Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
D R A F T <br />9 <br /> 425 <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 426 <br />see a 200 foot whatever you could do right down the road from my house so I factor that in. 427 <br /> 428 <br />Johnny Randall: The number of lumens, the brightness of the bulb, has to be greater with a higher pole, right? 429 <br /> 430 <br />Michael Harvey: Not necessarily. The problem is that when you have a smaller pole, the light has to be at a much 431 <br />greater angle to spread on the property or you have to install potentially a higher spread. 432 <br /> 433 MOTION by Alan Campbell to approve the height recommended by staff. 434 <br />Seconded by Buddy Hartley 435 VOTE: Passed (7-2; Stuckey, Blake opposed) 436 <br /> 437 <br />Larry Wright: Dissenting opinions please. 438 <br /> 439 <br />Lisa Stuckey: I would have no limit. I think other language concerning the spread of light is sufficient and I can 440 <br />foresee the same issues arising but I get what Alan is saying as well. It seems the spread issue is more of a problem 441 <br />that the height issue. I think the real issue is whether the use would be permitted in the areas at all. 442 <br /> 443 <br />Tony Blake: I agree with Lisa and given the topography differences, 100 feet isn’t necessarily 100 feet given where it 444 <br />might be located. I think it is a solution in search of a problem. 445 <br /> 446 <br />Larry Wright: Dissenting opinions are very important and I thank each of you very much. 447 <br /> 448 MOTION by Johnny Randall to approve as submitted. 449 <br />Seconded by Buddy Hartley. 450 VOTE: Unanimous 451 <br /> 452 <br /> 453 Agenda Item 9: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment(s) - To make a 454 <br />recommendation to the BOCC on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO in 455 <br />order to make minor changes that have been suggested by the County’s code vendor 456 <br />(MuniCode) as a result of MuniCode’s legal review. This item was heard at the November 19, 457 <br />2013 quarterly public hearing 458 <br /> Presenter: Supervisor Perdita Holtz, Special Projects Coordinator 459 <br /> 460 <br />Perdita Holtz: Reviewed Abstract 461 <br /> 462 Motion made by Lisa Stuckey to approve staff’s recommendation to approve the UDO amendments contained in the 463 <br />attachment. 464 <br />Seconded by Alan Campbell 465 Vote: Unanimous 466 <br /> 467 <br /> 468 AGENDA ITEM 10: COMMITTEE/ADVISORY BOARD REPORTS 469 <br /> 470 <br />a) Board of Adjustment 471 <br /> 472 <br />Dawn Brezina: We had a meeting last month that went very smoothly. 473 <br /> 474 <br />Larry Wright: It was a very difficult meeting. It was essentially that UNC has an animal facility in the Bingham 475 <br />Township and the waste treatment failed and they were pumping it out so we heard the case it was complicated but 476 <br />13