Planning Commission forwards exterior-lighting code changes to council with amendments on enforcement and security lighting

The Yamhill Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council adopt proposed exterior-lighting amendments (planning file DCA 2403), forwarding the ordinance with two substantive changes: (1) the commission added exceptions to a complaint-only enforcement approach for properties in the Central Business District and for public buildings, and (2) it directed that security lighting be limited by automatic shutoff timing and motion-sensor behavior.

City planner Sean delivered the staff report and summary of the proposed ordinance, which would add a new chapter (10.66) establishing definitions, shielding and trespass standards, a nighttime curfew for non-security exterior lighting, and a compliance schedule. Staff noted the code treats EMC and other light types differently, excludes local streetlights from some provisions, and suggests an effective date; staff recommended the Planning Commission forward the proposed language to council.

Public testimony focused on existing bright lights in town and how the proposed rules would be enforced. Robert Davis, a neighborhood resident and founder of the Yamhill Neighborhood Association, supplied nighttime photos of an existing gas station and other examples, saying the current unshielded lighting in town “is a little convoluted” and urging clearer differentiation between general building lighting and security lighting. Patty Perrin also asked where canopy and pump lighting would fall under the code.

Commission deliberations produced two principal amendments. First, commissioners modified the draft enforcement language on complaint intake. The draft had limited enforcement to complaints submitted only by individuals directly affected by an alleged violation; commissioners inserted an explicit exception allowing complaints from the Central Business District and from public buildings so that concerned citizens or users in those places can trigger a review even where an adjacent property owner does not file a complaint. Second, the commission tightened the rules for security lighting: it directed staff to require sensor activation or other time-limited operation and to require lights triggered by motion to automatically turn off within five minutes if no further motion is detected. Commissioners also agreed to recommend changing the ordinance—s effective date from January 1 to March 1 and to retain a three-year compliance window for existing nonconforming lighting.

Key ordinance elements discussed and clarified on the record include: fully shielded fixtures for non-exempt lighting; an exterior-lighting curfew stating exterior building lighting (including signs) must be extinguished by 10:00 p.m. or within one hour after normal business close (whichever is later) except for security lighting and 24-hour businesses; publicly owned lighting provisions exclude local streetlights; and a three-year compliance period following the effective date for owners of nonconforming fixtures to make changes.

The commission moved to recommend council approval with the chair reading findings and the agreed modifications; the motion passed on a roll call with all commissioners present recorded in favor. Commissioners asked staff to return a clean ordinance draft incorporating the two changes for council consideration and to confirm whether the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) review is necessary for the amended text. The commission also agreed the proposed code language will be applied to commercial and public properties, not private residential yards unless the light spills onto other property and a qualifying complainant files.