Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 7 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
use seems inadequate.
The concept of retroactivity does not have to be draconian. First of all, residential outdoor lighting would have to be defined to exclude the 100 watt kind of porch lights since these are no more annoying than a 100 watt lamp in the front window. What I am talking about here is the mercury vapor type lights. A definition of some kind would have to be agreed to, especially in light of the County’s current technical inability to define what a bright light is. Brightness, not distance should be the measure of offensiveness.
The proposed new ordinances only cover lighting closer than 100 feet from the property line, but I can document one case where a light one quarter of a mile away will cast the shadow of a hand held up in a neighbor’s residence.
The County itself would have to specify how - technically - to define excessive lighting, and would probably have to perform the inspection functions.
The solutions I propose are neither hi tech nor particularly expensive.
The focus of discussion should be on requiring either the installation of motion detectors with limited time periods (the 15 minutes in the draft ordinance seems fine to me), or the installation of downward deflection shields as is being suggested in the recent Board discussions. This should not affect anyone’s rights to have outdoor lighting for security or any reason whatsoever. This is not some new concept; it is based on traditional laws of “nuisance”.
Current County zoning ordinances have such provisions but they are unwieldy and vague. In planned communities such as Reston such concepts are an integral part of the Housing Regulations that bind each homeowner.
Although opponents of my two suggestions will invoke the traditional romantic appeal of interference with property rights and freedom of choice, no one realistically thinks we live in a “I-can-do-whateverthe-hell-I-want” kind of world. Hardly anyone would defend a neighbor playing loud music day and night, and why should bright outdoor lighting be any less a nuisance? Many of our rights end at our property line.
Hunters can’t hunt our land without permission. People who fire bullets across their neighbor’s property line would probably run afoul of the law. We certainly have a right to complain about loud parties since loud music doesn’t stop at fence lines, and excessively bright spillover lighting should
95.7%