Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Exterior Lighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board denies after‑the‑fact exterior lighting application after neighbor testimony
Summary
The Cannon Beach Design Review Board voted to deny DRB 26‑05, an after‑the‑fact application for exterior lighting at several lodging properties, after staff found installed fixtures exceeded exterior‑lighting standards and a neighbor described glare that interferes with visibility and safety at her home.
The Cannon Beach Design Review Board on March 19 denied an after‑the‑fact application to review exterior lighting fixtures that city staff said exceed municipal exterior‑lighting allowances.
City planning staff presented findings that multiple building‑mounted and landscape fixtures (installed in early 2025) were clustered on properties at 439 and 487 South Hemlock and nearby parcels, producing uplight, backlight and glare beyond the allowances in the city’s exterior‑lighting standards. Staff said manufacturer data in the record showed the fixtures’ BUG (backlight‑uplight‑glare) ratings and lumen outputs and recommended the board not approve the lighting as submitted.
At public testimony, Jessica Sund, a Cannon Beach resident at 128 East Adams Street, said the installed lights shine into her living room and bedroom, create strong glare in her yard and have caused temporary blindness that she described as a safety risk. “It shines into my bedroom… I can’t see around me,” Sund said, asking the board for relief after she said code enforcement advised her to use blackout curtains.
Board members and technical staff questioned whether the existing fixtures could be dimmed, re‑aimed or reduced in number to mitigate the impact. Planning staff said several fixtures were clustered within a short distance of property lines and that the total lumen allowances and BUG ratings in the application appear to be exceeded. A staff representative noted some fixtures were mounted less than a 'meter' from a property line and others were tightly grouped, which increased the concentration of light.
After discussion about possible remedies — including reducing fixture counts, relocating fixtures, or requiring a resubmittal with lower‑output luminaires — a member moved to deny the application as submitted under the municipal exterior‑lighting standards. The motion was seconded, the board called the roll, and the motion carried. The board’s formal action was recorded as a denial; staff and the applicant may return with a revised proposal that addresses the lighting standards.
What happens next
The denial requires the applicant to either appeal the decision or submit revised plans that demonstrate compliance with the exterior‑lighting tables and maximum backlight/uplight/glare and lumen allowances set out in the municipal code. Planning staff indicated possible next steps include a resubmittal with fewer or lower‑output fixtures, changes in mounting locations, or use of shielded fixtures to reduce off‑site glare.
