Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
7 <br /> Recently erected athletic field lights shine into our residence creating a disturbance. <br /> There have been occasions when the lights were on after 9 p.m. and we were told that they <br /> are entitled to be on until 11 p.m. or later, if a game is in progress. Recent activities at the <br /> church are extremely noisy and negatively impact our ability to make reasonable use of our <br /> property. <br /> We requested action by county staff in the early part of September to investigate the <br /> situation and determine how to address our concerns. We talked with the zoning enforcement <br /> office and received information that steps were being taken to address identified violations. <br /> We appreciate the action taken to address our specific situation but request that the County <br /> Board of Commissioners consider the appropriate use of rural areas and the impact of urban <br /> scale building, regardless of use, on the neighbors at large. <br /> Through this presentation, I request that the Board of County Commissioners begin to <br /> investigate the following to address my concerns: <br /> 1) I would like the Board of County Commissioners to direct the appropriate County <br /> staff person to begin the process of reevaluating the viability of the existing lighting <br /> regulations, as detailed within Section 6.31 of the Zoning Ordinance focusing on the <br /> following: <br /> a. The appropriateness of allowing for athletic field lights to be erected in rural <br /> areas of the County, <br /> b. The appropriateness of allowing for these types of lights to be on until 11:00 <br /> p.m. in rural portions of the County where they could impact farming <br /> operations and diminish the quiet enjoyment of homeowners' property. <br /> c. The appropriateness of the existing standards. While I understand that <br /> these regulations were recently amended, I do not believe that sufficient <br /> attention was paid when drafting these regulations to address the total <br /> amount of acceptable outdoor lighting for properties within the County nor <br /> do I believe that there was sufficient attention paid to the need to distinguish <br /> acceptable level of lighting between the urban and rural areas of the County. <br /> It is my hope that there could be some report on this matter by the end of the year. <br /> 2) I would like the Board of County Commissioners to direct appropriate County staff <br /> person to begin the process of evaluating the acceptable levels of development for <br /> churches within the County to determine what are truly acceptable accessory uses. <br /> In my opinion, ball fields with lights and bleachers or other similar recreational <br /> amenities are not appropriate, especially in a rural setting. <br /> 3) I would like this review to include acceptable time frames, both hours and days, for <br /> lights and noise generated by use of the ball field given that it is located in a rural <br /> farm setting." <br /> Chair Jacobs said that this matter would be referred to staff. He said that he also <br /> received her letter and will let her know of any action steps taken. <br /> Amy Jeroloman was representing Orange County Voice, which is a group of concerned <br /> County residents who are united against the University's regional airport project. She said that <br /> Orange County Voice would like to acknowledge and support the Preserve Rural Orange <br /> efforts to oppose Site H in the southwest Orange County area. Additionally, Orange County <br /> Voice is mounting a countywide opposition to the airport and any of the sites mentioned in the <br /> Talbert & Bright report. As it is currently defined, the Airport Authority's membership is stacked <br /> against Orange County representation. Orange County Voice sent letters to Chancellor Thorp <br />