Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
37 <br />1 4. djourn the public hearing until January 24, 2013 in order to receive and accep he <br />2 P nning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. <br />3 <br />4 Michael Harve aid that there was in -depth discussion when added h 'ght limits were <br />5 considered originally. N\t,n n understanding that there might be me non - conformities <br />6 created that were legbecause there was not a height Iii until two years ago. He <br />7 thinks that the height e reexamined and increased. <br />8 Andrea Rohrbach 8:04 PM. <br />9 Commissioner Jae respects the DEAP staff analysis of the heights, but a <br />10 simple way to eliminate the subject Id be to consult veral neighboring jurisdictions about <br />11 lighting standards. He suggested lokin t Durham nd Chapel Hill's lighting standards to see <br />12 if there is some consistency. He suggeste at if nd when the Board approves whatever it is <br />13 going to approve, that staff communicate to th ower companies that when bare bulb security <br />14 lights are replaced that the County ordinance wi encourage shielded fixtures. <br />15 Commissioner Gordon made referen to pages -60. She said that she would be hesitant <br />16 to increase the pole height. She is co erned about the ral areas. She would like to see <br />17 more empirical evidence. <br />18 Lisa Stuckey made referenc to page 69 and the initial lum She asked why the light level <br />19 after it is warmed up would n be used. <br />20 Michael Harvey said at the initial lumen is an industry standard. <br />21 There was no pu �c comment. <br />22 A motion was ade by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissione Yuhasz to refer <br />23 /Smitted Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be return to the <br />24 or the January 24, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the pub ' hearing <br />25 4, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommen tion and <br />26 written comments. <br />27 MOUS <br />28 <br />29 3. Unified De velopment Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment(s) - To review government - <br />30 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO in order to make minor changes that have <br />31 been suggested by the County's code vendor (MuniCode) as a result of MuniCode's <br />32 legal review. <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 Perdita Holtz introduced this item and made a PowerPoint presentation. <br />36 <br />37 Commissioner Foushee left at 8:14 PM. <br />38 <br />39 Maxicene Mitchel left at 8:14 PM. <br />40 <br />41 Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments <br />42 Resulting from MuniCode's Legal Review <br />43 Quarterly Public Hearing <br />44 November 19, 2012 <br />