Rangeley committee narrows draft lighting ordinance to new/retrofit fixtures, rejects retroactive amortization

The Rangeley Ordinance Committee on Oct. 1 voted to amend the town's proposed lighting ordinance (chapter 38, section 38.8.2) so the rule would apply to new and replacement/retrofit fixtures rather than to all existing fixtures, and it approved several technical clarifications and limits suggested by an outside dark‑sky consultant. The committee voted to send the amended lighting section to the town attorney for legal review.

A majority of committee members approved a motion, made by Scott Wilson, to remove the words “current” and “existing” and the word “required” from the applicability line so it reads: “new and retrofit lighting must meet all lighting requirements in this section.” The motion passed 3–1. Wilson moved the change and Val seconded; the transcript records the outcome as a 3–1 vote but does not report individual roll-call votes.

Committee members debated whether the word “existing” would create a retroactive obligation for property owners to bring presently compliant fixtures into the new standard. One commissioner said using “existing” could be interpreted as requiring current fixtures to be upgraded immediately; others argued that an amortization period was a commonly used compromise. Linda, who had circulated guidance from Dark Sky International and other model language, told the committee that Dark Sky had recommended an amortization period and suggested 10 years as an option. “They suggest 10 years,” Linda said during the meeting.

The committee considered and then voted on a separate motion from Val to restore an amortization clause requiring fixtures “not in compliance with this code” to be brought into compliance within a set period. Val proposed a 10‑year period (the prior draft had included five years before that language was removed). That motion produced a tie on the committee’s voting device and failed; the transcript records the result as a tie and that the machine failed to produce a decisive outcome, so the amortization language was not adopted.

Members unanimously approved two technical additions recommended in written comments from Dan Oakley of Dark Sky International and other sources. The committee voted to add a new subsection (recorded in the transcript as “0.35”) limiting festoon or street string lights to a maximum of 50 lumens and a density no greater than 25 lumens per foot; that motion (moved by Val) passed unanimously. The committee also voted unanimously to adopt revised shielding language recommended from a model ordinance (the transcript cites Springdale, Utah as the source), replacing a 15‑degree specification with a clear requirement that “all outdoor lighting shall include fully shielded fixtures and shall be installed so light is directed downward with no light emitted above the horizontal.” Carolyn moved to use the recommended language; Val seconded and the motion passed.

Committee members discussed several implementation questions that the amended language does not resolve. They noted enforcement limits for private lighting, how violations are discovered, and that some features (for example, EV charging station area lighting) can create bright downward illumination even when fixtures are full cutoff. Speakers said enforcement options are strongest when new or replacement fixtures are subject to the rules; enforcement against existing installations depends on whether amortization or retroactive requirements are adopted (which the committee did not adopt at this meeting).

The committee agreed that definitions referenced in the lighting section should be placed in the main definitions section of chapter 38 (so they apply across the chapter rather than only inside the lighting subsection). Marty and other staff said they will email the chapter‑level definition section and the proposed new definitions (including a festoon/string‑light definition) to committee members before the next meeting for review.

After completing those changes the committee voted unanimously to forward the amended 38.8.2 lighting language to the town attorney for legal review. The committee also scheduled its next meeting for Oct. 15 to review the chapter‑wide definitions and to begin discussion of internally illuminated signs, which will be handled as a separate ballot question if advanced to voters.

Votes at a glance - Motion to change applicability language to read “new and retrofit lighting must meet all lighting requirements in this section” (mover: Scott Wilson; second: Val). Outcome: passed, 3–1. - Motion to restore an amortization requirement with a 10‑year compliance period (mover: Val; second: Carolyn). Outcome: failed (tie on voting machine; no adoption). - Motion to add language limiting festoon/string lights to 50 lumens and no more than 25 lumens per foot (mover: Val; second: Carolyn). Outcome: passed, unanimous. - Motion to adopt model shielding language (no light emitted above the horizontal; full cutoff fixtures) taken from consultant recommendations. Outcome: passed, unanimous. - Motion to send amended 38.8.2 (lighting) to legal. Outcome: passed, unanimous.

What the meeting changed — and what remains unresolved The committee narrowed the ordinance so it will regulate new and replacement/retrofit lighting and adopted technical standards (shielding and specific lumen limits for string/festoon lights). It did not adopt any amortization schedule to require currently installed fixtures to be upgraded; the committee debated 5‑ and 10‑year options and did not reach agreement. Members directed staff to circulate chapter‑level definitions for review before the next meeting and to bring the amended lighting language to legal review.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified by name and role as reflected in the meeting record; other statements are summarized or paraphrased where the transcript did not attribute them to a named individual.