SWCC update on NatureWalk, lighting ordinance

[Sally]

Hello everyone,

I apologize for this late notice. I have just confirmed that the proposed Lighting Ordinance and the Nature Walk Beach Club development in Seagrove Beach are on the agenda for the Planning Commission Thursday night. (Feb. 8th) The Planning Commission meets at the South Walton Annex starting at 5 PM.

Following the Planning Commission hearing each of the topics must then go to a public hearing before the County Commissioners. Here is some info for you.

Proposed Countywide Lighting Ordinance. This proposed ordinance is intended to prevent light trespass, conserve energy, increase visibility and generally ?promote the welfare of county residents?. It applies to business, residential, community driveway, sidewalk and property lights. Here is a very general synopsis of the substantive provisions :

1. It establishes a maximum light level for the different areas (e.g., dwelling, street). Measured in foot candles
2. Restricts the amount of glare in certain commercial and manufacturing districts
3. Requires that flood lights must be aimed down or shielded so that the light basically shines down rather
than out to other properties or street
4. Restricts angle of illumination of flood lamps emitting more than 10,000 lumens
5. Requires that wall pack fixtures (flush mounted fixture on vertical wall) be cut off fixtures
6. All fixtures must be semi-cutoff or full cutoff in designated Scenic Corridors
7. Regulates parking lot and other outdoor areas through requirement of cutoff lights, pole height limit,etc.
8. Regulates lights for vehicular canopies (roofed, open, drive-through structures which provides temporary
shelter for vehicles while occupants are utilizing the business) (e.g., gas station)
9. Regulates outdoor sports field lighting and outdoor performance areas
10. Regulates outdoor display areas
11. Regulates sign lighting to restrict light to the sign
12. Requires lighting of building and landscaping must be installed to keep illumination away from adjoining
property
13. Requires a permit for any work involving lighting. There was an issue about whether this permit
requirement applied to single family residences. County will consider an exemption Thursday night.
14. Ordinance will apply to all new lighting and any replacement lighting after the effective date of the
Ordinance. Otherwise, existing lights will have 5 1/2 years to come into compliance.
15. My understanding is that investigation for non-compliance will be complaint based as opposed to routine
inspections by the county.

The Ordinance is more technical than I have presented here. For a copy please contact the Planning Department at the South Walton Annex. I?ll let you know what happens.

Nature Walk Beach Club. It is my understanding that the developers have made some concessions in response to public comment. For example, they have agreed to remove the retail store. They are also considering the issue of access off Headland Avenue.

SWCC has presented several legal issues to the developers and the county. (e.g., compliance with the requirement that a building on CR 30A cannot exceed 65% of the lot width, additional set back for a building over 2 stories in an area predominated by one to two story structures, etc.) At this point we do not know whether the county will support the developer?s request for a variance on some of the legal issues.

For those of you who are concerned about this development, it is important for you to attend the Planning Commission to see and hear the developer?s final plans.

We will also be monitoring what happens at the Planning Commission.

Anita Page
SWCC Executive Director

 

[Camellia]

Have there been any recent updates on the lighting ordinance? Did it ever pass and does it provide any protection for turtles? Am I missing an updated thread in my search? Any info greatly appreciated.

 

[Matt J]

Have there been any recent updates on the lighting ordinance? Did it ever pass and does it provide any protection for turtles? Am I missing an updated thread in my search? Any info greatly appreciated.

My understanding is that currently the EPA covers this pretty regularly.

 

[NotDeadYet]

My understanding is that currently the EPA covers this pretty regularly.

Your understanding is incorrect in several respects. First, the EPA has nothing to do with sea turtles. Second, there is a separate lighting ordinance concerning sea turtles that is yet to be heard by the planning commission. It is still bogged down as has been the case for, oh, about ten years now. And last but not least, what is currently in place only applies to new construction on the Gulf and comes from US Fish & Wildlife. Those are the rules that affected the WaterColor Inn, for example, which was forced to install turtle friendly lighting as a part of their original "take" permit way back when.

This lighting ordinance the poster refers to concerns itself with general lighting. Time and again as many developments passed through the planning process in the last few years numerous complaints were brought about light trespass into neighboring properties and it was always duly noted that there were no rules in place to protect existing properties from new, intrusive lighting being built nearby. Glare has also been a problem.

 

[John R]

so, the lighting guidelines presented above are still on the table?

 

[NotDeadYet]

so, the lighting guidelines presented above are still on the table?

Sorry if I confused you. The general lighting ordinance as described above by SWCC is what's on the table currently. There is a second ordinance, for sea turtle lighting, that has yet to move forward to the planning commission.

 

[John R]

Sorry if I confused you. The general lighting ordinance as described above by SWCC is what's on the table currently. There is a second ordinance, for sea turtle lighting, that has yet to move forward to the planning commission.

thanks, so the county hasn't moved on the new construction lighting ordinance in over a year?

 

[NotDeadYet]

Well, I don't remember exactly how long it has been, but that seems about right. Actually, I am surprised it is moving at all. Wanna bet on whether it advances out of the planning commission meeting or gets sent back to staff for "revisions?"

 

[Smiling JOe]

The last time I heard it brought up at a BCC meeting was probably a year ago, and they were trying to determine how the lighting ordinance would be enforced, and how to prevent ornery neighbors from just trying to stir up trouble. At night, Code Enforcement doesn't work. They were talking about keeping one officer on-call, and having him respond to lighting complaints. He would have to get out of bed, and drive to SoWal, pull out the light meter, if the light was still turned on, blah, blah, blah. The BCC was suggesting if the person reporting the incident was wrong about the light being too intense, on the second call, by that person, that person filing the complaint would be penalized in the way of a fine. I don't think they liked or agreed with their own thoughts of enforcement, and that may be why it was tabled.

 

[NotDeadYet]

I don't think they liked or agreed with their own thoughts of enforcement, and that may be why it was tabled.

You would think we were reinventing the wheel. :roll:
I wonder if in that year anyone took a look around the state to see how this problem has been resolved elsewhere?