Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Codes And Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Prosper to update lighting rules to measure lumens, restrict backyard motion‑sensor exemptions
Summary
During public comment at the March 18 meeting, resident Fred Costa told the commission current ordinance language using wattage is outdated with modern LED technology and asked the town to measure exterior lighting by lumens/foot‑candles and to narrow motion‑sensor exemptions between homes.
Fred Costa, a Prosper resident, told the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 18 that the town’s lighting ordinance is out of date and should be revised to reflect modern LED technology. Costa said the ordinance currently references lamp power ratings (watts) and that LED fixtures can be very bright while using low wattage; he urged measuring outdoor lighting by lumens or foot‑candles instead of watts and asked the commission to limit motion‑sensor exemptions for lights that illuminate neighboring homes.
Costa described a Ring‑style motion camera light at a neighboring property that illuminates his bedroom windows and said he has measured the light at about 0.29–0.30 foot‑candles, above the 0.25‑foot‑candle maximum he cited. He said the issue affects sleep and privacy for nearby residents and that he has retained an attorney to pursue an HOA contract matter related to the lighting. Costa gave his address as 260 Burnett Court and asked to meet with staff after the meeting.
Town staff acknowledged the comment and noted the item was duly noted for the record. Staff did not announce any immediate regulatory action at the meeting; the comment was part of the public‑comment record the commission may consider when the town next reviews lighting standards.
Context: Costa referenced the ordinance section number as presented in his remarks. He recommended switching measurement criteria from wattage to lumens/foot‑candles (the metric commonly used in current lighting standards) and tightening exemptions that allow motion‑activated lighting between houses. Staff indicated they would accept follow‑up meetings with the resident.
No vote or formal action was taken on the ordinance at the March 18 meeting; the item was recorded in the public‑comment portion of the agenda.
