Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
45 <br />DRAFT <br />112 there are three phases: one is to take out the lumens; take out any comments, however good they were from the <br />113 Planning Board; and send forward something. We want to do something. The other possibility is to wait and get the <br />114 lumens straight. I don't understand why when the Planning Board comments, why those cannot be addressed in the <br />115 Public Hearing. You say there are two options; one is to say we are not going to recommend action until we get the <br />116 lumens straight. I don't understand why the Planning Board ~mments get put to the side because they were pretty <br />117 compelling. <br />118 <br />119 Michael Harvey: Quite Rankly the Planning Board comments were in sections that were not advertised to being <br />120 modified. There were several modifications, definitions as an example, and since the legal ad didn't advertise that we <br />121 were modifying definitions, they cannot be included. <br />122 <br />123 Judith Wegner: Hypothetically, what if instead of having to do something now, if we recommend there be another <br />124 notice including that and including lumen caps and then let there be another round and tie it all off together. <br />125 <br />126 Michael Harvey: I would be more comfortable if that is the Planning Board's wish that you actually forward a <br />127 rewmmendation to the BOCC that no action be taken on this proposal at this time -and that lighting amendments will <br />128 be addressed within the UDO. The reason for this is that this board will start getting numerous proposed modifications <br />129 to the zoning and subdivision regulations over next few months. I think that it will be confusing to be processing an <br />130 ordinance amendment at the same time you are reviewing all development regulations, including additional <br />131 amendments to the aforementioned lighting section. To avoid confusion we do everything from a comprehensive <br />132 standpoint. <br />133 <br />134 Judith Wegner: From what I just said or holding it until the UDO. <br />135 <br />136 Michael Harvey: I think we hold it until the UDO. <br />137 <br />138 Judith Wegner: Your advice is to go with option B. <br />139 <br />140 Michael Harvey: I would prefer that the lumen cap be deleted as it currently has been proposed and the Planning <br />141 Board allow the modifications that are currently identified within the resolution to move forward and that we incorporate <br />142 what the Planning Board is recommending into the UDO provisions for future review in early 2010. <br />143 <br />144 Judith Wegner: If I were a citizen affected by this and I were having to understand what is going on and I get one <br />145 change in the ordinance and then I will see something about lumens sometime and then something else in the UDO, I <br />146 would find that strange and very confounding from my point of view. <br />147 <br />148 Michael Harvey: I see what you mean but unfortunately we did this amendment to address a specific concern brought <br />149 to the BOCC and we drafted an amendment to address that one concern knowing we would have to come back to do <br />150 additional work on this section anyway we were given the impression they wanted to see this amendment. <br />151 <br />152 Judith Wegner: This is the outdoor sports issues which is pretty pressing for the folks being affected by it. <br />153 <br />154 Michael Harvey: Yes. <br />155 <br />156 Larry Wright: If it is for the outdoor sports then I don't understand why, in the minutes, on line 466 where we listened to <br />157 Ms. Shields and this was with respect to the lights but I am not dealing specifically with her issue but the spirit of the <br />158 issue. Then Judith said she thought the points were helpful. He walks around the property line and there are disiduos <br />159 trees and what we are talking about is light trespass into the property. Then you go to line 514 where Earl makes a <br />160 statement and Jeff follows up and thinks there should be something more inclusive where you can go over the property <br />161 line and measure the light trespass. Then on page 36, B1, you are still going along the property line. <br />162 <br />163 Michael Harvey: There is no current definition of light trespass. <br />164 <br />165 Larry Wright: Yes is it. <br />166 <br />167 Michael Harvey: Not currently within the existing ordinance. You are going to ask me to amend the ordinance to <br />