Appeal denied for Catholic school's outdoor lights

Apr. 27—TRAVERSE CITY — A local school's effort to overturn a court decision that its bright lighting at night constitutes a nuisance in the neighborhood was denied by the state Court of Appeals this week.

Thursday's ruling affirms the lower court's decision in the years-long legal battle between Immaculate Conception Elementary and a neighbor, Amelia Hasenohrl, who said the constant bright stream of lights violate Traverse City's lighting ordinance.

"On appeal, defendant argues that plaintiff does not have standing to enforce the lighting ordinance and, even if she did have standing, the subject light fixtures do not violate the ordinance," wrote Fourth District Chief Judge Michael Gadola and Judge Stephen Borrello, and Second District Judge Sima Patel in summarizing the school's argument.

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.

Part of the defense argument, which claimed the trial court had clearly erred in its findings, was that Traverse City never cited the school or took enforcement action against it for violating the ordinance.

But the state appeals court said: "The trial court did not clearly err by finding that defendant's violation of the city's lighting ordinance constitutes a nuisance per se and properly exercised its equitable authority to abate the nuisance."

Prior to the appeal, the lights, which are on poles that are about 12-feet tall, were allowed to shine unfettered, although they had to be set at 350 lumens, per the order by 13th Circuit Court Judge Kevin A. Elsenheimer in December 2022.

According to that order, the school was required to install cutoff shielding on all of the lights, which shine into neighborhood yards and windows, within 60 days, or by Feb. 27, 2023. Instead of complying, the school filed the appeal.

Hasenohrl's attorney, Blake Ringsmuth, said he expected Elsenheimer's original decision and order to be upheld.

"My full expectation is that the lights will be pointed down and won't provide glare to anybody in the neighborhood and the night sky will be preserved," Ringsmuth said. "It will be the way it should've been the last three years or so."

The city's ordinance also states that unshielded lights brighter that 2,250 lumens are not allowed. According to previous Record-Eagle reporting, city code officials interpreted that to mean lights up to 2,250 lumens do not need to be shielded, said Shawn Winter, the city's planning director.

"After the initial lower court ruling, the city attorney advised that the lighting ordinance needs to have its inconsistencies cleaned up," Winter said. "So the Planning Commission worked through that and sent a recommendation to the City Commission ...[which] didn't act on it at all."

"At some point, it will probably need to be revisited to prevent these kinds of situations from happening again," he said.

Even after the school said it had dimmed the lights in question from the original 3600 to 5400 lumens to 375 lumens, Hasenohrl's sleep was negatively impacted, according to court documents.

Since the school was built in 2019 across the street from her residence, she has had to "add room-darkening shades over her existing darkening blinds ... even with the additional shades, it is too bright for [Hasenohrl] to sleep in her bedroom," those documents noted.

In a statement provided to the Record-Eagle via email, Grand Traverse Area Catholic Schools Director of School Operations Eric Mulvany said they have offered "a variety of solutions at our expense."

"Since that time, we have installed a state-of-the-art dimming system which brings the lighting to low levels, especially at night," he said. "The appellate court's decision is disappointing in that it leaves any City business or homeowner vulnerable to the standards of private individuals.

"What we would hope for is that the City takes action to create a less ambiguous ordinance, so that others do not have to go through the expense that we have had in defending our good-faith efforts. This matter now rests with the City, with whom we have a good working relationship.

"We'll be looking to them to guide our next steps."

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