Agenda - 01-24-2013 - 6d - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Michael Harvey: The lights were shielded because the permit was issued in compliance with this code and they met all the applicable standards. If you are asking if the lights were taller, would it have addressed some of the trespass issues, maybe. Lisa Stuckey: If we recommend no height limit, would the language you have developed about trespass, etc. be sufficient? Michael Harvey: I would not have to amend this proposal other than to say the Planning Board is recommending deletion of height limit standards beginning on page 61, 13213 in its entirety. I honestly have a little discomfort with that but you have the ability to recommend deletion of the existing height limits to the BOCC. Lisa Stuckey: It doesn't seem the height is the issue. The issue is the spread of the light. Michael Harvey: Height can be an issue for lots of reasons. The overall height and angel of a light source contributes to trespass. Buddy Hartley: Would the 100 foot comply with the North Carolina High School Association. Michael Harvey: 100 would be in line for what they recommend. Is it required, no. Alan Campbell: The context with these heights in general, would this be typical with the special use permit at all or permitted by right? Michael Harvey: If you have a use requiring a special use permit and you choose or propose to erect outdoor lights as part of the project, the light plan is reviewed and discussed at the time of permit review. In approving the request the appropriate board would be, in effect, approving the erection of the lights as part of the overall application. If the proposed land use is permitted by right then staff will be reviewing the request. There is no standard in the ordinance, and I am certainly not advocating for this, requiring a special use permit solely for the purpose of erecting outdoor lights or athletic field lights. It has been discussed previously at the elected official level the need to examine land uses from the standpoint of urban versus rural intensities in an effort to identify the appropriateness of a given land use for different areas of the County. There may be a need to investigate land uses as a whole, as well as the accessory components of these various land uses, that would cause for a level of intensity representing a more urbanesque amenity changing the overall impact of the land use on adjoining properties. Larry Wright: I would like to make a comment for Pete "My only comment here is that perhaps the best description of the term "Initial Lumens" would be the lumens of output for a bulb as printed on the packaging for the bulb." What is he saying? Michael Harvey: There was a comment by Lisa during the public hearing concerning the definition of lumens. Staff indicated we basically used industry standard definitions focusing on initial lumens, which is what Pete is referring to. I think what we have in the definition is adequate. Larry Wright: What do we need to do? Michael Harvey: I would like to make a recommendation on the package. There are two areas we have discussed. We have added some language to clarify when you have to make improvements to light fixtures, 6.11.2c. We also need comments on the athletic field light issue and if the motion is to approve staffs recommendation we need you to explain your rationale on why increasing the height of athletic field is reasonable or make a motion to modify what staff has written to propose your own height limit or even delete it in its entirety. Larry Wright: What are the feelings regarding height? 2 W