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 />a day. If the first civil penalty is not paid in 10 days, the County Attorney’s Office can take you to court and compel 215 <br />compliance. 216 <br /> 217 <br />Paul Guthrie commented that he believed it not to be good policy to enact something that is not enforceable. 218 <br /> 219 <br />Michael Harvey stated that his belief is that this will be more enforceable than the current code. 220 <br /> 221 <br />Michael Harvey advised the board that they will not be asked to approve this within the next month or two. He 222 <br />commented that the process would be long and stated that he envisioned at least one more ORC session with the 223 <br />board for drafts to be reviewed and commented on in preparation for a Planning Board Meeting. He stated that he 224 <br />envisioned at least six months before action would be taken. 225 <br /> 226 <br />Alex Gregory asked what issues Mr. Harvey thought the public might potentially have. 227 <br /> 228 <br />Michael Harvey replied that he didn’t see any adverse reaction other than the number of signs. 229 <br /> 230 <br />Paul Guthrie recommending thinking about mail cart systems as they are federal property. 231 <br /> 232 <br />Michael Harvey mentioned that since that is technically in the right of way and since it is federal property that he did 233 <br />not believe that he had any enforcement or authority to begin with. 234 <br /> 235 <br />Adam Beeman asked about electronic billboards. 236 <br /> 237 <br />Michael Harvey mentioned that there are currently provisions on billboards and regulatory standards on how many 238 <br />times they can change in a given 24-hour period. He stated that they are currently existing and will still exist in this 239 <br />new ordinance. He remarked that time and duration could be regulated but not messages. 240 <br /> 241 <br />Kim Piracci questioned why the signs were not under Dillion’s Rule and why the state was not mandating what the 242 <br />rules are. 243 <br /> 244 <br />Michael Harvey replied that the state has actually said that the local government is going to adopt the regulatory 245 <br />standards to address these issues, but they don’t have to establish the parameters in which they do them. 246 <br /> 247 <br />Michael Harvey asked if there were any other questions. 248 <br /> 249 <br />David Blankfard asked if the ordinance would curtail or allow residential signage on their homes. 250 <br /> 251 <br />Michael Harvey replied that if it is offensive language then we have the authority to address it, but stated that it would 252 <br />be interesting to see how far the attorney’s office goes in supporting what they consider to be non-content based 253 <br />standards. He stated that turning the side of your house into a billboard would be a wall sign and is prohibited as 254 <br />such. 255 <br />Michael Harvey welcomed any further questions and then thanked the board. 256 <br /> 257 <br />ORC was adjourned through consensus 258
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.