Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Art Murals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cary trustees back drafting mural rules, direct staff to build ordinance
Summary
Village trustees discussed definitions, allowed locations, review procedures and content limits for window and wall murals and directed staff to draft a model ordinance for future consideration; staff noted legal limits on regulating religious content and said private owners typically bear mural costs.
The Village of Cary Committee of the Whole on May 19 continued a months‑long conversation about formalizing rules for window and wall murals, directing staff to draft a model ordinance that would define what counts as a mural, where murals could be allowed, and how proposals should be reviewed.
Community development director Brian Simmons told the board that the fall discussion showed "there's general, general support for murals" and presented two sample definitions used by other municipalities: a broad definition covering visible designs attached to buildings, and a narrower one that excludes text, logos or advertising. Simmons said the village could use the definition to distinguish murals from signs and to set content standards.
Trustees debated where murals should be permitted. Simmons recommended limiting murals to commercial and industrial zoning districts and to publicly owned properties such as parks or municipal facilities, and said single‑family residential properties would generally be ineligible. The presentation also covered design standards that other towns use, including restrictions on logos and slogans, requirements that artwork be original (not a recreation of copyrighted works), minimum and maximum size thresholds, and durable materials to avoid fading.
On review and oversight, trustees weighed several options. Trustee Collier said he "liked where we're going with this, but as far as review, I'd like to see it be independent," and suggested involving local school art departments and a separate review commission. Simmons said communities typically use an art or architectural review committee, or route applications through a planning advisory board (ZPA) with a recommendation to the board; Cary currently has no dedicated committee for that purpose.
On content limits, Simmons cautioned the board about legal constraints, noting federal and state statutes that affect zoning and religious expression. "There is some legalese from that standpoint with the Religious Land Use Act," he said, adding the attorney would need to vet any draft ordinance to avoid overreach.
Trustees also discussed practical steps and examples: signal‑box wraps that the village has used were described as durable and cost‑effective, while private property murals would generally be paid for by property owners unless the village chose to partner on a commissioned project. A trustee asked whether the village should set aside funds to help with installations; Simmons said costs depend on the application and ownership of the asset.
The board agreed on next steps. Simmons said staff would draft an ordinance reflecting the board's direction and return with the proposal for future consideration. The meeting then moved to other business and adjourned to executive session.
The discussion did not include a formal vote on any ordinance; trustees approved only the direction to draft regulations and bring them back for review.
