[Town Meeting] Re: Warrant Article 17 Revised Substitute Motion/ Lighting

[Lee Ellis]

If you have comments about Article 17 substitute motion, you should be
sure to copy Cindy Tollen <ctollen at hotmail.com> If you sent a comment
to me and didn't copy Cindy, don't worry I forwarded them. Sending
direct however will be faster.  I don't mind seeing the comments as
well, but Cindy is the one who is working on the motion, I just past
Rich C's suggestion to her and offered to help post.

Lee Ellis TMM pct 15

On 5/8/05, Lee Ellis <lellis601 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: cynthia tollen <ctollen at hotmail.com>
> Date: May 8, 2005 6:48 PM
> Subject: Revised Substitute Motion/ Lighting
> To: ctollen at hotmail.com
> 
> Dear Town Meeting Member,
> 
>  Here is the first draft of a suggested Substitute Motion regarding
> outdoor lighting to replace Warrant Article 17.
> 
>    "It is the intention of this article to regulate the use of lighting so
> as not to unduly inconvenience abutters by having light shining directly
> into their windows or onto their properties.  In all residential
> neighborhoods all outdoor lighting, including but not limited to,
> floodlighting or decorative lighting, or lighting primarily designed to
> illuminate walks, driveways, outdoor living areas, or outdoor recreational
> facilities,  except for temporary holiday lighting, shall be continous,
> indirect, and installed in a manner that will prevent direct light from
> shining onto any street or adjacent property.Motion sensor lighting shall
> be installed in a manner such that it is not activated by movement on an
> adjoining property."
> 
> NOTES::
> 
>  In an effort to determine if a bylaw regulating outdoor lighting in
> residential areas in Arlington would be difficult or overwhelming to
> enforce, I spoke to officials from surrounding towns whose responsiblity it
> is to enforce similar laws in their town. All of the officials I spoke to
> told me that enforcement was not difficult  nor burdensome.
> 
>      From a memo by John Maher, Town Counsel, March 1, 2005 , regarding
> Warrant Article 17,
> "Frequently, when there are special permit requests to the Redevelopment
> Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals a condition is placed upon the special
> permit to regulate the use of lighting so as not to unduly inconvenience
> abutters by having the light shine into their properties."
> 
>  In addition, Arlington already does have a bylaw regulating outdoor
> lighting in commerical areas. Any driveway with five or more spaces is
> similarly regulated, ie, that lighting must be kept on the property from
> which the lighting is originating.  Lighting must be installed in a manner
> such that it does not infringe on neighboring properties.  This motion
> attempts to give abutters some protection from light trespass onto their
> properties.
> 
>  The following are some notes I took:
> 
>  Cambridge: Sean O'Grady, Building Inspector 617-349-6100 In five(5)
> years of enforcement, he has only had to go to court 2 or at the most, 3
> times. Procedure is : Once a complaint is made to the building
> department ,the offender is contacted. Most people comply right away,
> they want to conform to the ordinance. If there is still no
> compliance, inspector goes to the property to remind them, and if they
> do not comply after the second time, the town can go to court to order
> a cease and desist. Complaintant can provide photos with the complaint
> . System ACTUALLY SAVES POLICE TIME because process is done through
> building department and saves calls to police in responding to
> neighborhood complaints.
> 
>  Watertown: (not contiguous but similar to Arlington): Ken Thompson,
> Building Inspector, 671-972-6480. "Not many complaints, only 1 in the
> last year. Most people want to be a good neighbor. 99.9% don't realize
> there is a problem, but when contacted by building inspector, most get
> the message and fix the problem after first contact. Most people want
> to be treated by their neighbors the way they would like to be
> treated. They also don't want to be in direct violation of town
> bylaws, which is a civil violation. Inspections are done during day
> because it's easy to see from the way a light is installed if it would
> be shining light incorrectly or is objectionable. "
> 
> I have calls in to these towns, also, because they do have lighting
> regulations. Lexington is much more complicated.
> 
>  Winchester:: Has regulations in the commercial area, none in
> residential.
> 
>  Lexington :  Has more complicated laws regarding outdoor lighting in
> residential areas.
> 
>  Belmont : Has complicated laws regarding outdoor lighting.
> 
>  Plymouth Has very precise and complicated bylaws.
> 
>      I would like to  hear from you regarding the reworked motion.  I need
> your input to see that all parties' concerns are addressed.  Thanks
> very much for your help and interest.  You can also call me at
> 781-64-4052.  Let it ring a long time, and if you have to, please
> leave a voicemail message.
> 
> Cindy Tollen
>