Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trustco Lighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glens Falls board debates TrustCo Bank’s blue roof lighting; motion to deny plan introduced
Summary
Board members raised concerns that continuous blue roof-edge lighting proposed by C2 Design Group for TrustCo Bank at 37 Bay Street would cause light spillage, clash with downtown character and set an undesirable precedent; a motion to deny the architectural plan was introduced but the transcript does not record a final tally.
The Glens Falls Planning Board, sitting as the Board of Architectural Review, considered on Jan. 7, 2026 an application from C2 Design Group on behalf of TrustCo Bank to install continuous blue accent lighting along the full edge of the roof of the bank building commonly referred to in the transcript as 37 Bay Street. Board members and participants questioned whether the omnidirectional, branding-style illumination fits the city's downtown character and complies with lighting standards.
Board member Ben Meade, who identified himself during the discussion, said approving the feature could establish a precedent that other downtown property owners would follow. "I think that's my ability to create an aesthetic that I don't think that downtown... wants to be or reflect to be," Meade said, and urged the city to review its lighting code before approving similar installations.
Another board member with lighting experience (identified in the record as Speaker 3) drew a technical distinction between directional 'wall wash' fixtures and the omnidirectional branding lights under consideration, saying the proposed lighting would not be shielded and would create spillover. "I heard... somebody wanted to know if Vegas had come to town," Speaker 3 recounted, describing calls from residents after the lights were briefly switched on. He cited standards that require exterior lighting be designed to prevent objectionable glare and light trespass and argued the proposal was not in harmony with other properties in the downtown architectural zone.
Speaker 1, who opened the review, said a site inspection showed the lighting would cast a noticeable glow even at reduced brightness and that the design "doesn't fit the neighborhood." Responding to a procedural point, Speaker 2 noted that one cited section of the code (section 129) does not apply to this district and asked the board to rely on the architectural-review standard of harmony within the zone.
After discussion, Speaker 2 moved that the board deny the architectural plan as presented at the Jan. 7 meeting. The motion appears on the record (mover: Speaker 2), and the transcript records at least one vote in favor and one opposed (Speaker 3 said "Yes"; Speaker 5 said "No"). No complete roll-call tally or final outcome is recorded in the transcript provided.
Board members acknowledged TrustCo Bank's investment in the city and the potential economic benefits of the location, but several said those benefits did not outweigh concerns about downtown character and possible light pollution. The discussion closed with multiple board members urging further study or a citywide review of lighting standards to address LED-era technologies and advertising-style architectural illumination.
The board did not record a complete final decision in the transcript excerpt; the motion to deny was introduced and received at least one recorded opposing vote, but a formal tally and any subsequent actions (table, postpone, or adopt changes) are not specified in the provided record.
