Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
910 approved and issues and is operating in accordance with the imposed conditions and all the applicable <br />911 areas of the Unified Development Ordinance as it stands today. <br />912 <br />913 Chairwoman Cabe: Does the board have any further questions for Mr. Harvey? Are there any other <br />914 individuals that would like to speak either in support of the application or in opposition to the application or, <br />915 as Mr. Manship did, address any gray areas? Does the Board have any questions for staff, the attorneys, or <br />916 the applicant before we close the public hearing? <br />917 <br />918 Karen Barrows: I have a question..... is Dillon's concern something we need to address? Page 3 of the <br />919 January 4 ... very last sentence ... the noise regulations .. is this a UDO requirement? <br />920 <br />921 Michael Harvey: The noise ordinance is not in the UDO. It is in the County code of ordinances, chapter 16. <br />922 The noise ordinance establishes maximum decibel levels for various land uses, hours of operation, etc. <br />923 with the emphasis of ensuring during late night hours the decibel levels are reduced appropriately to ensure <br />924 there is no disturbance to adjacent property owners. The problem I have is that when I read the summary <br />925 there is no specific detail on the hours of operation, the setback distance from where measurements were <br />926 taken from, there is no specifity as to what Stewart Acoustical was testing to namely what decibel limit at <br />927 what distance from what point .... <br />928 <br />929 Neese - Brown: If I can speak to Ms. Barrows question, the issue is that Stewart Acoustical was testing from <br />930 the source of noise and moving out from there. The report indicates that once you get to the measurement <br />931 point established by County regulations the level of noise will be in full compliance with applicable <br />932 standards. Sound traveling from DJ's or sound generated on the property will not be any louder that street <br />933 traffic and will not impede activities at the Barn of Chapel Hill. <br />934 <br />935 Unintelligible conversation (s). <br />936 <br />937 Randy Herman: Is it the applicant's positon that a limit on outdoor performances is unacceptable? <br />938 <br />939 Neese - Brown: It is the applicant's position is that this site is different from other sites and there is no need <br />940 to impose a similar noise condition as was imposed on the Barn of Chapel Hill. In this instance the Board <br />941 saw fit to impose a noise standard to address neighbor's concerns, who are in closer proximity to the <br />942 property and structure to address concerns over the promotion of the public's health, welfare, and safety. <br />943 In this specific case the applicant has submitted documentation demonstrating the project will comply with <br />944 applicable County noise standards and will protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of <br />945 surrounding property owners. This means no additional condition above and beyond simple compliance <br />946 with existing regulations if warranted. The applicant can work within the confines of existing regulations. <br />947 <br />948 Dillon Manship: Can I make another statement? <br />949 <br />950 Chairwoman Cabe: What is it would you like to say? We welcome you to speak but if it is something we <br />951 have already heard I believe we already have it in the record and am not sure if it needs to be repeated. <br />952 <br />953 Dillon Manship: I want this permit to be approved, I want them as neighbors. I just think they should be <br />954 held to the same standards as other retreat centers. <br />955 <br />956 Chairwoman Cabe: Thank you. Now I would ask staff to review the staff recommendation on this permit <br />957 request. <br />28 <br />