20210471 Unified Development Ordinance Public Comment 100 High Rock Ave.
Apt. C
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
May 26, 2021
Mark Torpey, Chair and Members of the City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board
City Hall
474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12966
Re: Agenda Item#7 (20210472: consideration of advisory opinion to the City Council on
the final draft of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
Dear Chairman Torpey and Planning Board Members:
(Full disclosure: I serve on the City's Open Space Advisory Committee and have
contributed to its Natural Resource Inventory, especially to Chapter 10 "Dark Skies,"
which I urge you to read; but while my participation in that body informs some of my
opinions as outlined below, I write to you in my capacity as a private citizen and as a
resident of Saratoga Springs.)
Purpose: This letter is intended to encourage the Planning Board a) to review carefully
Article 9.4 ("Exterior Lighting") of Draft# 3 of the Unified Development Ordinance and
b) to consider addressing serious deficiencies that remain unresolved in that section of the
UDO. My comments (below) essentially follow upon those I offered during the public
comment period on the draft in question.
Here are my concerns:
While there has been some reorganization of the section on Exterior Lighting (Article
9.4) -- as was very briefly explained in the presentation of 4/20/21 to the City Council--
overall what is in the document is still disappointing in several aspects. For example, at
9.4.C.1 there is proposed an excessive 1 foot candle measurement for "nonresidential,
mixed-use, multi-family, and townhouse developments at any lot-line." Now, since the
full moon is less than .02 foot candles --- more than sufficient for night vision in most
natural circumstances --- 50x more than that is significant overkill and will result in
unnecessary overlighting of spaces adjacent to illuminated areas.
For purposes of comparison, some jurisdictions set the limit at .1 foot candles as a
general rule, and the Dark Sky Society guidance for light spill ("GUIDELINES FOR
GOOD EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLANS") recommends that "Might levels at the
property line should not exceed 0.1 foot candles (fc) adjacent to business properties and
0.05 fc ... at residential property boundaries." ("How to Develop an Acceptable Lighting
Plan," #6, p. 3) at:
https://www.darkskysociety.org/handouts/LightingPlanGuidelines.pdf
What is more,the language of 9.4.C.1 still does not indicate at what height foot candles
would be measured. There needs to be more specificity (e.g., at eye-level, 3' off the
ground, etc.). The usual measurement is made on the ground itself; but unless that is
specified somewhere else in the document or unless there is a standard code enforcement
practice of which I am unaware, the present vagueness about measurement is a recipe for
legal wrangling about what constitutes a violation and will undoubtedly result in
constrained enforcement.
Likewise, no refinement has been made to the definition of and use limitations for
"holiday and seasonal lighting designs" deemed "exempt from the requirements of this
Ordinance." (9.4.D.3) Absent any guidelines, this too will result in the possibility of legal
wrangling and enforcement problems should excessive illumination become an issue,
especially in neighborhoods and rural residential districts. There ought to be at least some
descriptive language that outlines exactly what is and what is not allowed, particularly in
otherwise dark(er) areas such as the Greenbelt.
Lastly, despite the commendable -- if minor -- changes made to Article 9.4 in Draft#3,
what is really needed is a comprehensive Outdoor Lighting Ordinance per se, such as has
been produced by the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) and the Illuminating
Engineering Society (IES):
https://www.darksky.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-
manager/16_MLO_FINAL_JUNE2011.PDF
That model has been used in such communities as Somerville, MA as the basis and
starting point for ensuring that sensible and efficient outdoor lighting is the norm in the
community as a whole. See Zoning Ordinance, Ch. 10, Development Standards, 10.7:
"Outdoor Lighting" (pp. 452-54) available at:
https://library.municode.com/ma/somerville/codes/zoning_ordinances?nodeld=Chapter%
2010%20-%20Development%20Standards
The local alternative would be to incorporate comprehensive and specific code language
within the UDO itself to address the growing issue of light pollution in all of its forms
and to minimize its deleterious effects on both the human and natural world. As per the
Natural Resources Inventory, produced by the City's Open Space Advisory Committee
and approved by the City Council in December, 2020, Saratoga Springs should:
"[e]stablish an official municipal goal to align the City's lighting standards and
regulations with International Dark-Sky Association guidelines and educate the public
about this policy"; "[e]nact a modern outdoor lighting ordinance for the purpose of
minimizing light pollution"; and "[e]nact overlay zoning for lighting standards, as a
logical extension of the 'city in the country' vision that has guided Saratoga Springs' land
use policies so successfully." (p. 291)
Anything short of that in terms of seriously regulating exterior lighting fails to resolve the
very kind of issue that the UDO process was actually initiated to address.
In sum, then, the Planning Board's role could not be clearer with regard to outdoor
lighting: to make the recommendation for formally regulating outdoor lighting within the
city limits of Saratoga Springs through the codification of appropriate language that
would be both educational and enforceable.
I thank you for your attention to this important matter, and I look forward to progress
made by the City in this arena.
Sincerely,
John M. McMahon