Who’s responsible? Liability raised in dark skies debate

The draft of a proposed new law regulating lighting fixtures on commercial and residential properties was called into question again at Town Hall Tuesday.

Resident Richard Kelly asked the board if they were aware that if a home or business owner modifies light fixtures to comply with the proposed law, they would be liable if the fixture caused a fire or any other kind of damage.

Mr. Kelly presented a document outlining various light shields that carried a warning from Underwriters Laboratories (UL), a certification consultant that approved the shields, about modifying the fixtures. The consultant states: “By compromising the UL approval, the modifier, property owner, and others may be liable if fixture failure causes a fire or other damages.”

Mr. Kelly also pointed out that in a legal notice, the International Dark Sky Association — an advocate for reducing light trespass across property lines and the environmental benefits of shielded lighting — stated that the organization “does not support or condone modifications of light fixtures.”

This comes on the heels of revelations that Susan Harder, a Dark Sky Association member who addressed the Town Board years ago promoting lighting regulations, has a patent for an attachment that is a key component in the new law the board is considering.

“If someone puts one of these modifications on their light fixtures as a result of the law,” Mr. Kelly said, “you can argue that makes the town liable because they’re required to do it at the risk of a $500 fine.”

Councilman Peter Reich noted that the law wouldn’t necessarily require people to put up shields.

Ms. Harder told the Reporter after the meeting that, “As I read the proposed Shelter Island lighting code, as written, it would prohibit the installation of the type of floodlight fixture that would use the shields that I developed. The shields are only useful if/when pre-existing, non-conforming lighting is addressed. And, I don’t think the proposed draft addresses pre-existing non-conforming.”

Ms. Harder added that “it is my hope that over time, the shields will become obsolete since new fixtures, with shields, have been developed.”

Resident Vinnie Novak, who had apologized to the board earlier for raising his voice last week during a heated discussion on dark skies, made the comparison of owning a car and lighting fixtures. “If you modify your engine, you’ve voided your warranty, unless you go to a factory approved service center,” Mr. Novak said. “If an insurance company has an out to not pay you, the reality is they’ll jump on it.”

Mr. Kelly asked the board to postpone the public hearing on the proposed law scheduled for June 28 for two months “in light of what had been vetted out in the last three weeks.”

Supervisor Jim Dougherty thanked Mr. Kelly for his request and for making it in a “reasonable fashion.” He said he believed the board would not vote on the proposed law at the public hearing and that the meeting will stay on the schedule for June 28.