Browse
Search
Agenda - 01-24-2013 - 6d
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2013
>
Agenda - 01-24-2013 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 01-24-2013 - 6d
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2015 3:52:58 PM
Creation date
1/18/2013 3:02:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/24/2013
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6d
Document Relationships
Minutes 01-24-2013
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2013
ORD-2013-004 Ordinance Amending the OC UDO - Outdoor Lighting (UDO/Zoning 2012-14)
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Ordinances\Ordinance 2010-2019\2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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
Article 6: Development Standards 17 <br />Section 6.11: Outdoor Lighting <br />on property as it existed on January 24, 2012 with respect to determining compliance <br />with this provision. <br />{C)LDLIn the event of a conflict between the outdoor lighting standards contained herein and any <br />other section of this Ordinance, the more stringent requirement shall apply. <br />6.11.3 Exemptions <br />The following are exempt from the provisions of the outdoor lighting standards contained herein, <br />but shall be implemented in a manner consistent with the overall purpose and intent of this <br />Section: <br />(A) Single- family and duplex residential development on individual lots with the exception of <br />the installation of MersuF�,-metal vapor luminaries, including mercury and sodium vapor <br />luminaries, which +s-are prohibited per Section 6.11.4. <br />(B) All outdoor lighting lawfully installed prior to the effective date of the outdoor lighting <br />standards contained herein, except the replacement of mercury or sodium vapor <br />luminaires. Mercury and sodium vapor luminaires, °"^°p+ f °r °;n^'°- f °m;'„ r°Sid °n^°8 <br />8must be replaced in conformity with the Outdoor Lighting Standards upon the earlier <br />occurrence of the replacement of the fixture or the lamp. <br />(C) Any outdoor lighting, including mercury vapor, used for an individual single - family <br />residence, where the residence is constructed as of the effective date of the outdoor <br />lighting standards contained herein. <br />(D) Bona fide agricultural uses. <br />(E) Traffic control signals and devices. <br />(F) Temporary emergency lighting (i.e. fire, police, repair workers, highway maintenance and <br />construction, etc.). <br />(G) Moving vehicle lights. <br />(H) Navigation lights (i.e. airports, heliports, radio /television towers, communication towers, <br />etc.) as required by local, State, and Federal agencies for public safety purposes. <br />(1) Celebratory lighting for seasonal and HG44ay holiday observances dessratispi; using <br />typical unshielded low- wattage ^ ^ ^ ^�' ° ° ^ °^ +lights, which are in place no longer than 60 <br />days generating no more than 150 lumens. 9 <br />(J) Security lights that are controlled by a motion - sensor switch, which do not remain on <br />longer than 12 minutes after activation, and do not exceed 159 watts (22 1800 lumens3 <br />per individual light fixture.10 <br />6 The green text was added to address a concern expressed at the November 19, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing on <br />how the improvement would be calculated, specifically on a cumulative basis or on an individual permit basis. Staff <br />is recommending a cumulative method of measurement as a property owner could propose modifications over a <br />prolonged period of time, over separate permits, and not be required to bring lighting fixtures into compliance with <br />the UDO. <br />'At the ORC meeting of the Planning Board on September 5, 2012 members suggested expanding the prohibition. <br />Mr. Hallenbeck suggested there is virtually no difference between a sodium vapor or mercury vapor with respect to <br />the generated light. If you ban one form you should ban all forms to be consistent. <br />' Modification of existing language consistent with ORC recommendation. <br />9 As recommended at the October 7, 2009 Planning Board meeting. The term incandescent was removed to address <br />a Planning Board member concern that current wording would technically prevent the use of LED lights for holiday <br />decorations. <br />10 As our regulations make specific reference to initial lumen output, it does not make sense to provide a regulatory <br />standard based on the `watt' of a bulb. This was suggested at the September 5, 2012 ORC meeting. <br />Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -68 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.