Agenda - 02-28-2011 - C.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

271 be used, since they are a mercury- phosphorous based light. 30. (C) (1) Some floodlight fixtures do not cover the bulb, the stop just after the threaded base. I'd just stick with the 45 degree from vertical. (c) (2) the "it will shine" is vague. Perhaps something like "no more than 5% of the luminous energy shall shine towards roadways, onto adjacent residential property or into the night sky ". (C) (3) Same vagueness- what is the "main beam "? Do you really want to say that no portion of the bulb shall be visible from adjacent properties or the public street right - of -way? From an enforcement point of view, a "Can't see the bulb" is easy to verify for both the owner and the inspector. Note that this is the approach taken on page 6- 97, 6.117 (3). 31. All existing and proposed public transportation services and facilities within A RADIUS of one mile of the site shall be documented( leave out "also ") -- Section 6.17(6) #(4). 32. This whole section should be looked at with respect to goals and objectives. in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and Commissioners' goals and objectives. County policies do not always support the land development ordinances, particularly with transportation issues. This is too vast a task to address at this time, but I wanted to "tag" this Section for future study -- Section 7.8 33. As people become accustomed to this new document it will be important to provide different kinds of helpful guidance for users to find the sections of the document that are pertinent to their needs. The "Comparative Table" is quite helpful, and is an example of the guidance that will be needed during the transition. Having some kind of on -line search mechanism would be helpful. Perhaps that is already under development. 34. In the section concerning gold courses, Pollutant Monitoring Program, I would suggest some thought be given to the locations of the sampling stations for surface water, groundwater and sediment. Perhaps the intent is to establish upgradient sampling locations as well as sampling locations down - gradient of some potentially contaminating source or specific location ?? I think this section needs a bit of discussion as to what the objective is. In addition, under (3) Parameters for Sample Testing- I think that some description of approved analytical methods and minimum detection limits would be helpful. I am not familiar with the EPA HAL thresholds described in this section but I would be willing to look into this. There are various NC soil, water and groundwater limits that may be worth considering for this section. 35.5(b) of this section- Management Response to Pollutant Monitoring- I would recommend that the responsible party also be required to contact appropriate state regulatory officials if thresholds are exceeded, not just OC do so. I also recommend that the phrase "for thresholds" be removed from this sentence -- Section 5.5. 36. As I suspect you know, the County's Animal Control Ordinance includes kennel definitions and a permitting process for Class I and Class li Kennels. The County's Zoning Ordinance also includes kennel definitions and process for a kennel (or stable) to obtain a special use permit (which requires one or possibly both of the permits issued Animal Control). There is a need to better coordinate (and dare I say, unify) these ordinances. Some of the issues in regard to kennels include: Different definitions of Class I and Class II permits A lack of clarity as to whether a special use permit is required for Class I as well as Class 11 kennel