mins31992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes March 19, 1992 Page 27 Chairperson Randall said her understanding was the motion and the second was to essentially withdraw the first motion and replace it with the second motion. It is a replacement motion. And the motion is point 1) off premise directional signage guiding potential buyers to real estate for sale of residential property (lot and/or house) is only permitted at up to two locations. Point 2) all other signage within the roadway right-of-way is unlawful and subject to immediate removal and or fine. Any NCDOT permit, that has been issued, must also be filed with the Cabarrus County Planning and Zoning Department. Everything else is the same. Chairperson Randall asked if there were any further discussion. Mr. Newton stated if Mr. Amos wants him to clarify his concern, he would be happy to. He said his concern was that as it is currently written, intersections control the number of signs. The substitute motion says that any way to move into subdivisions becomes a possible location for off-premise signs. It is no longer restricted to intersections where there will be signs. Intersections serve as key decision making places. Instead we could have continuing off premises directional signage because as the substitute motion states any point can become a location for a sign, with the number of signs being up to two signs per lot. He said he would agree with Dr. Hartgen that realtors would do their best to police this, but. he is sure that it will also lead to revisions, because instead of controlling locations of directional signs, we are permitting them to occur anywhere. Chairperson Randall asked if everyone understood. She said she would like to call for a vote. She'asked if the board needed more discussion. Mr. Hurlocker said the fact that the board left lot in there without the restriction that Mr. Newton put on it per intersection per sign. This would allow 100 lots to put up to 200 signs down the road. Based on Mr. Newton's proposal, if you restrict it to intersections, since there can only be two intersections -and one per intersection that would restrict that, in that light he said he would have to object to that requirement because he thinks it would then open it up for more per lot, since we left the word lot in there. Mr. Smith said should it be stated something to the effect of a lot for sale or subdivision, in other words have a way of clarifying that.