Town Board tones it down to talk about ‘dark skies’

It was the calm after the storm at Town Hall Tuesday afternoon.

Meeting in its work session, the Town Board was in a subdued mood after some fiery accusations between colleagues last week, with no heated exchanges. Even a discussion on ‘dark skies’ legislation — which has been hotly contested for months by the board and residents — was more about practical legislative strategies than ideological rhetoric.

The board looked again at a draft of a proposed law that would regulate commercial and residential lighting fixtures, and decided to eliminate a clause charging violators court costs if they lost their case.

It was also decided to remove a provision that, prior to the sale or transfer of a structure, it would have to be conform to dark skies regulations.

Councilman Paul Shepherd said there should be some kind of warning mechanism before someone was charged with breaking the law. He also questioned the severity of a $100 fine for failure to comply with new regulations. Town Attorney Laury Dowd said the $100 fine was the same as  one for illegal parking.

Resident Gordon Van Vranken said he’d been walking recently in his neighborhood at night and was confronted with a “blinding light” from a neighbor’s property. He asked his neighbor if he could see the light and noted it was a halogen light of 6,000 lumens. A lumen is a unit that measures the amount of light emanating from a source.

Mr. Van Vranken said this was completely unacceptable for a residential area. “When it hits your eyes it’s so intense, it dominates everything else,” he added.

Councilwoman Chris Lewis pointed out that the proposed law states that “Flood lights shall not exceed 1800 lumens.” It was decided to remove the word “flood” so the lumen count would apply to all lighting.

Several residents, including Paulette Van Vranken, insisted that something be done now about excessive lighting rather than grandfathering in lights currently installed.

There was discussion about having a time limit on overly bright, unshielded lights, such as establishing midnight as a cut off point. Councilman Ed Brown, who has championed the idea that lighting is often crucial to personal safety, asked how a cut off time would affect restaurant and ferry workers and other people going home after hours.

Resident Tim Purtell said midnight wouldn’t work, since he has neighbors whose bright lights shine in to his house long before midnight.

There was a discussion of enforcement, which has been one of the thorniest issues, and not completely resolved, but it seems a complaint-driven method of enforcement by the police and building departments will be the solution.

Education was a key component of the law, and several board members said by continuing discussion word was getting out to people who have lights that might be causing distress to their neighbors.

Councilman Paul Shepherd retuned again to the idea that excessive regulation of what people can do with their property will have negative side effects. He said he was “terrified what this will wreak on interpersonal relationships.”