Suit against Immaculate Conception School prompts changes to city lighting ordinance

Dec. 18—TRAVERSE CITY — Amelia Hasenohrl lives about a block from Immaculate Conception Elementary School in Traverse City.

The school, located on Vine Street, opened in 2019 and since then, fixtures installed around the school light up Hasenohrl's North Cedar Street yard and shine into her bedroom from dusk to dawn. The bright lights make sleep difficult and rob her of privacy, she said.

"It's like a truck pulled up and pointed its hi-beams into my house," she said.

Hasenohrl told Grand Traverse Area Catholic Schools officials about the disturbance soon after the school opened.

She sued the school after nearly 40 email exchanges, 10 to 15 phone calls, several texts and five face-to-face meetings with school officials, city officials and planners over two years failed to get results, she said.

"At one point, they just wouldn't communicate with me," she said. "They just weren't doing anything. I filed the suit as a last resort."

The lawsuit was filed last year in 13th Circuit Court through her Traverse City attorney, Blake Ringsmuth. The lawsuit states that the lights are a trespass and a nuisance, as well as a violation of a city ordinance that says all outdoor lighting should be shielded and have 100 percent cutoff of light above the fixture.

A one-day bench trial took place in June before Judge Kevin A. Elsenheimer.

Testimony by school and city officials as well as exhibits show there is no dispute that the lights violate the city ordinance, Elsenheimer wrote in his October decision.

The lights are not shielded and do not provide 100 percent cutoff of light above the fixtures as required, he wrote.

Elsenheimer found in favor of Hasenohrl, saying the lights are a nuisance.

In November, Elsenheimer gave the school until Dec. 22 to submit a plan that will bring the lighting into compliance with the ordinance.

On Friday, school officials said the lights are now in compliance.

Now, the city is in the process of amending its ordinance to eliminate some of the provisions that prevent light trespass and protected residents like Hasenohrl.

City Planning Director Shawn Winter said the changes are "basically housekeeping" to clean up inconsistencies in the ordinance that came to light because of the lawsuit. The city was not named in the suit.

A public hearing for these amendments to the lighting ordinance was held by the Traverse City Planning Commission on Dec. 6. The amendments are being recommended for approval by the Traverse City Commission.

The ordinance was to be taken up by the city commission Monday, but will be delayed until the first of the year since the appropriate staff is unable to attend for personal reasons, said city Clerk Benjamin Marentette.

Hasenohrl said she knew nothing about the Dec. 6 public hearing and, if she had, she would have attended. The city posted the hearing, as required by the Michigan Open Meetings Act, but Hasenohrl didn't see it.

"They're aware of the lawsuit," she said. "They're aware of my desperate attempts to talk to them for years. I can't understand why they wouldn't have called me about it."

Ringsmuth agreed.

"She's been fighting this fight for so long she's just tired and sad," her attorney said. "This also makes me sad."

The Lights

At the June bench trial, Ringsmuth submitted a document from the manufacturer of the lights, Acuity Brands Lighting of Georgia.

Eric Mulvany, director of school operations for GTACS, testified that the lights identified in the document are the same as those installed at the school.

He also testified that the lights were not shielded and did not have 100 percent cutoff.

The lights, which have since been discontinued by the manufacturer, came in two models, one of which emits 5,137 lumens, and one that emits 3,228, according to a representative from the company. The lights are not adjustable or dimmable, the representative said.

According to an email response from Mulvany on Friday, the lights, when installed, were capable of 3,600 to 5,200 lumens.

"We installed a dimming control unit in order to allow them to emit no more than 2,250 lumens," Mulvany wrote. "They are currently dimmed to 350 lumens, which is the equivalent of a 50-watt light bulb.

"We believe we are currently in compliance with the city code as written, but we'll continue to work within the city code and with zoning officials to ensure continued compliance."

The school's attorney in this matter, J.D. Paasterink, could not be reached by the Record-Eagle for comment.

Another neighbor of the school, Deb Malmgren, says if the school did turn the lights down, it's not enough and they are still a nuisance. There also is a cumulative effect since there are about a dozen of the lights.

Malmgren complained to the school about the lights in 2019 and she testified at the bench trial.

She said the school should be better neighbors.

"It's really disruptive to a neighborhood that's usually dark," Malmgren said. "It doesn't make any sense that they are fighting us like this."

Ringsmuth said the school has "taken a very hard position all along," and he's not sure why.

The ordinance

The Traverse City outdoor lighting ordinance — chapter 1375 in the city's code of ordinances — was enacted in 2017 with the aim of keeping artificial light from trespassing on a neighbor's property, minimizing glare and eliminating lighting that adds to the nighttime "sky glow."

At the same time, the ordinance recognizes that parking lots, sidewalks and other properties need to be safe and secure at night. It does not apply to public street lighting.

The ordinance states that all outdoor lighting must be shielded with hoods and/or louvers that prevent glare beyond the edge of the property where it is located.

They also must provide a 100-percent cutoff of all illumination above an imaginary horizontal line passing through the light fixture below the bulb.

Exempted are decorative porch, wall and landscaping lights or any exterior lighting that emits less than 500 lumens.

Several more exemptions include seasonal and holiday lighting, as long as it does not create direct glare onto other properties or upon public rights-of-way.

Unshielded, not permitted lights brighter than 2,250 lumens — equal to a 150-watt bulb — are prohibited.

Winter, who has been on the job for about six months, said that, as the ordinance has been applied by the city in the past, lights under 2,250 lumens don't have to be shielded. That, however, contradicts the overall provision that all outdoor lighting must be shielded.

The amended ordinance, if approved, would remove the provision to say that only light emitting more than 1,125 lumens — about 75 watts — must be shielded and have a 100-percent cutoff.

It also would remove the exemption for any lights under 500 lumens by raising it to 1,125.

Ringsmuth said it makes no sense to remove the shielding provision.

"Change the lumens, but don't take out the provision that protects your neighbors," he said.

Debra Hershey, co-chair of the city planning commission, said she did not know many details of the lawsuit, only that city attorney Lauren Trible-Laucht recommended amending it to make it consistent.

Trible-Laucht did not return calls for comment.

Hershey said there was too much difference between 500 and 2,250 lumens and 1,125 was an appropriate middle ground. Much of the discussion at the public hearing by commission members was about porch lighting.

She said 75 watts seemed appropriate for a porch light.

Hershey said she does not see the ordinance as more restrictive, even though it would remove the shielding provision for most outdoor lighting.

"There's so many different kinds of lighting and you want to cover every single possibility, but it's difficult," Hershey said.

The lighting ordinance was written with the assistance of Jerry Dobek, an astrophysicist who is one of the founding members of Dark Sky Association.

Dobek has written 53 such ordinances in Michigan, including the very first one in Whitewater Township in 1982.

The amended ordinance "would gut the ordinance and put an end to the night sky in Traverse City," Dobek said.

"So, in essence, I can take a 75-watt spotlight and shine it directly at my neighbor's house," he said.