Danvers town meeting recommits proposed outdoor lighting bylaw after debate over residential impacts and enforcement

Town meeting members in the Town of Danvers debated Article 10, a proposed addition to the zoning bylaw that would establish outdoor lighting standards, and voted to recommit the article to the Planning Board for further study on Jan. 29.

The Planning Board presented the article as a new section to address light trespass, glare and timing restrictions after receiving complaints about commercial lighting affecting adjacent residences. Planning Board Chair Louis George said the proposed bylaw compiles model ordinances and local feedback and noted the Electric Division has reviewed the draft.

Planning Director Bridal Zakeli told members municipal lighting is not subject to the bylaw unless the text specifically says so, and that the town generally tries to be a good neighbor when municipal lighting complaints arise. Town Counsel Lauren L. DeLuca advised the moderator that a referral back to the Planning Board is procedurally different from a no vote: a defeat creates a two-year bar on bringing substantially similar articles back, while a referral allows the body to reconsider an amended proposal sooner.

Several town meeting members raised concerns about the proposed language. Grama Bennett argued the bylaw as written “infringes on our property rights as owners of residential units,” citing limits such as a proposal to cap motion-detector lights and restrictions on illumination of building facades mounted on adjoining structures. Cedric Butner said the draft reads as an assemblage of inconsistent language and recommended tabling or sending the article back so planners can tighten the language and clarify enforceability: “I do get the sense itis brought together from many different pieces, and that the words and the language... aren't necessarily clear,” he said.

Bill Bates, a town meeting member from Precinct 4, moved to amend the main motion by recommitting Article 10 to the Planning Board for additional study; the amendment was seconded. After limited further discussion, members approved the amendment by voice vote. The main motion, as amended to recommit Article 10 to the Planning Board, then carried by voice vote.

Planning Department staff said enforcement would typically begin with neighbor correspondence and voluntary compliance; fines would not be imposed immediately. Planning Director Zakeli said repeat noncompliance could lead to fines after a period (she described a 60- to 90-day notice/enforcement window), and the draft includes a long-term compliance schedule so that all lighting would need to be compliant by the date written in the draft (as stated in the hearing record: "02/1934"), a date the Planning Department noted could be revised during further drafting and review.

The article also included a finance-committee revision to the temporary holiday-lighting window; the hearing record shows the range was changed from Nov. 15to Jan. 30 to Oct. 15to Jan. 30 to accommodate Halloween and other fall displays.

Outcome: Article 10 was recommitted to the Planning Board for further study; no zoning change was adopted at this meeting. The moderator and Town Counsel advised that recommittal preserves the town meeting's ability to reconsider the article sooner than a failed vote would permit.