Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lighting Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission debates enforcement, standing and payment rules in proposed lighting ordinance
Summary
The Yamhill Planning Commission discussed enforcement, standing and payment rules for a proposed lighting ordinance during a work session, directing staff to draft code language that excludes streetlights from city-funded mitigation and limits formal complaints to demonstrable light trespass onto private property.
The Yamhill Planning Commission discussed the draft lighting ordinance at length, centering on enforcement, who has standing to complain about light trespass, and whether the city must pay to correct offending fixtures.
Commission staff and commissioners agreed to exclude streetlights from city-funded mitigation and to treat enforcement for other lighting as a complaint-driven process. Commissioners asked staff to write clearer standing language that limits formal complaints to instances where light is trespassing onto a private property rather than mere visibility from a window. Staff said the draft ordinance will state that the person or property owner causing the trespass is responsible for correcting the violation and paying for any required shielding or fixture changes.
"I think the issue has to come and, again, Shelly could probably provide a little ... but I think the issue is with enforcement. How will it be enforced?" said Walt (Staff member), opening the discussion about how complaints would be processed.
Commissioners debated whether people who simply can see an offending light from a window should have standing to file complaints, and several members favored limiting standing to demonstrated trespass onto the complainant’s property. "Just because you don't like someone's light is not a basis to complain. However, if the light is trespassing on your property ... I think that would be certainly a reason to complain," said one planning commissioner, summarizing the direction the group favored.
A persistent issue was streetlights. The commission reported that the city and city council do not want to take responsibility for paying to shield streetlights. Staff said Portland General Electric (PGE) will install a standard shield for approximately $160 if a property owner requests it, but the city does not plan to pay that cost for streetlight adjustments. For non-street commercial or institutional fixtures that create trespass, staff and commissioners said the property owner responsible for the unshielded fixture would be required to remedy the violation and pay for any corrective work.
Several commissioners raised examples of institutional or municipal lighting (schools, City Hall, parks) that currently cause concerns for neighbors. Commissioners and staff discussed allowing a multi-year compliance window so the city and property owners can budget mitigations; the commission discussed a two-year compliance period in the context of other code changes.
Staff said the council has asked for clearer language on who pays for mitigation and on standing; the draft staff report will present options and recommended language at a future formal hearing. "I will put something together. I'm also gonna run it by Shelly, before we hand it back to you," Walt said. The commission treated the session as a work session rather than a formal public hearing and planned a formal hearing in January.
Ending: Commissioners asked staff to return with drafted code language that (1) excludes streetlights from city-funded mitigation, (2) describes standing as tied to demonstrable light trespass onto private property, (3) assigns responsibility for shielding or fixture changes to the violator (or complainant for streetlight PGE work), and (4) presents compliance timeline options and budget implications. Staff will include those options in the staff report for the next formal hearing.
