Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br />voted 7 to 2 on a motion to recommend approval of staff's proposal of increasing <br />the overall height limit on athletic field lights as contained within Section 6.11 (c). <br />The 2 dissenting members indicated they felt there should be no height limit and <br />wanted to delete the entire section. Board members indicated they felt existing <br />regulations were sufficient in curbing light trespass and that limiting the height of <br />athletic field lights was a solution in search of a problem. <br />The Board then voted unanimously to approve the amendment as proposed by <br />staff. <br />Please refer to Attachment 4 for additional information. <br />b. Advisory Boards: <br />c. Local Government Review: <br />d. Notice Requirements <br />Legal advertisement was published on November 4 and 11 in the Chapel Hill <br />Herald and on November 7 and 14 in the News of Orange. <br />e. Outreach: <br />❑ General Public: <br />❑ Small Area Plan Workgroup: <br />. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <br />® Other: Courtesy Review — DEAPR: <br />DEAPR staff would like the BOCC to consider increasing height <br />limits as shorter poles will not yield sufficient illumination of a playing <br />field without "excessive light spread" thereby potentially creating <br />safety issues within the lighted facility and avoiding unnecessary light <br />spill. <br />With the ability to direct light down rather than across by using taller <br />poles, there will be a better `spread' of light thereby ensuring <br />appropriate levels of visibility. <br />Requiring shorter poles will also require `more poles' to be installed <br />to ensure proper illumination, creating additional light spill concerns <br />as well as budaetary aroblems. <br />VA <br />