Proposed Lighting Change Sparks Dismay
By Joanne Pilgrim
(May 27,2010) By a large majority, the speakers at an East Hampton Town Board hearing last week on a proposal to give business owners two more years to bring outdoor lighting into compliance with a dark-sky-friendly ordinance enacted four years ago took the opportunity to illuminate for the board the reasons not to extend the October deadline.
 Morgan McGivern
|
Three speakers, representing businesses, urged the board to allow more time, citing the economic downturn and the costs of changing lighting to comply with the law, which homeowners were expected to abide by immediately after its adoption.
Susan Harder, a Springs resident who was integral in crafting and enacting the lighting law, was first to speak.
A founder of the Dark Sky Society and the state section leader of the International Dark Sky Society, and an Illuminating Engineering Society-qualified outdoor lighting designer and educator, Ms. Harder has been a member for 10 years on the town’s energy and light advisory committee.
The requirements outlined in the law, Ms. Harder explained, are based on safety — “the reduction of glare from unshielded fixtures for better night vision.”
She noted that Councilman Pete Hammerle, who was on the board when the ordinance was passed, voted for the law, and said that Councilman Dominick Stanzione and Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson “both signed statements prior to your election that you would enforce the enacted lighting law.”
“I think it’s absurd for the town board, and all of us, to be wasting our time,” Arlene Coulter said about considering a time extension. Excessive lighting creates glare, a danger to night drivers, she said, and is injurious to wildlife.
“It’s sort of stealing from us, and our enjoyment of the night sky,” Jim MacMillan, a member of the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee, said.
Betty Mazur, an Amagansett resident, questioned the town board about how the time extension proposal came about, asking if members had compiled a list of businesses not in compliance and had seen an analysis of the cost of changing lighting so that it complies. “What about the effects on the environment?” she asked, suggesting that allowing noncompliant lighting to stand for another two years should be subject to a State Environmental Quality Review Act review.
“The Town of East Hampton has been a leader, protecting both the environment and the quality of life of its citizens,” she said. “The amendment to the code, if adopted as written here, is a major step backward.”
“The homework is definitely incomplete here,” Jen Hartnagel of Group for the East End said. As far as business owners, she said, “It seems more a case of ‘we don’t want to,’ not that ‘we can’t.’ ”
“This law was conceived at a time of great prosperity. The downturn in our economy certainly put a crimp in our ability to meet those objectives as quickly as we would have liked, Jim Zaborski of Dune Management, who manages resorts and multi-family dwellings, said. “Unfortunately dark skies might take a back seat to new roof or paint jobs,” he said.
Complying with the law could entail adding more lights, he said, to obtain seamless lighting, and the cost will be “substantial.”
But Ms. Harder pointed out later that the lighting proscribed in the law, and the coverage area, is based on the Illuminating Engineering Society of America standards. “There’s nothing unsafe about dark sky lighting,” she said. And, she said, changes needed to address glare can be cost-free, such as re-aiming fixtures or changing bulbs.
“What has been happening over the last four years when you knew the law was in effect?” Mr. Stanzione asked one business owner, who said other costs took precedence.
“They’ve had four years while the economy was great,” Edwina von Gal said. Installing more energy-efficient lighting “pays for itself,” she said. “So it’s a little bit hard to make the economic argument.”
While most businesses want to comply, Margaret Turner, the executive director of the East Hampton Business Alliance, said, the town code is difficult to understand and compliance entails extensive costs. Businesses she said, “are still trying to get their heads above water — let alone recover — from the last two years of a recession,” and would rather rehire laid-off employees than spend money on lighting.
Ms. Turner also raised questions about whether the code allows for sufficient lighting and asked the board to revisit its details.
In her comments, Ms. Harder said that the town Planning Department distributes “Guidelines for Good Lighting Plans,” and that the Long Island Power Authority will provide a free lighting plan.
“Months ago, and more than a year from the compliance date, all commercial property owners were provided with a town-approved mailer outlining the tenets of the code and simple recommendations for meeting the code,” she said.
Businesses, Ms. Coulter said, have ignored “a simple step for which lots of help has been offered and ignored, and have had four years to save up for” changes to their lighting. “So maybe we customers of these business should just stop patronizing them until they consider us,” she said to applause.
Ms. Harder proposed that “if you want to delay fines for some businesses with verifiable expenses while they are making a good faith effort, then give them one year from this date. Then give the Planning Department (since they have decades of experience in reviewing lighting) the discretion to grant further extensions.”
Bob Stern, the president of Concerned Citizens of Montauk, said there “should not be a protected class of people who don’t have to abide by the law.” On residential properties, the law took effect immediately after its adoption.
“It seems extremely unfair that residents had to comply with this law immediately, but businesses have now had four years to do it,” Sue Avedon said.
“There is a value to dark skies,” Bill Akin, also of Montauk, said. “It’s a quality of life issue.” He said he lives near the Montauk Manor, where there are lights that, on moist evenings, create “a glow that surrounds a portion of the sky, like some kind of alien spaceship up there.”
The manor had been mentioned as one of the businesses that had asked for the time extension because of concerns about the cost to its unit owners of changing the outdoor lights.
Mr. Akin reminded the board that four years ago, engineers, builders, architects, Ms. Harder, town planners, and others were involved in crafting the lighting law. “There was tremendous input into how this got formalized, and I’d like you to keep that in mind,” he said.
“There was huge community support right across the board for this legislation,” Richard Kahn of Montauk told the board, noting that the law was revised based on comments and concerns. “Great care was taken to make it easy for businesses to comply,” he said. “A major concession to business was made with a four-year sunset period.”
“Where did this come from?” he asked the board “Was the Planning Department consulted? Was the planning board consulted? Did you even talk to your energy and light advisory committee?”
Since the lighting ordinance’s adoption, Mr. Kahn said, the state has included areas of the town in its “Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance” list, which mandates a review of actions that might affect them. Allowing noncompliant outdoor lighting to remain would be subject to such a review, Mr. Kahn told the board, to more applause.
Rav Friedel of Montauk reminded Supervisor Bill Wilkinson of his pledge to keep the environment foremost. “Dark skies are important for business, because it attracts people here,” he said.
Although Supervisor Wilkinson had a resolution approving the time extension prepared for a vote later at last Thursday’s meeting, the board agreed unanimously to table the matter.