The Glens Falls Common Council is looking to add a lighting law to the city code. The law was on the agenda for a vote during their meeting Tuesday evening Feb. 8. However, after a public hearing, the council waited to vote and will take more public input in the meantime.
The proposed law would “establish regulations to allow for outdoor illumination levels which are appropriate for the use, while promoting safety and security, and minimizing the undesirable side effects of excessive illumination such as light trespass and light pollution.”
"Light trespass" is one person shining their light on another person's property.
Generally, the law is aimed to stop people who put lights on their houses that shine on the neighbor’s property or in their windows.
“No light or lights shall be so operated as to be a nuisance,” the proposed ordinance says.
About a half dozen people spoke at the public hearing supporting the measure. Some spoke about troubles with neighbors. Others tended to support the nature of the law which looks more like "rules of conduct," one person said, than a city ordinance.
Glens Falls resident and attorney Michael Borgos was the lone naysayer who spoke.
"I'm opposed to this law as unnecessary," Borgos said. He said most of the trouble the law aimed to alleviate could be fixed in discussions between neighbors. "I know there's always some people that just won’t listen to reason." Lawsuits could take over from there if necessary.
Borgos argued that the law is too vague and relies too much on definitions that will become unenforceable.
He said for the law to work, it needs to rely on technical jargon generally reserved for commercial developments. “Lumens” or “foot candles” are amounts of light that can be measured, and a maximum could be enforced, he said, but "it has to have objective standards.”
Finally, he told the council, he felt the law had not been advertised widely enough.
It was there that Mayor Bill Collins said he wished that Borgos had talked to his councilor and had stepped forward with concerns sooner.
Borgos had spoken with Jim Clarke Jr., the at-large councilor for the city, he said, adding that he only heard of the law recently and responded when he knew.
"We’d never support a law without thinking about it, without doing due diligence," Collins responded to Borgos, adding that the law did not have the details—such as lumens of light—on purpose. The city was forming a law that is reasonable and that people would understand and willingly follow. Code enforcement said they could respond to the law as it was, the city's attorney Karen Judd said.
Local people have come to the city after failing to reach an accord with their neighbors, Collins said.
“They are asking for relief,” he said, adding that a lawsuit is too big a hassle and too expensive for many people.
Ward 3 Councilor Diana Palmer said the ordinance has been discussed in the Buildings and Codes committee and has been part of her committee updates at city council meetings. Yet she also told the board that they should wait on the vote and take in more information before moving forward. The board quickly agreed.
“I do think it’s necessary to have the law,” she said, “but I am open to ways that it may be improved.”
Borgos pushed for the city to post the law clearly on the city website and provide minutes to meetings in which the law was discussed. The law had mainly been posted in city council agendas and many meetings about it did not require minutes, the mayor said.
The law applies to residences and multifamily homes, not city buildings.
[Editor’s note: Michael Borgos of the Borgos and Del Signore law firm is an advertiser with FoothillsBusinessDaily.com.]