Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
36 <br />1 4. Adjourn the public hearing until January 24, 2013 in order to receive and accept the <br />2 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments. <br />3 <br />4 Michael Harvey said that there was in -depth discussion when added height limits were <br />5 considered originally. There was an understanding that there might be some non - conformities <br />6 created that were legal at the time because there was not a height limit until two years ago. He <br />7 thinks that the height limit should be reexamined and increased. <br />8 Andrea Rohrbacher returned at 8:04 PM. <br />9 Commissioner Jacobs said that he respects the DEAPR staff analysis of the heights, but a <br />10 simple way to eliminate the subject would be to consult several neighboring jurisdictions about <br />11 lighting standards. He suggested looking at Durham and Chapel Hill's lighting standards to see <br />12 if there is some consistency. He suggested that if and when the Board approves whatever it is <br />13 going to approve, that staff communicate to the power companies that when bare bulb security <br />14 lights are replaced that the County ordinances will encourage shielded fixtures. <br />15 Commissioner Gordon made reference to pages 59 -60. She said that she would be hesitant <br />16 to increase the pole height. She is concerned about the rural areas. She would like to see <br />17 more empirical evidence. <br />18 Lisa Stuckey made reference to page 69 and the initial lumen. She asked why the light level <br />19 after it is warmed up would not be used. <br />20 Michael Harvey said that the initial lumen is an industry standard. <br />21 There was no public comment. <br />22 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to refer <br />23 the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the <br />24 BOCC in time for the January 24, 2013 BOCC regular meeting and adjourn the public hearing <br />25 until January 24, 2013 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and <br />26 any submitted written comments. <br />27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br />28 <br />29 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment(s) - To revie overnment- <br />30 1 ' ' ted amendments to the text of the UDO in order to make minor c ges that have <br />31 been s ested by the County's code vendor (MuniCode) as a r It of MuniCode's <br />32 legal review. <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 Perdita Holtz introduced this ite d made a P erPoint presentation. <br />36 <br />37 Commissioner Foushee left at 8:14 P <br />38 <br />39 Maxicene Mitchel left at 8: M. <br />40 <br />41 Unified Developme rdinance Text Amendments <br />42 Resulting froll uniCode's Legal Review <br />43 Quarterly lic Hearing <br />44 Nove er 19, 2012 <br />