Laserfiche WebLink
.., <br />MINUTES OF TEIE PUBLIC HEARING <br />FEBRUARY 16, 1993 <br />7 P.M. <br />Present: Council President Boehmer, Council Members Bahas, Lind, Nashar <br />McKay, Beringer. Council Member Musial arrived at 7:18 p.m. <br />Also Present: Clerk of Council Barbara Semen. Law Director Garesu arrived at <br />7:35 p.m. <br />Council President Boeh~ner called the public hearing to order at 7:08 p.m. in <br />Council Chambers, 5200 Dover Center Road, North Olmsted, Ohio. <br />President BoeYnner announced that the public hearing would be held with regard to <br />Ordinance No. 92-102, an ordinance creating new arxi revised Section 1126.02, <br />1161.12 aril 1161.121 of the North Olmsted Zoning Code relating to commercial <br />lighting. <br />George Tilberg, goverr~nental affairs representative for the Illuminating Canpany, <br />asked Council to postpcme the vote an this issue. The I11uEninating Carly would <br />like sane time to formulate recammerxlations and provide Council with information <br />an the light trespass issue. Ile felt it would be an unfair burden on the <br />business camnmity to enact the legislation in its present form. He would like <br />to have a street light engineer make a presentation to Council because the <br />information is of a highly technical nature. Mrs. Beringer menticmed that Mr. <br />Tilberg had attended the BZD Camaittee meeting when the lighting ordinances had <br />been discussed. At that time, he said that he quid contact Law Director Gareau <br />on this issue. Mr. Tilberg stated that he had not yet done so because CEI was in <br />the process of patting together the information. Mrs. Beringer noted that she <br />had held a special BZD Canm.ttee meeting last month especially for Mr. Tilberg to <br />present his information. She wanted to make it clear to Council that is was <br />under the advisement of the Law Director that the ordinances were on third <br />reading for the Council meeting. <br />Mr. McKay asked Mr. Tilberg if he could explain what a "foot candle" was since <br />this was the measurement used in the legislation. Mr. Tilberg said he could not <br />explain it. He felt that such ambiguous verbiage fourxi in the legislation was a <br />problem. He did say that the street light engineer would address this problem in <br />his presentation. Mr. Tilberg expressed appreciation to Mrs. Beringer for <br />allowing him the opportunity to meet with the BZD.Cannittee. He had atter~ied the <br />meeting to determine if there were grounds for a discussion between the city and <br />CEI. After this determination, he did have to get concurrence of his company to <br />address some of these issues. Mr. McKay asked if Mr. Tilberg could have his <br />proposal ready within two weeks, and Mr. Tilberg agreed. <br />Mrs. Beringer suggested that Mr. Ron Tallon, who had originally sponsored this <br />legislation, might be able to add some pertinent information to the discussion. <br />Mr. Tallon, 27548 Laurell Lane, gave the definition of afoot candle: the amount <br />of illumination provided by one lumen uniformly distribwted on one square of foot <br />surface. Mrs. Bahas asked for clarification on a lumen, and Mr. Tallon said a <br />lumen was a means of telling how much light there is on a surface as opposed to <br />