Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
i <br />ii <br />• Should there be some method of addressing retrofitting fixtures that do not <br />comply, other than the amortization process? It is our reading that existing <br />structures would be "grandfathered" in until and unless they must be <br />replaced. <br />• We wonder if a companion educational document (design guidelines) might <br />be helpful for users, showing acceptable (good and bad) examples of lighting <br />fixtures? This type of guidance document could help supplement the <br />regulatory approach and might be especially useful for residents and <br />businesses that are exempted from the regulatory provisions of the <br />ordinance. <br />• At § 6.31.3(A), should the phrase "shall apply" read "shall comply with this <br />ordinance "? <br />• At § 6.31.4(d), does temporary emergency lighting cover highway <br />construction and repair? This use might or might not be deemed <br />"emergency." <br />• At § 6.31.6 (J), the phrase "governmental flags" is ambiguous, since it could <br />refer either to a government owner of the site, or to the flag itself. Perhaps the <br />language should read "for flags on government property "? The Commission is <br />unclear just what the intended scope of this standard is. <br />• At § 6.31.8, the preamble refers to regulation of areas outside the vehicular <br />canopy under "section 6.31.5. Does this mean § 6.31.6? There are no <br />standards in 6.31.5, merely information submittal requirements. <br />• At § 6.31.8(e), there should be some standards for this variance approval by <br />the Planning Director. Perhaps general language such as "Other methods <br />approved by the Planning Director that meet the intent of this ordinance as <br />explained in § 6.31.1(B)" would suffice. <br />• At § 6.31.9(B), "their" is missing a 'T' <br />• At § 6.31.9(C), "one" is missing an "e ". <br />Again, the Commission commends staff for taking the time to create this <br />proposal, and is supportive in concept of the provisions. We would be willing to to <br />offer more technical suggestions in way of a brief report, based on a review of <br />other ordinances, which could be ready later in the spring, if this met the needs of <br />the Board in its process for review of the proposed ordinance. <br />Thank you for your consideration of these questions /issues. <br />Copies: Commission for the Environment <br />David Stancil, Environment and Resource Conservation Director <br />oR,e,NCE courrTY <br />2002 <br />NORTH CAROLINA <br />CELEBRATING 250 YEARS <br />