DRB approves Greenwich Point lighting plan over Reston Association objections; vote 4–3

The Reston Design Review Board voted 4–3 to approve an exterior lighting plan for 11576 Greenwich Point Road after hearing technical testimony from lighting consultants and statements from affected parties including Reston Association staff.

Why it matters: The application involved a large number of landscape fixtures and raised questions about precedent for waterfront properties, dark-sky compliance and off‑site light trespass. Reston Association staff and the DRB’s Environmental Advisory Committee argued the number of fixtures — documented at 76 in the association’s materials — would create a “dangerous precedent” if allowed broadly on waterfront lots.

What the board heard: Applicant Colin and his consultants said the property suffered damage after a 2020 fire and the replacement lighting was intended to restore and improve safety and aesthetics. Lighting designer Andy (Baylum) and lighting consultant Patrick (Sterling Lighting) told the board the fixtures were set to very low lumen levels, had glare-control hex lenses, and were controlled to switch off at 10 p.m. Patrick testified the highest fixture output was about 230 lumens and that hex glare shields cut roughly 35% of the upward output. Patrick characterized the installation as “dark‑sky compliant” and argued that properly designed multiple low‑output fixtures can produce a soft overall effect rather than glare.

Reston Association, represented by Cam Adams, director of covenants administration, and an Environmental Advisory Committee statement, urged the board to disapprove or require reductions. Adams told the board: “76 light fixtures, landscape light fixtures create a a dangerous precedent” because multiple waterfront lots with similar installations could cumulatively increase night‑time light in Reston’s lakefront areas.

Neighbor testimony split. Interested party Skip Edgemond, a nearby property owner and landscaping professional, said: “I don't find anything offensive to the lighting that's been installed.” Another affected party, Nancy Long, asked the board to consider that the guidelines say landscape lighting should be directed toward the house and that, where more than a few fixtures are proposed, “serious consideration” is warranted.

Board deliberations and technical points: - The applicant submitted revised trespass‑light studies, including the courtyard pillar lights, which raised total lumens by roughly 400–500 lumens in updated modeling. - Consultants explained color temperature is 3,000 K for the fixtures and that many fixtures were dimmed from earlier submittals; controls are programmed to turn lights off at 10 p.m. - The applicant added hex shields and reduced several downlights after neighborhood feedback; some photos and a video submitted by an affected party show the installation both before and after some dimming/shielding were applied.

Decision: After discussion the board took a roll‑call vote on a motion to approve the application as submitted. The roll call recorded four votes in favor and three against; the motion passed. Several board members said they were persuaded by the consultants’ technical demonstrations and the applicant’s concessions (dimmed outputs, glare shields and a 10 p.m. shutoff). Opponents cited precedent and the number of fixtures as their primary reasons for voting no.

What the approval means: The board’s action allows the installed fixtures to remain as submitted and imposes no further reductions at the DRB level. Neighbors retain the standard right to request compliance checks if the installed lighting differs from the approved configuration or if operation (for example, timers) differs from what was described at the hearing.