Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
39 <br />Alan Campbell: I didn't pick up that much negative sentiment from the BOCC at the meeting. I like what is being <br />proposed because it needs to address things we already have in place that aren't meeting the requirements. Also, I <br />believe in and agree that the notion of having a higher pole with more direct light will decrease trespass. <br />Lisa Stuckey: I would suggest we delete on page 61, c2b, the whole maximum height issue because I think it is <br />addressing the wrong issue. <br />Alan Campbell: I don't think you will get that approved. I'm all about getting something approved. <br />Lisa Stuckey: Should we do what we think they will do or what we think is right? <br />Alan Campbell: I don't want to see it bounced around for another year. <br />Tony Blake: 100 or 90 feet from ground? <br />Michael Harvey: It is intended to be from grade.... <br />Johnny Randall: Is 100 feet high enough? <br />Michael Harvey: I believe so. We haven't had a height limit until two years ago so you aren't going to see anything <br />consistent with this height limit. <br />Tony Blake: It's not really 100 feet in relation to the grade of the person that might complain. It is 100 feet from <br />whatever the topography of the land is. I don't see how this is a consistent application. <br />Larry Wright: I would like to ask the question regarding Lisa's statement. <br />100 feet does not address the issue. Let's say you have the 100 feet limit. <br />question? <br />Lisa Stuckey: The issue is light trespass. <br />Larry Wright: What in here takes care of the issue? <br />I would like to hear the argument that the <br />What do we have that addresses the <br />Michael Harvey: You still have to comply with the minimum foot candle at property line which we reduced three <br />years ago. You still have other standards in here. <br />Larry Wright: Can I have a motion? <br />Herman Staats: I also agree that if the light trespass is addressed by the lumens, height is a separate issue that may <br />or may not be related but I also agree that since this is there that the height is increased that is somewhat of a <br />compromise. <br />Michael Harvey: This talks about outdoor sports fields, outdoor performance lighting. <br />Buddy Hartley: I agree that the 100 foot is for that purpose. <br />Alan Campbell: I know we didn't have a height restriction until a few years ago but during the daytime, I don't want to <br />see a 200 foot whatever you could do right down the road from my house so I factor that in. <br />Johnny Randall: The number of lumens, the brightness of the bulb, has to be greater with a higher pole, right? <br />Michael Harvey: Not necessarily. The problem is that when you have a smaller pole, the light has to be at a much <br />greater angle to spread on the property or you have to install potentially a higher spread. <br />