Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board refines outdoor lighting draft to protect dark skies and wildlife, asks staff to borrow model language
Summary
The board reviewed proposed changes to Section 5.12 on outdoor lighting, debated exemptions for business decorative lights and street/dock safety lighting, and agreed to incorporate model language addressing light pollution, wildlife and automatic-timer standards; staff will add suggested edits for review next month.
The New Shoreham Planning Board discussed revisions to its outdoor lighting rules (Section 5.12) on Nov. 13, focusing on balancing local business lighting needs with dark-sky and wildlife protections. Chair (Speaker 1) and Michelle (Speaker 3) walked the board through suggested language and examples drawn from a Connecticut model.
Chair read model language emphasizing several goals: "to reduce glare, raise public awareness about the need to conserve energy and reduce light pollution, avoid sky glow caused by upward illumination, avoid light trespass on adjacent properties and public streets, improve public safety through proper lighting and reduce light pollution, which contributes to the wildlife mortality, reduced visibility of the night sky and adverse impacts on human health." Board members agreed that language clarifying wildlife protection should be included somewhere in the purpose/goals section.
Members debated whether low-lumen decorative string lights used by restaurants and shops should be exempted from standards if they are on only while the business is open. Michelle (Speaker 3) cautioned that exempting business decorative lighting would remove it from the numeric standards (lumens, cutoff angles, timers) and suggested instead leaving decorative lighting subject to the standards so it could be limited by lumen or time-of-use rules.
On safety-critical lighting, the board agreed to exempt lighting required by federal, state or local law and lighting required by an insurance carrier, such as dock or airport lighting, while still urging that new installations conform to the ordinance's standards. The board also discussed adding technical prohibitions (for example, electronic signboards, rooftop billboards or flared beams that project above a horizontal plane) borrowed from the Connecticut model and agreed to insert them for review and possible removal next month if they prove overbroad.
Michelle raised a possible general standard that outdoor lighting be controlled by automatic timers or motion sensors (for example, turning off after a period of inactivity or during specified overnight hours); the board asked staff to draft model language for committee review.
Next steps: staff will incorporate the board's edits, add the model Connecticut language for purposes/goals, and return a revised draft for the Planning Board's next meeting.
