Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 16,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 8. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT TO 8-1 DEFINITIONS REGARDING <br /> RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING <br /> Barnhart noted at its October meeting, the Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare two ordinances, <br /> one to address living walls and the second to address lighting issues. The Commission tabled action on <br /> the lighting issue to allow additional time for research and investigation. The living walls portion was <br /> forwarded to the City Council for review and consideration. <br /> The Planning Commission and City Council recently identified the review of dark skies regulations for <br /> possible implementation as its second highest priority. <br /> Barnhart stated the biggest challenge with a regulatory approach is to differentiate between "visible light" <br /> and"nuisance light." Living in a city, neighbors' lights will be visible and may even appear bright. The <br /> proposed regulatory solution establishes measurable 1.0 foot candle lighting at the principal structure as a <br /> nuisance and may be corrected through means offered in the Code, including citations. <br /> The proposed ordinance also alters the existing text regarding"glare or heat"to a more specific"lighting" <br /> and offers a definition and general requirements for the use of lighting. The ordinance also requires light <br /> fixtures in the lake yard to be fully shielded, which is a newly defined term. Existing lighting is a <br /> permitted, non-conforming improvement, and would be grandfathered unless it falls within the definition <br /> of a nuisance. New lighting would need to meet the requirements of the city code. <br /> Leskinen stated she could not obtain a 1.0 foot candle unless she stood directly under the light. Leskinen <br /> stated she stood under her security light and it was a 0.4. Leskinen indicated she also stood in her front <br /> yard 200 feet from the intersection of Sixth and Willow where there is a street light and it was 0.4 even <br /> though it lights up half her yard. Leskinen stated in her opinion a 1.0 candle would be very bright. <br /> Barnhart stated the further from the source,the light drops off quickly as it relates to measurement. <br /> Barnhart stated a person can still see the lights and it may annoy them, but the question is whether it is <br /> truly a nuisance. Barnhart stated a streetlight could shine into his bedroom but that it would not be <br /> classified as a nuisance since that implies intentional harm. <br /> Thiesse stated in his view a nuisance is not always intentional harm and can be unintentional as well. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it takes almost nothing to see a very faint light in your room and that the question <br /> becomes whether it is expected or not. Schoenzeit stated the pictures that he brought show some <br /> examples of lights and that the measurement cutoffs were not hitting the numerical threshold at all for a <br /> nuisance but yet they may trigger a response from somebody. Schoenzeit stated people are also much <br /> more sensitive to light at night than they are during the day. <br /> Leskinen commented LED lights appear so much brighter than other lights. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the LED lights are oftentimes more point sourced and do not dispense directionally as <br /> candescent lights do. <br /> Gaffron stated the number of foot candles does not matter as much as the fact that they are visible from <br /> far away and aimed at you. <br /> Page 24 of 29 <br />