Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
such a request in the past, but it is a requirement. She would consult with the County Attorney <br />before giving this type of information. <br />Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 13 and said that the waiting period <br />has been completely eliminated. She asked why there was not some waiting period. Elaine <br />Holmes said that they eliminated this because of the Americans with Disabilities Act that the <br />County cannot create a barrier to employment because of past alcoholism or drug abuse. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis <br />to adopt the draft policy with a July 1, 2003 effective date. <br />VOTE:; UNANIMOUS <br />c. Outdoor Liclhtinc~ Standards <br />The Board considered closing the Public Hearing and making a decision regarding <br />the adoption of the Outdoor Lighting Standards amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. <br />Planning Director Craig Benedict said that this amendment would enable the County <br />to have standards far new development for lighting in the County. There were many comments <br />at the public hearing. There were three areas that were difficult to consider in the administration <br />recommendation. These areas had to do with requiring amortization for existing single-family <br />homes; holiday decorations (Planning Board recommends setting time limits on holiday lights); <br />and another amortization system for existing commercial, industrial, churches, and <br />governmental buildings. They propose not having it in the ordinance at this time, but just <br />beginning a public education campaign for residential and non-residential existing properties to <br />discuss the benefits of changing the lights out over a period of time. <br />Craig Benedict said that Duke Power requested that the County not prohibit mercury <br />vapor lights, but it is still recommended to be prohibited because it is the least energy- <br />conserving fixture. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked that governmental flags be defined. <br />Commissioner Jacobs referred to the issue that is addressed in 6.31.11 and said that <br />he thinks there should be some statement regarding unnecessary lighting that is not due to <br />security and that this should be discouraged. If the point is to bring attention to the building, it is <br />wasteful. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that he understands not wanting to get into the single- <br />family retrofitting business, but he would still like to have a conversation with the power <br />companies where we do encourage the power companies to work with people to put in shielded <br />lighting. Craig Benedict said that they have pursued this and they are getting favorable <br />response from the power companies. <br />Commissioner Gordan made reference to page 7, applicability, and that item B says <br />that all outdoor lighting fixtures are to be amortized within 10 years. Craig Benedict said that <br />item B should have been pulled out. <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked where subdivision signs were regulated in the <br />document. Craig Benedict pointed out page 9 under general standards. <br />Commissioner Jacobs said that he is concerned that it is not really addressed <br />specifically. Geof Gledhill said it could be a condition of approval to not permit lighted signs in <br />subdivisions as part of the subdivision review process. <br />Craig Benedict answered several clarifying questions. <br />In answer to a question from Chair Brown, Geof Gledhill said that new lighting <br />fixtures on existing homes after this ordinance is adopted would have to comply with these <br />requirements. <br />Commissioner Halkiotis asked who is going to police this and Geof Gledhill said that <br />it will be caught or not in the building permitting process. <br />Commissioner Gordon said that the staff should look this over again just to be sure <br />that nothing was left out or kept in that should have been left out. <br />