Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Because the UDO has been amended since these comments were made, referenced sections may be slightly off as some portions of the UDO have been <br />renumbered. <br />14 <br />Implementation Bridge - Future Phase Suggestions Planning Staff Comment <br />42. <br />Need to update Lighting Standards. Height requirements for <br />outdoor light poles and potential impacts on County recreational <br />facilities is one of the areas that should be revisited. <br />This issue was addressed in a UDO text amendment pertaining to <br />Outdoor Lighting (adopted Jan. 24, 2013). <br />43. <br />In the section concerning golf courses, Pollutant Monitoring <br />Program, I would suggest some thought be given to the locations <br />of the sampling stations for surface water, groundwater and <br />sediment. Perhaps the intent is to establish upgradient sampling <br />locations as well as sampling locations down-gradient of some <br />potentially contaminating source or specific location?? I think this <br />section needs a bit of discussion as to what the objective is. In <br />addition, under (3) Parameters for Sample Testing- I think that <br />some description of approved analytical methods and minimum <br />detection limits would be helpful. I am not familiar with the EPA <br />HAL thresholds described in this section but I would be willing to <br />look into this. There are various NC soil, water and groundwater <br />limits that may be worth considering for this section. [staff note: <br />this is in 5.7.3(G)] <br />There could be a policy or separate criteria governing locations. It should <br />not become part of the UDO. One main issue is that the criteria could <br />change from watershed to watershed, issue to issue. There really is no <br />universal governing standard. <br />44. <br />5(b) of this section- Management Response to Pollutant <br />Monitoring- I would recommend that the responsible party also be <br />required to contact appropriate state regulatory officials if <br />thresholds are exceeded, not just OC do so. I also recommend that <br />the phrase "for thresholds" be removed from this sentence -- <br />Section 5.5. [staff note: this is now Section 5.7.3(G)(5)(b)] <br />45. <br />Compare Durham’s ordinance requirements for environmental <br />review of subdivisions with Orange County’s environmental review <br />process. <br /> 93