Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
23 <br />Current regulations only make reference to the production of a lighting plan, which <br />has led to multiple interpretations as to what is exactly required for submittal. Staff is <br />proposing to formalize the submittal requirements to ensure that we obtain all <br />necessary information to review and take action on a submitted lighting plan. <br />3. Staff is proposing to modify existing regulations governing the use of outdoor sports <br />field/performance area lighting. Several residents have suggested that such lighting <br />fixtures be banned within the rural areas of the County. This suggestion is not <br />practical given the possible need to allow for such lighting at park and recreation <br />facilities throughout the rural areas of the County and due to the presence of existing <br />recreational facilities with such lighting already installed. <br />Instead, staff is proposing to modify existing operational standards (i.e., hours of <br />operation) as well as establish height limits in an effort to better regulate the potential <br />impacts of such fixtures. <br />Further work will be necessary to address the ancillary impacts of outdoor sports <br />field lighting. This work will become a component of the proposed UDO revision. <br />Michael Harvey went through the specifics of the amendments. <br />Commissioner Yuhasz said that as he reads the exemptions to this, it only includes <br />residential structures that existed at the time the first lighting ordinance was adopted. He asked <br />if this was intended to require all new residential structures to provide a signed and sealed <br />engineering stamp for residential lighting. <br />Michael Harvey made reference to pages 7-8 and said that it was not the intention to <br />have outdoor lighting for single-family residential structures regulated. Commissioner Yuhasz <br />asked that this be made clear in the ordinance. Mr. Harvey indicated that this matter would be <br />clarified in a future amendment. <br />Commissioner Yuhasz pointed out that in the rural areas there is not going to be much <br />lighting and maybe the residential areas could be allowed to have more lighting for security <br />purposes, etc. <br />Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to 6.31.9a on page 16, and he read, "Outdoor <br />Sports Field/Outdoor Performance Area lighting shall only be allowed for those principal and <br />accessory uses, deemed by the Planning Department, as needing such fixtures to properly <br />function as intended during evening hours." He asked if this could be an illegal delegation of <br />legislative function to allow the Planning staff to make that determination without a specific <br />criterion. He asked if the Planning department would accept at face value the proposal that <br />lighting was needed. <br />Michael Harvey said that the intention of the statement was to signify that Planning staff <br />would review each proposal relating to the erection and use of outdoor sports field lighting on a <br />case by case basis to verify that the lights were an essential component of a proposed land <br />uses operation. <br />John Roberts asked Commissioner Yuhasz if he should research this issue and <br />Commissioner Yuhasz said yes. <br />Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to section 6.31.6, which relates to the required <br />certification on a subdivision plat that any and all street lights have been installed consistent <br />with County regulations. He said that he objects to additional statements on final plats <br />