Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutORC minutes 010219Approved 2.6.19 SUMMARY NOTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 JANUARY 2, 2019 3 ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE 4 5 NOTE: A QUORUM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETINGS. 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), At-Large Chapel Hill Township Representative; Alexander Gregory 8 (Vice-Chair), Chapel Hill Township Representative; Randy Marshall, Bingham Township Representative; Hunter 9 Spitzer, At-Large; Kim Piracci, At-Large; Adam Beeman, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Paul Guthrie, At-10 Large Chapel Hill Township; David Blankfard, Hillsborough Township Representative; Carrie Fletcher, Bingham 11 Township Representative; 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections Director; Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor; 14 Tina Love, Administrative Assistant III 15 16 AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order and Roll Call 17 Planning Board Chair Lydia Wegman called the meeting to order. 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 2: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENTS -SIGNS- To review and discuss 20 proposed amendments to the UDO regarding signs 21 22 PRESENTER: Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor 23 24 Michael Harvey reviewed the proposed amendments to the UDO and provided background information. Mr. Harvey 25 reviewed pages 4-6 of the abstract packet and guided the board through various changes to the language of the 26 drafted ordinance. 27 28 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 road. 30 31 Michael Harvey responded, no, the sign setback was five feet of the edge of the right of way. 32 33 Kim Piracci asked for clarification. 34 35 Michael Harvey explained that with roadways you have a right of way in which a roadway is located. He clarified that 36 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 not matter where the road is, the setback is measured from the edge of the right of way. 38 39 Alex Gregory commented so the right of way is larger than the road. 40 41 Michael Harvey agreed. 42 43 Craig Benedict stated that the road might only be 24 foot of pavement. 44 45 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 that right of way. He reminded the board that with public roads that is where your property line technically starts, at 47 the edge of that right of way. 48 49 Kim Piracci questioned the legality of signs placed within five feet of a busy corner near her home. 50 51 Michael Harvey responded that she was correct in her thinking that the signs are illegally placed, but informed her 52 that he had no legal authority to enforce regulatory standards in public rights of way. He advised that DOT had to 53 remove those signs. The only exception under state law would be political signs. 54 Approved 2.6.19 55 Kim Piracci mentioned that she was still seeing those as well. 56 57 Michael Harvey stated that the county was unable to base a decision to remove a sign based on the content. He 58 suggested that if he were to do that even with the currently ordinance language, litigation could arise and that they 59 would likely suffer a loss. 60 61 Kim Piracci mentioned that they were not under the law because of the content but their location. 62 63 Michael Harvey replied because they were located within the right of way he had no authority under the ordinance to 64 compel their removal. 65 66 Paul Guthrie asked what about non-public roads. 67 68 Michael Harvey acknowledged that that was actually covered by a different provision of the ordinance. He advised 69 that it has to be set back out of all rights of way. 70 71 Lydia Wegman questioned the timeline given in the section regarding flags 6.12.3 (G) (1). 72 73 Michael Harvey replied that the deadline would be May of this year. 74 75 Lydia Wegman asked if that would be made clear. 76 77 Michael Harvey assured that the clock would not be reset. 78 79 Lydia Wegman responded thank you, I just wanted to be sure. 80 81 David Blankfard questioned how many days house sales signs could be placed. 82 83 Michael Harvey stated that had not been determined yet. He replied that it was covered in page 8 of the draft text. 84 He stated that 30 days after the house is sold, it must be removed. Mr. Harvey reminded the board this was still a 85 work in process but he felt it important to ensure members were exposed to the proposed reorganization and 86 changes in standards to address content neutral sign regulations. 87 88 Lydia Wegman asked Mr. Harvey to clarify that subsection 4 was for garage sales. 89 90 Michael Harvey confirmed that the section addressed garage sales, yard sales, and anytime the home is open to the 91 public. 92 93 Lydia Wegman sought clarification on David’s questions. She questioned whether temporary signs were defined 94 somewhere. 95 96 Michael Harvey asserted that they will be. 97 98 Lydia Wegman responded but not yet. 99 100 David Blankfard asked if a permit was required to place a temporary sign. 101 102 Michael Harvey replied, no, he stated that he was not interested in permitting these as they are already authorized by 103 the ordinance. 104 105 Lydia Wegman asked whether there would be a definition of what temporary consisted of. 106 107 Michael Harvey responded, yes. 108 Approved 2.6.19 109 Randy Marshall asked how to get the jurisdiction to tell someone that they can only put a sale sign for the house if 110 they get a real estate agent. 111 112 Michael Harvey responded with I don’t and referred board members to review language in subsection (B). 113 114 Randy Marshall replied but he still has to do the same timeline. 115 116 Michael Harvey stated that the property has to be listed for sale and then 30 days after the sale has been contracted, 117 the sign has to be removed. It is laid out that way to provide some distinction about who has the authority to say a 118 property is or is not for sale instead of just saying real estate signs. 119 120 Lydia Wegman questioned (D) (5) on page 8 regarding temporary signs during holiday periods. Her question was 121 whether that related to holiday lights. 122 123 Michael Harvey answered that it could be displays of Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, or when lights are 124 associated. 125 126 Lydia Wegman replied but only five signs. 127 128 Michael Harvey confirmed yes, and stated that that may change. 129 130 Randy Marshall questioned if there had been any comment concerning the impact of this on houses of worship. 131 132 Michael Harvey responded, no, because they are all going to be held to standards contained in this ordinance. 133 134 Michael Harvey continued his presentation and resumed on prohibited signs, page 9. 135 136 David Blankfard questioned whether Mr. Harvey was defining a sign as a placard that has words on it. 137 138 Michael Harvey remarked that they have a current definitions that may have to be modified in order to ensure a 139 content neutral sign ordinance. 140 141 David Blankfard stated that they could use emojis now. 142 143 Michael Harvey agreed and replied that any graphic display could convey a message, but they are unable to regulate 144 what the message is. He stated that we are able to prohibit lude, lascivious, or offensive language, but where that 145 particular fine line was drawn will be a topic hotly debated. 146 147 Randy Marshall asked where do “no hunting” and “fishing signs” play in this. 148 149 Michael Harvey replied temporary signs. 150 151 Randy Marshall commented that some put their signs up for years because they don’t want their land -- 152 153 Michael Harvey remarked that they could do that because there was not time limit for some of the temporary signs. 154 155 Randy Marshall asked so if somebody circled their property with “no hunting” signs every 25 feet, that is allowable. 156 157 Michael Harvey stated that there are actually state regulatory standards to establish how you are supposed to identify 158 no trespassing on your property and that there’s a provision in the proposed revised sign ordinance that says you can 159 erect signage consistent with state law. 160 161 Approved 2.6.19 Carrie Fletcher asked about signage on vehicles and trailers. She questioned if there were any compliance issues 162 with it and if there was jurisdiction. 163 164 Michael Harvey questioned whether she meant a big motorized sign in the right of way being driven. 165 166 Carrie Fletcher replied with, yes. She mentioned seeing cars pulling trailers with big signs. 167 168 Michael Harvey said, no and then commented that he did not think that they had any authority over those because of 169 their mobility. 170 171 Carrie Fletcher asked and if it’s parked at a property. 172 173 Michael Harvey stated that technically we would have to make an argument that it is by default a sign, but the next 174 question is when a restaurant has catering van with a advertising material, is it a sign or a vehicle. 175 176 Carrie Fletcher responded, exactly. 177 178 Michael Harvey continued his presentation of the abstract by referring to page 10 and continued his explanation on 179 prohibited signs. Mr. Harvey discussed the language regarding permit requirements and submittal requirements and 180 the reasons for their recommendations. He explained that the subjects of expiration of permits, permit revocation, 181 and maintenance had not been discussed as they are not believed to contain any content-based issues. Mr. Harvey 182 then touched on signs regulations by district. He then stated that page 12 identified the cadence of how regulations 183 would be established and listed it as; size, height, number, location, illumination. 184 185 Lydia Wegman questioned the location of what page Mr. Harvey was referring to. 186 187 Michael Harvey responded pages 11 and 12. 188 189 Michael Harvey continued his presentation of the abstract and referred the board to the bottom of page 11. 190 191 Lydia Wegman questioned the meaning of “face” in signs 16 sq. ft. in area per face. 192 193 Michael Harvey replied sign face, specifically the area of the sign containing an advertising message. 194 195 Lydia Wegman had a question regarding left out wording after setbacks located on page 12 (d). 196 197 Michael Harvey responded that it was because he did not have anything proposed yet. 198 199 Michael Harvey continued his presentation on the abstract and referred the board to pages 14-16. 200 201 Michael Harvey asked whether there were any concerns regarding the cadence or the manner in which the sign code 202 would be revised. 203 204 Paul Guthrie questioned how it would be policed. 205 206 Michael Harvey replied that proceedings will be initiated as violations are found in accordance with provision 6.12 207 and Article 9 located in the enforcement provision of the (UDO). 208 209 Paul Guthrie commented that he asked because in some situations the owner may refuse it and then remarked that 210 removal would probably take a warrant. 211 212 Michael Harvey stated that if there is an illegal sign on your property, you are issued a notice of violation and then 213 have a certain time to bring it to compliance. If you refuse to do so, or appeal the decision, fines begin at about $500 214 Approved 2.6.19 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 compliance. 216 217 Paul Guthrie commented that he believed it not to be good policy to enact something that is not enforceable. 218 219 Michael Harvey stated that his belief is that this will be more enforceable than the current code. 220 221 Michael Harvey advised the board that they will not be asked to approve this within the next month or two. He 222 commented that the process would be long and stated that he envisioned at least one more ORC session with the 223 board for drafts to be reviewed and commented on in preparation for a Planning Board Meeting. He stated that he 224 envisioned at least six months before action would be taken. 225 226 Alex Gregory asked what issues Mr. Harvey thought the public might potentially have. 227 228 Michael Harvey replied that he didn’t see any adverse reaction other than the number of signs. 229 230 Paul Guthrie recommending thinking about mail cart systems as they are federal property. 231 232 Michael Harvey mentioned that since that is technically in the right of way and since it is federal property that he did 233 not believe that he had any enforcement or authority to begin with. 234 235 Adam Beeman asked about electronic billboards. 236 237 Michael Harvey mentioned that there are currently provisions on billboards and regulatory standards on how many 238 times they can change in a given 24-hour period. He stated that they are currently existing and will still exist in this 239 new ordinance. He remarked that time and duration could be regulated but not messages. 240 241 Kim Piracci questioned why the signs were not under Dillion’s Rule and why the state was not mandating what the 242 rules are. 243 244 Michael Harvey replied that the state has actually said that the local government is going to adopt the regulatory 245 standards to address these issues, but they don’t have to establish the parameters in which they do them. 246 247 Michael Harvey asked if there were any other questions. 248 249 David Blankfard asked if the ordinance would curtail or allow residential signage on their homes. 250 251 Michael Harvey replied that if it is offensive language then we have the authority to address it, but stated that it would 252 be interesting to see how far the attorney’s office goes in supporting what they consider to be non-content based 253 standards. He stated that turning the side of your house into a billboard would be a wall sign and is prohibited as 254 such. 255 Michael Harvey welcomed any further questions and then thanked the board. 256 257 ORC was adjourned through consensus 258