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 (continued) <br /> Gaffron noted some residents who lived on the south of Stubbs Bay could see lights from the north side of <br /> Stubbs Bay and they were a nuisance to the people on the north side of the bay. Gaffron stated if you <br /> tried to meter those lights from the south, it would probably get no reading at all, and that he is not sure <br /> how to deal with that. <br /> Thiesse stated that would be a shielded source. <br /> Leskinen asked if there is any language that could somehow address the direction of the light. <br /> Gaffron stated a person does not see the source of the light but rather what is being lit by it. <br /> Leskinen asked if the City already has something to address that. <br /> Gaffron stated the City has one sentence in their Code. <br /> Barnhart stated that is the type of language that could be incorporated into a more global lighting <br /> ordinance. Barnhart stated currently the City's light ordinance regulates for residential properties the heat <br /> and glare, which does not provide much guidance, especially when you can see the light source half a <br /> mile to two miles away. Barnhart stated the goal is to try to write an ordinance that can be enforced. <br /> Landgraver asked if a 1.0 foot candle would cover the complaints the City has received. <br /> Barnhart stated existing lights would be allowed to continue even if they are annoying. Currently the City <br /> has no regulations on existing lights, and if the rules are changed,they would be allowed to continue. The <br /> ordinance talks about setbacks and maximum intensity at the property line. The first page of the <br /> ordinance talks about a nuisance and a 1.0 foot candle. Those would be allowed to continue,but if it is <br /> above that 1.0 foot candle,then the City can address it as a nuisance issue. <br /> Schoenzeit stated another type of light that is not listed is the public safety light. Schoenzeit noted there <br /> is a house that is past the North Arm boat launch that has a spotlight that temporarily blinds you as you go <br /> by, but in his view that house will not trigger the 1.0 foot candle even though it is annoying at night. <br /> Leskinen asked if that is what Item 2A is intended to address. <br /> Barnhart indicated it is and that public safety lights have a higher level of foot candles. <br /> Leskinen noted Item No. A4 states that outdoor light fixtures, when placed within the lake yard, shall be <br /> fully shielded. Leskinen questioned whether that should be limited just to the lakeshore. <br /> Barnhart stated that is how it is written currently, and that the idea is that Orono has prided itself on dark <br /> skies near the lake. Barnhart stated he is also recognizing that lights can be a desired amenity near the <br /> lake and that he is attempting to allow someone's dock to be lit but not overly so. <br /> Thiesse questioned whether bulbs that are 150 watts or greater should be shielded. <br /> Page 25 of 29 <br />