Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
7 <br />Eddleman's concern voice at the public hearing, <br />he had called Orange County Recreation and Parks <br />Department for information. They suggested that <br />a John Daly Associates in Raleigh be contacted <br />for information. The information received did <br />u an es. Kirk then ot address driving spoke with, ranges. P <br />Jim Clark, representative of that company, and he <br />indicated there could be lighting which would not <br />affect adjoining properties. However, Kirk <br />indicated he felt this was a typical response. <br />Eidenier referenced an article that had been <br />included in a previous agenda about the effects <br />of lights on the general atmosphere. She noted <br />that.the article indicated it is possible to put <br />caps on the lights so that they would not light <br />up the overhead sky. Eddleman stated the lights, <br />he had seen for driving ranges cast light upward <br />and to all surrounding area. Eidenier continued <br />expressing concern that noise was not addressed. <br />Burklin expressed concern with the lack of <br />screening. <br />Kirk responded that the Board could require a <br />75 -foot buf fer which would be a Type E buffer.- r <br />- Discussion ...followed re ardin allowin the use <br />,. <br />onl during daylight hours. Waddell stated that <br />if the proposed' driving range was in a different, <br />zoning area, not residential, lighting would be <br />= perfectly adequate... <br />_ Kirk continued that the ordinance requires a 200' <br />:. - <br />yard wide area on the driving range, 350 yards <br />from the tee. This was taken from the Durham <br />County and Winston -Salem /Forsyth ordinances. He, <br />noted that the information from the National <br />Parks and Recreation Association recommended 690 <br />feet which is 230 yards. He indicated the Board' <br />= could change the width requirement from 200 yard's <br />to 230 yards., Jobsis asked Kirk if he felt the <br />x 200 yard width was sufficient and Kirk responded' <br />..: <br />yes. <br />.... ,.s,.�:.. <br />secondary concern with increased..i_... <br />a� - --�. de�ier' and .. ..,. , <br />Ei ed that her concern was with'`the -.� : -.��, = • •-- <br />1'igh ' ng a s ary <br />traffic_ <br />.. _._..:._ .. PP proposed <br />refers en <br />MOTION.. Burklin moved approval of the ro osed amendment <br />with the deletion of 8.8.6.2 f) which to <br />lighting and amend 8.8.6.2 g) to read: service <br />s a be halted at dusk. LigjLt-incr of the driving <br />and r ctic ra e i not a 'tted. Seconded by <br />Boland. <br />