Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yamhill council delays second reading of exterior lighting ordinance amid business concerns
Summary
Councilors continued the second reading of ordinance O‑544 to June 11 after members and residents raised concerns about the two‑year compliance window, security lighting exemptions and an upcoming planning commission hearing tied to a code update.
The Yamhill City Council on April 9 continued the second reading of O‑544, the city’s proposed exterior lighting ordinance, to its June 11 meeting after councilors and members of the public raised questions about implementation, enforcement and timing.
Why it matters: The ordinance would establish standards for exterior commercial lighting in the Central Business District and other areas; council members said the rules could affect businesses’ costs and operations and asked for clearer public notice and alignment with an ongoing code‑update process.
During discussion, a council member who took part in the ordinance’s earlier hearings said she had voted “no” at the prior meeting because she wanted business owners to have time to review the rule and its potential cost impacts. She and other speakers worried that a two‑year compliance deadline could be burdensome to small businesses that have recently invested in exterior lighting.
Planning staff and a councilor who spoke during the meeting noted exceptions that would allow for security lighting and sidewalk illumination; staff said those lights are generally permitted if they do not extend beyond a property line and that security‑type lights would be required to be motion‑sensitive in some configurations. Planning staff also told the council the planning commission had already reviewed the ordinance multiple times and that the city’s grant‑funded code update may require further adjustments; the planning commission will hold a public hearing on May 19.
Council members suggested continuing the ordinance until after the May 19 planning commission hearing so any changes recommended during that process could be folded into the second reading. A motion to continue O‑544 to the June 11 council meeting carried; council members instructed staff to bring any planning commission recommendations back to the council for a second reading at that time.
The city did not adopt O‑544 at the April 9 meeting; the public hearing before the planning commission on May 19 and the council’s June 11 hearing were scheduled as the next formal steps.
