OCPB minutes 040418 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 5/2/2018 regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until 56 such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 57 58 AGENDA ITEM 6: CHAIR COMMENTS 59 There were no comments. 60 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 to the text of the UDO that will add regulations pertaining to flagpoles and flags. This item is 64 scheduled for public hearing on May 1, 2018 65 66 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 67 68 Michael Harvey: Tonight I am going to review with you a proposed text amendment to the Unified Development 69 Ordinance designed to clarify standards governing the height, number, and location of flagpoles as well as the size of 70 flags erected on property within the County's planning jurisdiction. The amendment is contained within Attachment 3 71 of your packet. Attachment 2 contains the statement of consistency outlining how the proposal is consistent with the 72 provisions of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan. 73 74 The overall purpose and intent of the amendment is to ensure uniformity with respect to the display of flags and 75 the allowable height of flagpoles within Orange County. Although there are regulations contained within the UDO 76 regulating flags, there is a concern said regulations are unclear. 77 78 As you are already aware concerns have been expressed to the elected officials over the lack of clear, definitive 79 standards, governing the erection of flagpoles and size of flags that can be erected/flown. 80 81 The Board of County Commissioners directed the County's Attorney office to review potential language designed to 82 clarify existing regulation(s) with respect to the overall allowable height of flagpoles as well as the allowable size of 83 flags in an effort to ensure the display of flag(s) does not dominate local skylines. 84 85 Planning staff, consistent with established protocols, sought approval of an Amendment Outline Form (AOF) by the 86 Board of County Commissioners establishing the parameters of such an amendment as well as anticipated 87 timeline(s) for review and action. At its March 20, 2018 regular meeting the Board approved the Form scheduling a 88 public hearing to review the amendment at its May 1, 2018 regular meeting. 89 90 The County's Attorney office provided language deemed to meet legal sufficiency requirements, which again is 91 contained within Attachment 3 of your package. 92 93 As part of the review of this item, staff has supplied the Board members with an e-mail from Mr. John 94 Roberts concerning the review of this item, which I would like to read into the minutes: 95 96 “Michael- 97 98 Although it does regulate flags, the current UDO is not clear that it regulates flags. The Board of Commissioners 99 directed us to amend the UDO to clarify this and to draft content neutral restrictions on flag size and height to address 100 resident concerns of individuals or groups erecting enormous flags in residentially zoned areas. With that in mind the 101 proposed language was drafted to be content-neutral so that if challenged it may survive judicial scrutiny: 102 103 Regarding content-neutrality: The U.S. Supreme Court held government may impose reasonable restrictions on the 104 time, place, and manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve a significant 105 government interest, are without reference to content, and leave open sufficient alternate means of communicating 106 the message. There is ample case law applying this principle to signs, flags, etc. The proposed language solely 107 focuses on these categories and does not contemplate what message may be communicated. Further the proposed 108 language regarding the number of flags allowed, dimensions, and height leaves open a property owner’s ability to fly 109 reasonably flags conveying whatever message they choose. 110