Browse
Search
ORC minutes 010219
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Ordinance Review Committee
>
Minutes
>
2019
>
ORC minutes 010219
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2020 10:36:13 AM
Creation date
2/4/2020 10:36:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/2/2019
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 2.6.19 <br />SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JANUARY 2, 2019 3 <br />ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 <br />NOTE: A QUORUM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS. 6 7 <br />MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Alexander Gregory 8 <br />(Vice-Chair), Chapel Hill Township Representative; Randy Marshall, Bingham Township Representative; Hunter 9 <br />Spitzer, At-Large; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-10 <br />Large Chapel Hill Township; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham 11 <br />Township Representative; 12 <br /> 13 <br />STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; 14 <br />Tina Love, Administrative Assistant III 15 <br /> 16 <br />AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order and Roll Call 17 <br />Planning Board Chair Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order. 18 <br /> 19 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS -SIGNS- To review and discuss 20 <br />proposed amendments to the UDO regarding signs 21 <br /> 22 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 23 <br /> 24 <br />Michael Harvey reviewed the proposed amendments to the UDO and provided background information. Mr. Harvey 25 <br />reviewed pages 4-6 of the abstract packet and guided the board through various changes to the language of the 26 <br />drafted ordinance. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Kim Piracci asked about the wording of 6.12.3 (1) and asked if the wording meant five-feet setback for signs off a 29 <br />road. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Michael Harvey responded, no, the sign setback was five feet of the edge of the right of way. 32 <br /> 33 <br />Kim Piracci asked for clarification. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Michael Harvey explained that with roadways you have a right of way in which a roadway is located. He clarified that 36 <br />Ordinance in Section 6.12.3 (1) requires signs to be a minimum of five feet from the edge of that right of way. It does 37 <br />not matter where the road is, the setback is measured from the edge of the right of way. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Alex Gregory commented so the right of way is larger than the road. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Michael Harvey agreed. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Craig Benedict stated that the road might only be 24 foot of pavement. 44 <br /> 45 <br />Michael Harvey agreed, but stated that if you have a 100-foot right of way, your sign has to be 5 feet from the edge of 46 <br />that right of way. He reminded the board that with public roads that is where your property line technically starts, at 47 <br />the edge of that right of way. 48 <br /> 49 <br />Kim Piracci questioned the legality of signs placed within five feet of a busy corner near her home. 50 <br /> 51 <br />Michael Harvey responded that she was correct in her thinking that the signs are illegally placed, but informed her 52 <br />that he had no legal authority to enforce regulatory standards in public rights of way. He advised that DOT had to 53 <br />remove those signs. The only exception under state law would be political signs. 54
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.