Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 <br /> <br />Current regulations do not offer a suitable distinction between development within <br />urbanizing and rural areas of the County allowing for a sign of suitable size to <br />accommodate a non-residential project on a larger parcel of property. <br /> <br />2. Analysis <br />As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: <br />‘cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, <br />prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of <br />County Commissioners’. <br />There has been an increase in inquires and interest with respect to development of <br />large-scale commercial operations within the County, with an emphasis on property <br />located within the: <br />a. Commercial Transition, <br />b. Commercial-Industrial Transition, and <br />c. Economic Development Transition <br />Activity Nodes (please refer to Attachment 2 for additional detail). <br />Current sign regulations limit the total allowable square footage for freestanding and <br />wall signs for most non-residential general use zoning districts to 32 square feet (8 <br />feet by 4 feet in size) regardless of the property’s location (in or outside of an Activity <br />Node), size of parcel, or amount of road frontage. The ‘one-size fits all’ sign limit <br />may, in fact, be a deterrent to non-residential development in the aforementioned <br />Activity Nodes. <br />There is also a noticeable lack of clarity within the UDO addressing the development <br />of large-scale properties with multiple tenants necessitating the need for a larger, <br />freestanding sign, advertising local businesses and on what constitutes a <br />blinking/flashing sign leading to enforcement concerns. <br />Recent court decisions, most notably Reed versus Town of Gilbert, also impact the <br />County’s current sign regulations. In this case the US Supreme Court sign <br />regulations cannot be seen as allowing/disallowing a sign based on its content. For <br />more information on the case and its potential impacts please refer to the <br />following: http://canons.sog.unc.edu/?p=8167. <br />The amendments are necessary to address current concerns over advertising needs for <br />development within the urban-designated areas of the county (i.e. the Commercial <br />Transition and Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Nodes) and clarify the prohibition <br />on the use of blinking/flashing signage by incorporating new definitions into the UDO. <br />Staff will also revise existing regulations to ensure our standards are ‘content neutral’ and <br />consistent with the findings of the Gilbert case. <br />The proposed amendment will also incorporate an interpretation relating to the use of <br />digital displays by gas stations. Historically gas stations have displayed gas prices <br />through an internally/externally illuminated reader board. These displays create <br />unnecessary glare for motorists. Orange County has allowed gas stations to incorporate <br />digital reader board displays to advertise gas prices, reducing glare and eliminating <br />issues of light trespass either through cracked message boards allowing undiffused light <br /> 4