Browse
Search
ORD-2003-037 - Outdoor Lighting Standards Zoning Ordinance Amendment
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 2000-2009
>
2003
>
ORD-2003-037 - Outdoor Lighting Standards Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2013 12:55:16 PM
Creation date
8/2/2011 12:00:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/26/2003
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
8n
Document Relationships
Agenda - 06-26-2003-8n
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2003\Agenda - 06-26-2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
0020 8 DRAFT <br />1 "One caveat to that to governmental agencies is that when you use cut-off fixtures, it <br />a� <br />2 requires more fixtures in a given area to illuminate the same surface such as a roadway. We first <br />3 experimented with cut -off lighting in the Charlotte Metropolitan area over 20 years ago, and it has <br />4 very many advantages, but one of its disadvantages is that often times it takes more lights in a <br />5 distance to have the same uniformity ratio and the same illumination. <br />6 <br />7 "So, what that translates to is more cost for agencies requesting tights, DOT, <br />8 municipalities, even private parties that want to illuminate a subdivision. I'm not saying that this is <br />9 a bad thing. It is just a fact of life that will happen in many cases. <br />10 <br />11 "The other item I wanted to mention is the prohibition of mercury vapor. One thing to <br />'12 keep in mind on that is that, currently, that is the low -cost option as approved by the Utility <br />13 Commission for most requesting parties. Mercury vapor is available in cut -off fixtures so the light <br />14 pollution issue would be address but the consumption issue would remain. <br />15 <br />16 "One side note about the consumption issue: the rates for mercury vapor lights are a flat <br />17 rate, it's not based on consumption, it is based on flat rate. Mercury vapor fixture is a low -cost <br />18 option because it is less cost to install and it's less cost to maintain. The rates are set and they <br />19 are based on the cost of the consumption, the cost of the facilities and the cost that Duke Power <br />20 has to expend going out there and making a repair trip. Metal Halide has more maintenance <br />21 involved than the mercury vapor, even though it is more efficient. So there are some trade --offs. <br />22 It's not a linear comparison that can be made sometimes. <br />23 <br />24 "The other thing is that the electricity that is used for lighting at night is really not wasted <br />25 energy. i know that is hard to comprehend sometimes but the power system that Duke Power <br />26 and the other utilities use to generate electricity is designed to address peak loading situations <br />27 which occur during the daytime. We have to build that generation whether we use it or not. And <br />29 at night when the load is down, we've still got that generation available at really no extra cost. <br />29 And using it for illumination actually offsets the cost during peak times. it's kind of like building a <br />30 four -lane road to get to Kenan Stadium but you only need it ten times a year, but you've got that <br />31 road there all, it would be nice if you could use it every day of the year and offset the cost of it, <br />32 and that is how lighting is viewed. And again the flat rate and the maintenance cost are <br />33 considered in what the Commission approves for us to build. <br />34 <br />35 "in closing, i would like to say that Duke Power, and I, myself, would be glad to continue <br />36 the dialogue with the County and other interested parties. We appreciate the opportunity we've <br />37 had so far. We look forward to getting effective, and simple and, ultimately, workable Ordinance." <br />39 <br />39 A. Nicole Gooding -Ray "is there anyone who was not signed up to speak who would <br />40 like to speak to this issue at this time? OK." <br />41 <br />42 Bann Jacobs "I would like to make some comments. First, unless i missed it, I didn't see <br />43 anything in here about subdivision signs, which are basically advertising signs. We don't light <br />44 our street signs. I don't see why we would allow the lighting of subdivision signs. <br />45 <br />46 "1 would tike to second Mr. Bryan's comment. I think it would be probably more in <br />47 keeping with Duke Power recommendation to have a simple, cleaner way of looking at fixtures <br />48 on a periodic basis. I don't know how that affects the exemptions. C, if you are talking about <br />49 publicly — funded street fights or if you are talking about all street lights. I'm not sure we have <br />50 control over publicly- funded street lights, but we do have over privately- funded street lights. <br />51 Probably the grossest light polluter in central Orange County is DOT's new interchange at <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.