11-09-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 21, 2015 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 4 Jim Mandel, 3155 North Shore Drive, stated when he sees the row of 25-foot arborvitaes on his neighbor’s property blocking his view of the lake, in his opinion it is a travesty. Mandel stated when something like this is done in a malicious manner, there is no reason for it, and until the City stops this type of activity, there will always be someone who takes advantage of it. Mandel stated they happen to be victims of a living wall and that they hope it doesn’t happen to someone else. Mandel stated a living wall is invasive, deteriorates property values, closes the property in, and is annoying. Mandel noted in a number of situations the lot lines along the water do not run perpendicular and so it is possible for someone who lives on the water to construct living walls that totally block the view of the water for their neighbors when they live on the lake. Mandel stated a person who lives on the lake pays a lot in taxes and that they should be able to enjoy their view of the lake. Mike Russin, 3175 North Shore Drive, stated he understands the issues with the living wall and that he lives with it also. Russin stated he is here tonight, however, to talk about the lighting issues. Russin noted Staff defines it as a nuisance, which is how he views it as well. Russin indicated he has spent some time looking on the web at other cities’ light ordinances and they tend to classify a lighting nuisance as a private nuisance that is an interference with a person’s enjoyment and use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners are those in rightful possession of land, have the right to unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its occupation. Examples of a nuisance include things that would interfere with the comfort, convenience or health of an occupant, and include such things as foul odors, noxious gasses, dust, loud noises, excessive light or high temperatures. In addition, the following factors should be considered: Extent and duration of the disturbance, the nature of harm, and the motivation of person creating the nuisance. Russin stated from their standpoint they did not want to ask for something that was unreasonable. Russin stated he is not sure whether Staff looked at the standards by the Illuminating Engineers Society of America, but that they have very clear standards. Those standards state that between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., all single and two-family residential developments must conform to certain provisions, and those laws are sensitive to the property owners’ right to use and enjoy their private property without having to close blinds or curtains on their windows to accommodate another individual’s actions. Russin indicated the provisions basically state that it is unlawful for any person in a residential zone to maintain lighting upon the premises under their ownership or control so that the beams, rays or reflections spill out over or onto adjoining or neighboring residential properties as defined in the zoning ordinance of the city. If said lighting by its degree of intensity or operation interferes with the peaceful operation of the property of adjoining landowners or unreasonably disturbs the comfort and repose of the adjoining or neighboring landowners, it shall constitute a nuisance. Russin stated floodlights that come on before dusk and go off an hour before dawn should be considered a nuisance. Russin stated closing the blinds or closing the curtains is not the solution and that they have been experiencing this since October of 2005. Russin stated he appreciates the City addressing this issue and that he would encourage the City to include some specificity in the language so there is no wiggle room. Russin stated they would also request that a strong process be put in place in the event the ordinance is not followed. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 11:50 p.m. Landgraver asked what the City does after it identifies something as a nuisance.