be so restrictive that 113 <br />they do not allow sufficient means of expression and I believe the proposed numbers allow full expression of the 114 <br />message without allowing a property owner to negatively impact her or his neighbor. 115 <br /> 116 <br />Let me know if this is responsive of you need more information.” 117 118 As I have indicated during the ORC committee meeting, the proposed regulation(s) are necessary to ensure 119 <br />uniformity with respect to the size and number of flags that can be displayed on property as well as clarify the 120 <br />measurable standard that will be employed relating to the allowable height any erected flagpole. As written, the 121 <br />amendment would clarify existing regulations to ensure adherence to the following specific standards: 122 <br /> 123 <br />1. Within a residential general use zoning district (including Rural Buffer, Agricultural Residential, and 124 <br />Rural Residential) the amendment allows for the erection of a single flagpole with a maximum height 125 <br />limit of 24ft. A maximum of 3 flags could be displayed, with each flag being a maximum of 24 sq. in area 126 <br />(or 4ft. by 6ft. in size) on a residentially zoned parcel; 127 <br /> 128 <br />2. Within all other general use zoning districts, the amendment allows up to 3 flags and 3 individual 129 <br />flagpoles. Each flag can be a maximum of 96 sq.ft. in area (or 8ft. by 12ft. in size). Flagpoles shall be 130 <br />a maximum of 54 ft. in height; 131 <br /> 132 <br />3. In all general use zoning districts a flagpole shall be required to observe a 50 ft. setback from all property 133 <br />lines; 134 <br /> 135 <br />4. As written Section 6.12.12 of the UDO would contain an amortization provision requiring nonconforming 136 <br />flags and flagpoles, legally erected prior to the adoption of this amendment, to be brought into 137 <br />compliance within 1year from the Ordinance being adopted. 138 <br /> 139 <br />5. As written Section 6.12.13 of the UDO contains language exempting flags, no greater than 12 inches 140 <br />in height, displayed on individual grave sites within a cemetery from the provisions of the Ordinance. 141 <br /> 142 <br />As previously indicated the proposed language is content neutral and does not establish a ban on any specific 143 <br />flag. I will refer you back to the e-mail authored by John Roberts for additional detail on this matter, which I have 144 <br />previously read into the minutes of this meeting. 145 <br /> 146 <br />As part of making a recommendation on this text amendment, the Board is being asked to approve a Statement of 147 <br />Consistency for this project, making the following findings: 148 <br /> 149 <br />Michael Harvey reviewed the Consistency Statement, Attachment 2 in the board packet, and then continued his 150 <br />presentation: 151 <br /> 152 <br />The Planning Director's recommendation on this item is to: 153 <br /> 154 <br />1. Review the proposed amendments to the UDO, 155 <br /> 156 <br />2. Deliberate on the proposal as desired, 157 <br /> 158 <br />3. Consider the Planning Director's and County's Attorney recommendation(s), and 159 <br /> 160 <br />4. Make a recommendation to the BOCC on: 161 <br /> 162 <br />The Statement of Consistency for proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) (Attachment 2), and Proposed UDO Text 163 <br />Amendment(s) (Attachment 3) in time for the May 1, 2018 Public Hearing. 164 165 Randy Marshall asked the board if they had any questions. 166 <br />10