Browse
Search
Minutes 05-15-2018
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
2010's
>
2018
>
Minutes 05-15-2018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2019 2:55:06 PM
Creation date
6/6/2018 8:21:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/15/2018
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Agenda Item
6/5/18; 8-a
Document Relationships
Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Board Meeting
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2018\Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Meeting
Agenda - 05-15-2018 5-a - Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment - Flags and Flagpoles
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2018\Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Meeting
Agenda - 05-15-2018 8-a - Minutes
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2018\Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Meeting
Agenda - 05-15-2018 8-b - Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Amendment #9
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2018\Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Meeting
Agenda - 05-15-2018 8-c - Family Success Alliance – Agreements for Navigator Program
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2018\Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Meeting
Agenda - 05-15-2018 8-d - Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendment Outline and Schedule –UDO Text Amendments Clarifying Impervious Surface Regulations
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2018\Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Meeting
Agenda - 05-15-2018 8-e - Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance – Approval and Certification of 2018 Report
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2018\Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Meeting
Agenda - 05-15-2018 8-f - Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2018
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2018\Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Meeting
Agenda- 05-15-2018 11-a - Advisory Board on Aging - Appointments
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2018\Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Meeting
Agenda- 05-15-2018 11-b - Board of Health - Appointments
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2018\Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Meeting
Agenda- 05-15-2018 12-1 - Information Item - May 1, 2018 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
(Attachment)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2018\Agenda - 05-15-2018 Regular Meeting
ORD-2018-017 Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment - Flags and Flagpoles
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2018
ORD-2018-018 Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Amendment #9
(Message)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
10 <br /> <br />Durham County. He said this is content neutral, and flags cannot be banned, but the number of <br />flags, size and location can be regulated. He said staff would consider other options, if the <br />Board so desires. <br />Commissioner Price clarified that there is no specific reason to have just three flags. <br />Michael Harvey said staff tried to address a reasonable number, and he said there are <br />state laws that require people to be able to fly state, national and local jurisdiction flags, and <br />this cannot be denied. <br />John Roberts said state law requires that local governments allow the flying of those <br />three flags, which was the way he determined 3 flags per pole. <br />Commissioner Price said she understood that reasoning at public sites, but not on <br />private property. <br />Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 2, where it talks about severing the allowable <br />height of the pole from the height of the building. <br />Michael Harvey said that will be covered by the CA. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said on page 28 it states that it is not going to be related to the <br />existing structures, and asked if clarification could be provided. <br />John Roberts said that is an option, and was a Commissioner requested change. He <br />said this makes sense so that there is consistency countywide for height. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if this consistency is for total height. <br />John Roberts said for maximum flagpole height per type of lot. <br />Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason that cemeteries are being regulated. <br />Michael Harvey said staff allowed exemptions for both private and public cemeteries; <br />and small flags on gravesites will be permitted. <br />Commissioner Price read the following language: “flags no greater than 12 inches in <br />height may be displayed at individual gravesites within the cemetery” and asked if this is <br />applicable to all cemeteries. <br /> Michael Harvey said yes, there is no distinction between public and private cemeteries. <br />John Roberts said this issue came up because of a rumor that an excessively large flag <br />was going up on a residential lot, and the BOCC received a large number of complaints. He <br />said many of those complaints focused on one type of flag. He said the BOCC, staff, and he <br />looked at the ordinance, and it was not clear on the size or height of flags that may be flown, <br />whether on commercial or residential property. He said the BOCC instructed staff to bring a <br />content neutral ordinance regulating flags. <br />John Roberts said both the staff’s proposal and his options are content neutral, and any <br />flag can continue to be flown if it fits within the dimensions proposed in the ordinance. He said <br />if the Board adopts this ordinance, there is a one-year amortization before anyone would have <br />to replace their flags to adhere to the ordinance. <br />John Roberts said there is clear case law that this is within a local government’s <br />authority. He said Durham has a flag ordinance and regulates the size of the flags, and the <br />case which determined that ordinance went all the way to the 4th circuit of appeals, which is the <br />federal appellate court having jurisdiction over North Carolina. He said the Court ruled in <br />Durham’s favor. <br />John Roberts said it is not his interpretation that the flagpole will be subject to the <br />amortization provision. He said if a flagpole is taken down voluntarily, or knocked down through <br />an accident or natural act, then it would need to be replaced with a flagpole that complies, but <br />residents, schools, churches, etc., will not be required to replace existing flagpoles otherwise. <br />Commissioner Rich clarified that the size of flag itself has to be in compliance within a <br />year, but the flagpole does not.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.