AGENDA #5e
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Citizen Petition – Street Lighting on Mt. Bolus Road
DATE: August 26, 2002
The purpose of this report is to respond to a petition presented by Mr. Will Raymond, resident of 209 Mt. Bolus Road, to the Town Council at its meeting on June 24, 2002. In that petition, Mr. Raymond requested that the Town refrain from having Duke Power Company replace a street light and to refrain from adding lights on Mt. Bolus Road.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Raymond contacted us during August, 2001, and requested that we have Duke Power Company remove a street light in the vicinity of his residence at 209 Mt. Bolus Road. He had made previous requests for this removal, but we had responded that the existing lighting along that street was consistent with the Town’s minimum street lighting policy. As a result of the request in August, 2001, we discussed lighting options with Mr. Raymond and informed him that we would authorize Duke Power Company to change the existing fixture to a “cut-off” type that would reduce spillover lighting.
We recently received information from Duke Power Company that demonstrates the technical effects of the lighting that replaced the former mercury vapor fixture. This information, which is attached, demonstrates that only minimal spillover lighting reaches the residence at 209 Mt. Bolus Road. The sketch of the light and adjoining property indicates that there is a foot candle reading of “0” well before the specific residential location. The technical definition of foot candle, according to Duke Power Company, is “a unit of illumination equivalent to the illumination (at a distance of one foot) produced by one candle producing one lumen of light per square foot.”
After this change was made, Mr. Raymond informed us that he remained unsatisfied and requested that we proceed to have the light removed. We wrote Duke Power Company on December 3, 2001, and requested that they remove the light. This action was based in part on information provided by Mr. Raymond that his neighbors did not oppose the removal. Subsequent to this request, Duke Power Company removed the light.
Residents in this neighborhood contacted us subsequent to the removal of the light asking that we have the light re-installed. On March 6, 2002, a member of our staff contacted Mr. Raymond and informed him of two specific requests that the light be re-installed. We also noted that these residents indicated that they believed that lighting was inadequate even with the light that had been removed. Mr. Raymond requested that he have the opportunity to work with his neighbors prior to our taking any further action.
On March 18, 2002, we sent Mr. Raymond an e-mail to inquire about the status of his efforts to work with neighbors to resolve this issue. On March 22, 2002, he informed us that he was still involved with efforts to find a solution. Later, on March 27, 2002, during discussions between Town staff and Mr. Raymond, we suggested that a neighborhood survey might be appropriate if agreement was not forthcoming. We also indicated that we would proceed with such a survey if we did not receive information from Mr. Raymond by April 3, 2002, that the issue was resolved. Throughout this period of time, we received frequent communications from other residents, requesting that the light be reinstalled.
We delayed proceeding with the survey during this time in order to accommodate Mr. Raymond in his desire to petition the Council. He had indicated that he planned to petition the Council on May 13, 2002.
Because the petition was not presented at that time, we developed a survey in which we sought input from residents in the neighborhood about lighting issues there. In the survey, distributed on May 22, 2002, we indicated lighting options and explained key aspects of the Town’s street lighting policy. Please see the attached survey letter. We received responses from 19 of 27 property owners and learned the following:
· 11 favored re-installation of the light that had been removed; 3 opposed re-installation; and 5 had no preference
· 19 favored upgrades to existing lighting fixtures
· 14 favored installation of additional lighting allowable under Town policy; 4 opposed such additional lights; and 1 had no preference
With respect to the specific light that Mr. Raymond wanted removed, both of the immediate neighbors and the property owner directly across the street indicated that they wanted the light reinstalled. One property owner diagonally across the street indicated that he or she preferred to have the light removed, another in the same orientation wanted it to be reinstalled.
We informed Mr. Raymond of these results on June 21, 2002. He had indicated that he was not satisfied with the manner in which the survey was being conducted. He specifically objected to parts of the cover letter that was sent with the survey. He ultimately submitted such a petition at the Council’s meeting on June 24, 2002.
DISCUSSION
The Town’s residential street lighting policy for established neighborhoods, which was summarized in the attached survey letter, authorizes lights as follows:
· each public street intersection
· mid-points of blocks 800’ or longer
· about every 600’ along exceptionally long blocks
· on hills and curves where necessary (but not less than 300’ apart)
We note that this policy applies to older neighborhoods that have existing lighting. In new neighborhoods, the standard calls for carriage style lights every 220 ft., mounted on 15 ft. fiberglass or wood poles. The older standard has been maintained in those neighborhoods that were lighted before the 220 ft. standard was introduced (1988).
Those areas are typically lighted with a cobra head fixture on a 25 ft. wooden pole. We have gradually replaced mercury vapor lights, with “drop” lenses (those that extend below the base of the fixture itself) with high pressure sodium lights using “cut-off” lenses that are flush with the base of the fixture.
Using the standard for older lighting schemes, we have concluded that the Mt. Bolus Road neighborhood qualifies for the light that had been removed and for three additional lights.
We believe that the Town’s street lighting policy should be implemented according to the guidance of the policy, rather than by survey results. We have not used surveys in the past and conclude from this experience that they are not good tools for determining street lighting at specific locations.
Most questions related to neighborhood lighting have been resolved through routine discussions. We believe that using the existing policy and explaining key elements of the policy to interested parties are adequate in most instances; however, in those instances in which there are conflicts, we believe that the policy should be followed as closely as possible.
Accordingly, unless directed differently by the Council, we intend to request that Duke Power Company make lighting changes along Mt. Bolus Road consistent with the Town’s street lighting policy.
ATTACHMENTS
May 21, 2002
Dear Resident of Mt. Bolus Road:
We are writing to ask for your help in determining what should be the appropriate amount of street lighting in your neighborhood. This letter provides some information about street lighting on Mt. Bolus Road and includes a survey that we hope will give us some feedback on the neighborhood’s preferences for lighting levels.
Recently, a resident requested that we remove the streetlight located between 209 and 33 Mt. Bolus Road because of the amount of light that spilled over onto his property. Since we removed the light, we have received several requests from other neighbors for the light to be reinstalled at or near the same location. In addition, some of these residents requested that we consider adding additional lights along Mt. Bolus Road for reasons of public safety. Upon review of this matter, we believe, at a minimum, that a light is required at or near the former site for reasons of public safety.
The fixture that we intend to reinstall is a high-pressure sodium fixture with what is called a cut-off lens. The light is yellowish in color as compared to the existing bluish mercury vapor lights and has a lens that is flat across the bottom of the metal lighting housing, rather than one that is open at the bottom or that curves below the lamp housing. While the curved or “drop lens” lights a wider area, which some people find preferable for safety reasons, it also tends to spill more light onto private property than does a cut-off fixture, which is why we have opted for the cut-off in this instance.
As earlier mentioned, a few residents have asked that we consider installing additional lights along this street, since it is hilly and curvy. If we were to do so utilizing existing wooden utility poles, we would have lights spaced on average about every 325 feet. However, we would only consider adding this level of lighting if we had a significant number of responding property owners requesting us to do so.
We ask that you take a few moments to complete the survey below. We plan to consider preferences indicated by the majority of property owners in the neighborhood in determining what levels of lighting to provide.
For your information, the Town’s present policy related to residential street lighting in older neighborhoods such as yours is as follows:
· each public street intersection
· mid points of blocks longer than 800 feet
· about every 600 feet along exceptionally long blocks
· on hills and curves where necessary, but not less than 300 feet apart
The present spacing of street lights along Mt. Bolus Road runs from as little as 135 feet between Airport Road and Maple Drive and about 1100 ft., between Cedar Street and the light at the end of the street (this distance includes the light recently removed near #s 209 and 33; when replaced, the distance will be about 600 ft.).
While we do not often modify street lighting in older neighborhoods in order to comply with the above policy, we do apply these guidelines when responding to neighborhood requests.
In order to have input, please return this survey in the enclosed stamped self-addressed envelope. We would appreciate hearing from you by June 3, 2002. Please contact me at 968-2800, ext. 107, if you have questions or comments concerning this survey.
Thank you for your participation.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Terrell
Field Operations Superintendent
Please return this page only in the stamped self addressed envelope by June 3, 2002.
This survey is limited to one per resident (property owner). In order to validate the information, we request that you provide your name and address.
Name: _______________________________
Address: _______________________________
_______________________________
Survey Questions
1. ______ I support reinstalling the streetlight between 209 and 33, Mt. Bolus
Road.
______ I oppose reinstalling the streetlight at its previous location noted
above.
______ No preference.
2. ______ I support upgrading the existing lighting on Mt. Bolus Drive from
mercury vapor to high pressure sodium fixtures with cut-off lens to focus more light on the street and minimize lighting behind the right-of-way line.
______ I oppose upgrading the existing lighting on Mt. Bolus Drive.
______ No preference.
3. ______ I supporting upgrading the lights on Mt. Bolus Drive, and I would
support installing additional street lights on existing wooden utility poles to achieve spacing about every 325 feet.
______ I do not support additional lights on Mt. Bolus Drive.
______ No preference.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. We will inform you of our decisions no later than June 14th.