Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council, planning staff and residents debate lighting, shielding and ‘light trespass’ at new developments
Summary
Council and staff discussed complaints about parking-lot and canopy lighting at recent developments and a gas station, explored measurement and enforcement limits under current code, and agreed to measure pole heights and examine options to bring lighting into compliance with town ordinances.
Virgin planning staff and council members spent substantial time May 20 discussing night-sky rules, “fully shielded” lighting definitions and neighbor complaints about light spilling from a new development’s parking-lot fixtures and an adjacent gas station canopy.
Charlotte, the town’s community development staff member, summarized the technical issues: fully shielded fixtures must not let light break the horizontal plane and should not cast light above the shield. She told council that modern LEDs are smaller and can meet the horizontal-plane test while still producing light that appears to trespass into nearby yards, which complicates visual inspections.
“Fully shielded means that the horizontal line of the bulb and the fixture are equal or less. It cannot break the horizontal plane, and the light cannot cast light above the shielding,” Charlotte said, explaining how current code defines shielding and why LEDs create enforcement challenges.
Council and staff discussed several practical next steps. Staff committed to measuring the height of the parking-lot poles and comparing pole height to the town’s existing ratio for pole height (distance from property divided by 10 plus 3), to determine whether the lights likely comply. They also agreed to inspect the canopy lights at the gas station; staff noted those canopy fixtures reportedly run on automatic dimmers for closing hours and that a simple retrofit — an additional rim or short drop inside the canopy — could reduce outward light.
Staff said some compliance actions would require measurement in lumens using meters and possibly site-specific IES files to measure light trespass—equipment the town does not currently hold—and that legally enforceable determinations can be technically complex. Councilmembers asked whether the town could require the developer to add shielding or reduce pole height; staff replied that, for existing permits, enforcement options are limited and that negotiated voluntary mitigation with the developer is often more productive than post‑fact enforcement.
Council discussed cost-sharing options if retrofits impose significant expense on developers. Staff said they would return with a cost estimate and an enforcement pathway, and would consult the town attorney about legal authority to require modifications for fixtures installed under prior approvals.
Ending: Staff will measure pole heights and document canopy fixtures, examine technical requirements to quantify trespass, consult the town attorney on enforcement options, and report back to council with estimated costs and suggested next steps.
