(Credit: Steve Thurston 2022)
Matt Webster of Bay Road in Glens Falls addresses the city council about residential lighting.
A vote on the proposed residential "outdoor exterior lighting" ordinance in Glens Falls was postponed, again, after the Common Council failed to post an agenda for their meeting Tuesday, Feb. 22. They had postponed the vote two weeks earlier after public comment convinced councilors to make changes. This time, the city was forced to cancel the Feb. 22 council meeting because they could not hold a meeting in order to vote. The meeting was rescheduled for Tuesday March 1.
The missing agenda was brought to the council's attention by FoothillsBusinessDaily.com.
“It’s my fault that the city council is not going to happen,” Mayor Bill Collins said.
However, the notice of the public hearing on the light ordinance was advertised properly, so the council remained in their seats.
They listened as a few people stepped to the microphone and talked about the problems with the ordinance:
It’s just another layer of red tape, is too vague, puts too much power in the hands of the city’s code enforcer and applies only to residential lighting, not commercial or city lights.
While others spoke to its strengths:
It offers guidance to homeowners and gives residents a law to turn to when neighbors must have the tough conversation about “light trespass,” that is, light spilling from one property onto the neighbor’s.
[The arguments were similar to our earlier reporting here.]
City leaders were quick to point out that lighting for commercial properties goes through the planning process and must follow agreed-upon terms, or the property can be forced to comply. City lighting is changing, and the intent is, and has been, to illuminate streets and parking lots, not nearby properties.
Councilor Robert Landry urged people to complain about city lights, saying, “We have the ability to adjust that.”
Melissa Verburg told the city that she supports the law she called “utilitarian and fair.”
She said she has had sleepless nights because of a neighbor’s light shining in her second floor window even though she has tried to make peace.
“It causes daily stress. I’ve been losing sleep,” she said, adding later: “I don’t need your light in my second floor.”
Matt Webster argued against the law, hitting many topics that local attorney Michael Borgos mentioned two weeks earlier: the law was too vague to be effective and therefore put too much “power and flexibility” into the hands of code enforcement. He also complained that finding the document on the city’s website was much more difficult than city leadership believes.
Webster reminded them that the law calls for up to 15 days in jail for a person found to be noncompliant.
Fifteen days “for lighting,” he stressed, for effect.
Councilor Diana Palmer said she had spoken with Borgos again since the last meeting and agreed to read a letter of his into the record.
Among his many points was that the law focuses too much on the source of the problem–the light on one person’s property and how bright it shines or how it is angled to shine on another person’s property.
This leads to the city controlling the light itself or even the type of light fixture, potentially stopping a person from buying a common fixture, such as a floodlight, at a local hardware store.
One change made to the ordinance recently was the requirement of lower-wattage bulbs in outdoor fixtures.
The other problem is that code enforcement might have to go onto the person’s property when they might not have permission, Borgos wrote.
He urged the council to focus on the complainant’s property, to focus on whatever light crosses the property line. Look there first to see if there is a problem, he wrote.
Mayor Collins closed the public hearing on Tuesday but expects people to talk, if they wish, during regular public comment on Tuesday March 1, he said.