Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lighting Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rowlett staff seeks 0.25 foot‑candle residential limit in proposed lighting ordinance
Summary
City staff presented a draft update to RDC §77.5.10 that would set measurable limits (0.25 foot‑candles at property lines), add definitions and enforcement steps, and allow exemptions for emergency and city lighting; commissioners asked for clearer shielding rules and for staff to circulate a draft before the May 26 public hearing.
City of Rowlett Community Development staff on Tuesday presented a draft update to the city's outdoor lighting code, proposing a measurable residential standard and clearer definitions for enforcement.
"The allowable maximum intensity measured at the residential property line shall be 0.25 foot candles," said Michael King, City of Rowlett Community Development, who led the presentation. He outlined a package of proposed additions to RDC §77.5.10 including definitions (lumens, candelas, foot‑candles), a luminance calculation for field enforcement, presumptions and exemptions, and penalties tied to code enforcement processes.
The draft would apply to residential and nonresidential properties and emphasize shielding to prevent glare. King said staff chose lumens and foot‑candles for consistency with light‑meter measurements and explained why the code should avoid regulating by watts: "We're using lumens, because that's the output that's measured with a light meter."
Commissioners pressed staff on enforcement and retroactivity. Several members said enforcement of existing fixtures should be complaint‑driven rather than blanket retroactive enforcement. One commissioner warned that broad retroactive requirements could put many existing homes in violation; staff said the proposed approach would use complaint verification and targeted remediation rather than mass notices.
The draft addresses security lighting and curfews by referencing comparative examples in other Texas cities. King noted some cities use an 11:00 p.m. curfew for nonessential lighting and recommended outreach encouraging motion sensors that default to off and turn off after short intervals.
Holiday and special‑event lighting were discussed as a distinct issue. King proposed either general timing limits or a special‑event permit for large displays that create traffic or safety concerns; commissioners debated whether to limit hours (examples ranged from 10:00 to 11:00 p.m.) or adopt more generalized rules.
A resident who spoke during the work session urged stricter limits for lakefront properties. "Lakefront homes should not be any more than 0.10 foot candles," commenter Bartaszek said, and he provided a short video and light‑meter reading to illustrate his concern. King acknowledged lakefront conditions and the subjective nature of aesthetics, saying photos show varying expectations along the lakeshore.
Staff will circulate a draft Word document to commissioners the morning after the meeting and requested edits by May 18 so the ordinance can be posted for the May 26 public hearing. King also offered a follow‑up work session before the hearing if commissioners want further review.
