Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
.s~- 7 <br />DRAFT <br />1 <br />2 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />55 <br />MINUTES <br />ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD <br />NOVEMBER 4, 2009 <br />REGULAR MEETING <br />Members Present: Brian Crawford, At-Large-Eno Township; May Becker, At-Large -Chapel Hill Township; <br />Rachel Phelps Hawkins, Hillsborough Township Representative; Peter Hallenbeck, At-Large -Cheeks Township; <br />Mark Marcoplos, At-Large -Bingham Township; Earl McKee, Little River Township Representative; Judith Wegner, <br />Bingham Township Representative; Larry Wright, At-Large-Cedar Grove Township; Tommy McNeill, Eno Township <br />Representative <br />Members Absent: Samantha Cabe, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township <br />Representative; Mary Bobbitt-Cooke, Cheeks Township Representative; <br />Staff Present: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Perdita Holtr, Planning Systems Coordinator; Michael Harvey, <br />Zoning Administration; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II <br />Agenda item 7: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Relating to Outdoor Lighting <br />To continue review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on this proposed text amendment. <br />heard at the August 24, 2009 Quarterly Public Hearing and discussed at the October 7 Planning <br />Board meeting. <br />Presenter: Michael Harvey <br />Michael Harvey: With the abstract I tried to cover some of the basic questions posed at the October 7 regular meeting <br />as well as the public hearing. For example we were asked to provide a table or other similar information outlining the <br />different wattages per bulb type and the amount of light generated by each to provide the board with some <br />comparisons. You will note that on page 3 of the abstract, we have included a table with basic information and we did <br />utilize this table to specifically spell out why were not using wattage. <br />You will also note that we have tried to answer some of your basic questions, what is a lumen, what is afoot-candle, in <br />an effort to justify the proposed regulations as presented at the public hearing. <br />Unfortunately, in developing this amendment, we utilized lighting data recorded in permit's tracking system and data <br />from non-residential that occurred prior to my involvement in the county. When we drafted our regulations, specifically <br />those pertaining to the lumen cap, we were surprised that our figures were so low White they were low, they were <br />consistent with detailed observations referenced by past staff on approved permits. Unfortunately, staff has <br />determined that this data was improperly entered and as a result, our estimates were wrong. As a result our <br />recommended lumen cap limits are wrong. As a result, staff is now recommending. that the proposed lumen cap be <br />eliminated from this Ordinance amendment package as the data utilized to generate the proposed limit was flawed. <br />I should also point out that the majority of the comments and recommended modifications proposed by the Planning <br />Board at their October 7 regular meeting cannot, at least in my mind, be introduced at this time. It is my opinion that <br />the majority of these comments are inconsistent with the legal advertisement detailing what amendments would occur <br />with this action. <br />For example, several recommendations on new definitions were made. While staff thinks that the entire definition <br />section needs re-tooling, we did not advertise any modifications to these. As a result it is my opinion that we cannot <br />amend the definitions. The public has not had an opportunity to review or comment on the proposed modifications. I <br />have included a copy of the legal ad for your review to provide additional detail on what was advertised as the overall <br />purpose of this proposed amendment. Baring a new public hearing, staff is left with modifying the Ordinance iin a <br />manner that is consistent with the legal ad. <br />The majority of the recommended changes ought to be able to occur with the development of the UDO. <br />The final draft of the UDO is slated to be presented at the August 2010 Quarterly Public Hearing. To get to that stage, <br />43 <br />