Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-27-2012 - C3
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2012
>
Agenda - 08-27-2012 - Quarterly Public Hearing
>
Agenda - 08-27-2012 - C3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/9/2015 3:28:42 PM
Creation date
8/21/2012 4:27:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/27/2012
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
C3
Document Relationships
Minutes 08-27-2012
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
C.PROCESS <br />1.TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES <br />a.BOCC Authorization to Proceed <br />April 3, 2012 <br />b.Quarterly Public Hearing <br />August 27, 2012 <br />c.BOCC Updates/Checkpoints <br />June 2012 –Approval of legal ad <br />November 20, 2012 –receive Planning Board recommendation <br />d.Other <br /> <br />2.PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM <br />Mission/Scope: <br />Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and <br />Orange County ordinance requirements <br />a.Planning Board Review: <br />July 11, 2012 –Ordinance Review Committee(ORC). <br />The ORC met on July 11, 2012 to review this item. A summary of the comments <br />made during the meeting is as follows: <br />1.The proposed amendment should include language requiring detailed <br />information on the location of battery storage areas for a solar array to <br />ensure local fire departments and emergency responders are aware <br />where they are when responding to an emergency. <br />Staff Comment: Suggestion was incorporated. <br />2.A question was posed if existing language was too nebulous with <br />respect to what constitutes glare. <br />Staff Comment: There is an existing definition of ‘glare’ within Article 10 <br />of the UDO that will be modified as part of this amendment proposal to <br />address the concern.The modification will add language related to the <br />reflection of light from an array or a glass surface as well as a lighting <br />source. <br />3.A question was asked if the proposed 15 foot height limit was <br />reasonable. <br />Staff Comment: Both staff and Planning Board member Pete <br />4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.