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 /> Landgraver stated a person could have an LED light that has very few watts. Landgraver stated he would <br /> prefer not to bundle this with the dark skies ordinance and that he would rather bring this to the City <br /> Council. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if the goal is to have a light cross the nuisance threshold at 1.0 foot candles, it will <br /> probably not stop it. Schoenzeit stated this photograph is depicting a light 22 feet up in the air, but unless <br /> someone was on the 10-foot setback lot with the strobe being pointed at the neighbor's light on the house, <br /> that light will not create enough foot candles to be considered a nuisance. The next photograph is an <br /> example of a neighboring light that shines in the bedroom. Schoenzeit stated if someone does not close <br /> their curtains, even though the distance is 82 feet and barely registers on the light meter,the amount of <br /> illumination inside the room at night is quite bright but would not cross the threshold of one foot candle. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if the City is looking to find some percentage of lights that cross that 1.0 foot candle <br /> threshold, it is unlikely it will happen. <br /> Leskinen asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit would consider the light depicted in the last photograph a <br /> nuisance even if it aimed straight down. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he would. Schoenzeit stated the goal is to allow that person to have lighting on their <br /> property but not spread to the neighbor's property. Schoenzeit stated numerically that light barely <br /> registers at the property line but that it would be a nuisance to the person living next door. <br /> Thiesse stated perhaps the solution is to lower the foot candle. <br /> Landgraver stated in his view the key is to shield the light source. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if the City is looking at being effective, a numerical value is not going to bring relief. <br /> Thiesse stated the light can either be shielded or the number has to be lowered. <br /> Landgraver stated it is important to have a maximum foot candle so there is a quantifiable number when <br /> enforcing it. <br /> Schoenzeit stated even if you are standing underneath a streetlight, it will not be over 1.0 foot candle, and <br /> that he was attempting to show that the 1.0 foot candle is a very high threshold. <br /> Landgraver stated it appears the consensus is that the light should be shielded, but for those who do not <br /> want to shield their lights,there needs to be another mechanism to deal with it. <br /> Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission should make a recommendation for the purposes of what is <br /> before them tonight. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he was trying to show with the photographs that the ordinance is not going to have the <br /> desired effect of having any annoying lights defined as a nuisance because the foot candle number is too <br /> high. Schoenzeit stated the City should either lower it or require shielding. <br /> Page 26 of 29 <br />