Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the PCB2409 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners begin review of comprehensive lighting ordinance; staff to refine draft
Summary
Antioch planning staff presented a proposed amendment to Title 10 to regulate lighting (maximum average foot‑candles, full cutoff fixtures, limits on light trespass); commissioners asked for clarifications on exceptions, streetlighting and color temperature and directed staff to refine the draft.
Antioch planning staff introduced PCB2409, a proposed amendment to the village zoning code (Title 10) that would add section 10‑5‑14 to regulate outdoor lighting, set minimum and maximum average illumination levels, require full‑cutoff fixtures and give staff enforcement tools to address light trespass on adjoining properties.
The director (speaker 7) framed the draft as filling gaps in existing code that currently regulate lighting only through site‑plan review for new development. The staff presentation proposed a maximum average foot‑candle level at property lines, a required full cutoff directing fixtures 90 degrees downward and language that would allow staff to pursue nuisance remediation for existing nonconforming sources of light.
Commissioners asked about how restrictive the draft would be in practice and whether common commercial uses — including car dealerships and existing LED signage — would routinely seek variances or PUD relief. The director said variances and PUD relief remain available and that practical limits exist for longstanding, legally nonconforming uses unless the lighting rises to a nuisance. On proposed curfew language, staff noted many municipal ordinances set a nonessential‑lighting end time near 11 p.m., but the cut‑off hour is discretionary and intended to be negotiated with the board.
Members pushed staff to include additional technical and policy elements: one commissioner urged adding controls on color temperature and uniformity to avoid a patchwork of warm and cool lights across neighborhoods and recommended encouraging LED fixtures for longevity and sustainability; another recommended treating streetlighting and municipal public lighting as a separate policy discussion because it may raise cost and jurisdictional issues with the utility. Several members also expressed interest in equity‑focused provisions to ensure underlit neighborhoods are not overlooked.
Staff said he would rework the draft, incorporate commissioner feedback and review how other municipalities have handled streetlighting and replacement standards; he offered to return with a refined ordinance and options for addressing streetlighting either in the same ordinance or in a separate document.
No formal vote was taken; the matter remains under review and will return to the commission.
