Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, March 21, 2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart indicated he can check on it. Barnhart stated another question is if one person has a problem, <br /> does that constitute a nuisance. Banihart stated the City should know what that level is far a nuisance and <br /> that typically the City does not pass an ordinance to address the complaint of one person. <br /> Thiesse stated in his view it would constitute a nuisance and that it is similar to a barking dog. <br /> Schoenzeit commented it is important to test the ordinance out to see whether it resolves the problem <br /> complained of. <br /> Leskinen asked if he is questioning whether they have solved the initial problem. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it would be nice to know that and would be a nice element to add to the discussion. <br /> Lemke stated he can see passing the ordinance but then having a litmus test. <br /> Gaffron stated this issue has to do with whether or not the City is accoinplishing what has been a big issue <br /> far the City. Gaffron indicated he has a yard light that is not shielded facing his house but that it is not <br /> bright enough to register on a meter. Gaffron stated seeing the source of the light is a problem and has <br /> been a problem with most of the complaints. <br /> Gaffron noted Line 126 talks about luminaire standards, which talks more about commercial properties. <br /> Gaffron stated the City could have a shielding requirement for residential properties. Gaffron stated if <br /> that is the only ardinance the City has and then beefs up their existing ordinance, that would solve most of <br /> the issues. <br /> Thiesse stated he would agree with Mike. <br /> Barnhart noted Line 67 addresses shielding and beam angle, which sets the direction for new lights. The <br /> ordinance does not define light sources that you can see as a nuisance. The second ordinance talks about <br /> a measurable quantity, which is where the one foot candle at the property line is used. The idea there is <br /> that is a measurable component for a nuisance standard. <br /> Thiesse stated there is a security light on a dock across the lake that you can still see from his house but it <br /> is not possible to regulate that. <br /> Gaffron stated the objective should be that someone can see what is being lit but not the source of it. <br /> Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission can accomplish anything further at this level or whether they <br /> should move the ordinance forward to the City Council. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the question to ask is whether the ordinance helps inore than it hurts and does it help to <br /> advance the ball on either darker skies or happier neighbors. Schoenzeit stated he does not believe the <br /> Planning Commission can keep talking about it. Schoenzeit stated as the lights get replaced, the City's <br /> lighting will gradually improve,but that they need to start the process sometime. Schoenzeit stated in his <br /> view it is important to start that clock if they want to see improvement. <br /> Leskinen asked if there is anything in the ordinance that any of the Commissioners feels is problematic. <br /> Page 16 of 21 <br />