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 /> Barnhart stated his goal is not to catch nuisances but to differentiate between the normal residential <br /> neighborhood that has lights that someone can see versus the lights that are shining onto the neighboring <br /> property. Barnhart noted the width of lots throughout the City vary, which is another challenge to writing <br /> a lighting ordinance. The earlier drafts had .4 as the bar for nuisance. Barnhart stated he did not want to <br /> create every property owner as a nuisance, which was why it was raised. Barnhart stated somewhere <br /> between .4 and 1.0 is an appropriate number. <br /> Barnhart stated he is going to suggest to the City Council that they use the light meter to understand their <br /> neighborhood and the impacts. Barnhart stated the City does not have the staff to go out and address <br /> nuisances for 25 percent of the homes in the City if the number is too low. <br /> McGrann stated in his view 1.0 foot candle is too high and that he would rather go with the lower end <br /> given the small number of property owners who have complained. McGrann stated the City is not going <br /> to enforce it on 95 percent of the people but that they would then have a mechanism to enforce it if there <br /> are complaints. <br /> Barnhart indicated the City has received a number of complaints but only from a couple of residents. <br /> Leskinen stated the 1.0 is very bright but that she is leery about having that as the sole source of defining <br /> what a nuisance is since the angle or aim of the light is also a component. Leskinen stated if language can <br /> be created to combine the light source and the angle that might be one way of going about it. <br /> Thiesse questioned whether it would even be possible to obtain a 1.0 foot candle reading at the property <br /> line if the light is shielded. Thiesse stated in his view the light should be shielded so light does not go <br /> over the property line. <br /> Schoenzeit stated there are other security lights that are on sensors that come on when someone is near it. <br /> Landgraver suggested this issue be discussed in a work session since there are a number of components to <br /> it. <br /> Leskinen indicated she is inclined to agree with Commissioner Landgraver to see if they can come up <br /> with some firmer recommendations. <br /> McGrann stated there will always be a way to get around the language but that they need to give Staff <br /> some firm mechanism to enforce it when there is a nuisance. <br /> Schwingler noted whatever foot candle they decide upon, it will simply be an arbitrary number, but that <br /> there needs to be some sort of standard if Staff is going to enforce it. <br /> Schoenzeit stated typically the complaints are when the light is coming into their house and that most <br /> people probably do not care about their yard being lit up. <br /> Barnhart recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council on the <br /> lighting ordinance. <br /> Page 27 of 29 <br />