Agenda - 12-07-2009 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

46 DRAFT 168 include a provision saying we can't have a light trespass when I don't have a definition. The second concern is that 169 fact that there is glare on anyone's property. I have been on Ms. Shield's property taking light readings. It is negligible. 170 There would not be a violation even if I used the current standards of the ordinance to goon her property. 171 172 Larry Wright: I am talking about the spirit of this. I go to work at 5:30 AM in the morning and the Durham Bulls have 173 their lights on at 5:30 AM. You can see the glare from that property. 174 175 Michael Harvey: To incorporate what you are suggesting would require amendments to sections that I am not 176 authorized to amend which is why I didn't include it. I did like the definition you did on light trespass and it should be 177 part of our arsenal as far as regulations on acceptable lighting levels but my concern is if I start meddling with how I am 178 going to determine what is in violation and not without a definitional framework that this board will be busier and so will 179 the Board of Adjustment because my interpretations will continuously reviewed because there is no standard for me to 180 base it on. 181 182 Larry Wright: Just saying that measurements will be taken, not just at the property line but as Jeff Schmitt said, why 183 can't you go inside the property line? 184 185 Michael Harvey: First of all, I don't go on anyone's property without permission and if I don't get permission I am 186 holding a third party subject to a standard that I can't verify. 187 188 Larry Wright: What happens if I have a complaint and I ask you to measure it by my house, would you do that? 189 190 Michael Harvey: Of course, you have given me permission to measure from your house. 191 192 Craig Benedict: 1 would like to make a statement with what has been happening over the years regarding the 193 regulations. The BOCC based on public input ask us to narrowly fix something within the ordinance, we advertise an 194 urban versus rural standard and it is very narrow and we have public input and BOCC input that is not addressed 195 within that legal advertisement then staff says they are great ideas but we are working within this narrow area and we 196 cannot unless we re advertise. We are willing to re advertise and look at more comprehensively and we think this 197 tweak would improve it in the interim until we can look at the comprehensive look at the UDO. They fix little parts and 198 don't fix other parts. 199 200 Pete Hallenbeck: Basically this came about because of some specific concern and the BOCC ask what can we do 201 about it, you propose what you can given limitations and you are basically asking can the board accept this with the 202 understanding we are going to take this whole problem and role it into the UDO. That is the best use of time and deals 203 with what you have been charged with. 204 205 Michael Harvey: That is an excellent summarization. There are basically two options; go along with what staff thinks is 206 acceptable and roll this into a UDO or you recommend nothing be done and tell the BOCC we have too many 207 questions and concerns and we think the ordinance needs to be looked at comprehensively as part of the UDO so we 208 are not recommending approval of anything at this time. 209' 210 Pete Hallenbeck: I understand both. A citizen was concerned about something and the BOCC thought enough of that 211 to charge the board with it. One geeky tidbit, on the chart on page 25, they have some led lighting numbers on those 212 that is happening and that is mostly of interest because they are of the assorts of efficiency of the high efficiency bulbs 213 but they can have lifetimes in the 50 hour range which can make it easier for businesses to adopt them because of the 214 reduced maintenance costs. 215 216 Michael Harvey: You are correct but we used what was available from Dark Sky. 217 218 MOTION made by Judith Wegner to opt for Option A on the bottom on page 27 which would be leave out the proposed 219 modifications about the lumen cap and proceed subsequently to deal with both the additional Planning Board 220 recommendations and the lumen count as part of the UDO process. Seconded by Pete Hallenbeck. 221 VOTE: 8-1 (Marcoplos) 222 223 Michael Harvey: I would like to ask one point of clarification so I can keep my schedule straight. Do you want to start