Possible sanction sought in school lighting lawsuit

Mardi Link, The Record-Eagle, Traverse City, Mich.
·2 min read

Jul. 12—TRAVERSE CITY — A $1,000 court sanction awaits a judge's signature, and a hearing on whether a local school violated an order to mitigate its nighttime lighting was rescheduled, in the latest legal actions in a years-long court case.

In 2021, Amelia Hasenohrl, a neighbor of Immaculate Conception Elementary, said in a lawsuit that the school's outdoor lighting was not only a nuisance, but violated Traverse City's lighting ordinance.

Hasenohrl, in court filings, said the lights shined into her bedroom at night, making it too bright to sleep even after adding room-darkening shades over her existing darkening blinds.

The city's ordinance states that outdoor lights, such as those for porches, walls, landscaping and paths, must be less than 500 lumens. It also states that all outdoor lighting must be shielded.

In 2022, 13th Circuit Court Judge Kevin Elsenheimer ruled in Hasenohrl's favor, and gave the school 60 days to add shielding to the lights and set them to shine at 350 lumens. A lumen is a standard unit of measurement, to determine the brightness of lighting emitted per second from a uniform source.

The school appealed, arguing that Hasenohrl didn't have standing to enforce a city ordinance and, if she did, the light fixtures did not violate it, court records show.

The appeal held Elsenheimer's 60-day order until the state's Court of Appeals judges could weigh in. That happened in April, when a three-judge COA panel upheld the trial court's decision, which started the clock again on the 60-day order.

The appeals court said Elsenheimer did not err in his decision and that the trial court "properly exercised its equitable authority to abate the nuisance."

Immaculate Conception is a Grand Traverse Area Catholic Schools facility and its Director of School Operations Eric Mulvany previously told the Record-Eagle the appeals court decision was disappointing.

Mulvany said a variety of solutions were offered, at the school's expense, and a dimming system was installed.

But Hasenohrl's attorney, Blake Ringsmuth, said the hold on the order ended June 24, the school had not yet made the required changes — and was now in violation.

"Despite this, and in knowing violation of this Court's clear Order, the Defendant has failed and refused to comply," Ringsmuth said in a court filing. "The lights remain on and unshielded just as they were at the time of trial."

Ringsmuth in June filed an emergency motion, seeking an immediate enforcement of the order and for the school to be held in contempt of court.

A hearing, originally scheduled for July 9, was rescheduled for July 15.

Compliance and the $1,000 sanction are expected to be argued at 8:45 a.m. Monday in 13th Circuit Court.

Immaculate Conception's attorney, J.D. Praasterink, did not return Record-Eagle requests for comment.