City council approves amendment to introduce light nuisance rules for indoor lighting – Salisbury Post

SALISBURY – The Salisbury City Council has approved a change to city ordinances that will allow the city to apply nuisance lighting regulations to interior lighting in multifamily residential and commercial buildings.

The ordinance change was proposed primarily to ensure that interior lighting in multifamily residential and commercial buildings does not have a negative impact on motorists on nearby streets as well as adjacent property owners, according to the staff report submitted by Senior Planner Victoria Bailiff. The change simply removes references to “exterior lighting” in the city’s lighting ordinances, making the rules apply to all forms of lighting in the two property types, both exterior and interior lighting.

The bailiff also noted that the change in the ordinance would not affect single-family homes.

The change meant that several rules now apply to indoor lighting, including:

• The lighting must not shine directly into the courtyards or windows of neighboring houses.
• Only downward-facing semi-cutoff, cutoff, or full-cutoff lights can be used.
• Flickering, rotating or flashing lights and searchlights are prohibited.

The idea for the change came about because there were complaints about lighting, particularly in some commercial buildings, being so bright at night that it was affecting neighbors in their homes, said Mayor Pro Tem Tamara Sheffield. She specifically pointed to a business near Salisbury High School that impacted surrounding homes until “two or three in the morning.” However, the city had no way to fix the problem because the ordinances were not applicable.

“It's the new kind of lights that you hang in the window and shoot light out. The poor families across the street can't keep a window open at night because it comes straight into their house like headlights. That’s why I think we’re looking at this issue and trying to move forward with regulating lights as they continue to improve,” Sheffield said.

Councilman Harry McLaughlin asked how the ordinances would be enforced. The bailiff responded that enforcement of the regulations did not work at night. So if the city received complaints, the police would measure the light levels at the edge of the property at night and report the data.

DeeDee Wright asked during the public comment period whether the ordinance would apply to existing lights. City Attorney Graham Corriher said new ordinances typically do not apply to existing buildings and that this ordinance could be applied retroactively because changes such as lighting changes can be “resolved fairly inexpensively” compared to major zoning changes.

Included in the ordinance change was a secondary change that updated the wording and required outdoor facilities such as parking lots to meet the “almost impossible” lighting requirement of exactly one foot-candle along the entire property line. The amendment changed the requirement to a minimum of 0.5 foot candles, giving property owners some leeway, the bailiff said.

After the discussion, the city councilors unanimously approved the ordinance change.