OCPB agenda 010913 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D R A F T 7 319 I would also note that I worked with Michael Harvey on these changes, and think they are acceptable. 320 321 Michael Harvey: Presented abstract for review. 322 323 Herman Staats: In this example was there light trespassing that could have been alleviated by aiming the lights or 324 shielding them, etc. 325 326 Michael Harvey: The lights were shielded because the permit was issued in compliance with this code and they 327 met all the applicable standards. If you are asking if the lights were taller, would it have addressed some of the 328 trespass issues, maybe. 329 330 Lisa Stuckey: If we recommend no height limit, would the language you have developed about trespass, etc. be 331 sufficient? 332 333 Michael Harvey: I would not have to amend this proposal other than to say the Planning Board is recommending 334 deletion of height limit standards beginning on page 61, B2B in its entirety. I honestly have a little discomfort with 335 that but you have the ability to recommend deletion of the existing height limits to the BOCC. 336 337 Lisa Stuckey: It doesn’t seem the height is the issue. The issue is the spread of the light. 338 339 Michael Harvey: Height can be an issue for lots of reasons. The overall height and angel of a light source 340 contributes to trespass. 341 342 Buddy Hartley: Would the 100 foot comply with the North Carolina High School Association. 343 344 Michael Harvey: 100 would be in line for what they recommend. Is it required, no. 345 346 Alan Campbell: The context with these heights in general, would this be typical with the special use permit at all or 347 permitted by right? 348 349 Michael Harvey: If you have a use requiring a special use permit and you choose or propose to erect outdoor lights 350 as part of the project, the light plan is reviewed and discussed at the time of permit review. In approving the 351 request the appropriate board would be, in effect, approving the erection of the lights as part of the overall 352 application. If the proposed land use is permitted by right then staff will be reviewing the request. There is no 353 standard in the ordinance, and I am certainly not advocating for this, requiring a special use permit solely for the 354 purpose of erecting outdoor lights or athletic field lights. It has been discussed previously at the elected official 355 level the need to examine land uses from the standpoint of urban versus rural intensities in an effort to identify the 356 appropriateness of a given land use for different areas of the County. There may be a need to investigate land 357 uses as a whole, as well as the accessory components of these various land uses, that would cause for a level of 358 intensity representing a more urbanesque amenity changing the overall impact of the land use on adjoining 359 properties. 360 361 Larry Wright: I would like to make a comment for Pete “My only comment here is that perhaps the best description of 362 the term “Initial Lumens” would be the lumens of output for a bulb as printed on the packaging for the bulb.” What is 363 he saying? 364 365 Michael Harvey: There was a comment by Lisa during the public hearing concerning the definition of lumens. Staff 366 indicated we basically used industry standard definitions focusing on initial lumens, which is what Pete is referring to. 367 I think what we have in the definition is adequate. 368 369 Larry Wright: What do we need to do? 370 371 11