Providence council weighs limits on flashing LED house lights after resident complaints

Providence City Council on July 16 heard extensive public comment about flashing and moving LED lighting on private homes, and council members discussed whether residential lighting should fall under the city's existing sign or nuisance rules.

Residents described multiple instances of multicolor, chasing or strobing lights that they said are visible across the valley from elevated neighborhoods and that remain on late into summer evenings. "They often stay on very late and are very distracting," resident Erica Lowe said, describing displays she said were visible from the bench above Providence. Eileen Bird, who said her child once had a seizure disorder, urged caution about strobe-like lighting: "Sometimes seeing those kind of lights . . . can trigger seizures," she said.

William Mason, a long-time resident who runs a seasonal light show, defended decorative displays and urged the council not to ban private expression. "I love the lights. It's a fun hobby," Mason said, adding that his house limits run time and brightness and that he talks with neighbors.

City planning staff gathered examples of how other Utah cities regulate outdoor lighting. Midway was cited as having nuisance provisions that address similar lighting and a dark-sky ordinance; most other city managers reported they do not see the pattern Providence residents described. Planning director Ryan (Scarlett) told the council the city could place a new standard in either the zoning (Title 10) code, which would go through planning and zoning, or in the nuisance code, which could be addressed administratively and enforced on a complaint-driven basis.

Council members discussed several options: a) adding targeted language to the nuisance ordinance to ban flashing/chasing/multicolor displays outside of a seasonal window; b) adopting a more technical standard limiting blink rate or intensity; c) launching an education campaign encouraging neighbors to resolve disputes informally; or d) requesting a standardized enforcement protocol with the sheriff's office.

Councilmembers voiced concern about enforceability and the city's capacity to enforce a lighting standard. Councilmember Brent Speth said LED fixtures are often pulse-width-modulated (they "blink" at the electronics level even when appearing steady), which complicates technical regulation. Councilmember Carrie Kirk and others suggested a pragmatic approach: use outreach and consider a nuisance-code change that sets clear, quantifiable thresholds (time-of-day limits, ban on moving/chasing effects outside a seasonal window) before pursuing enforcement.

Council did not adopt an ordinance at the meeting. Instead members asked staff to explore next steps, including drafting nuisance-code language, consulting with the sheriff's office about enforcement, and running an education effort through city media. Council suggested forming a small subcommittee to review nuisance-code issues and return with proposed language or a recommended approach.

Ending: Councilors said they want to balance residents' seasonal and holiday lighting traditions with neighbors' complaints about intrusive flashing lights; staff will return to the council with options, enforcement implications and suggested language for the nuisance code or a planning/zoning approach.