Southampton - Legislation on outdoor lighting within the town of Southampton hit a roadblock this week, as business-owners town-wide voiced their displeasure with the proposed law's mandated amortization language, citing their concerns that costs related to compliance could be high enough to hurt already-struggling local businesses.

"We shouldn't just go on a blanket idea," said Southampton Chamber of Commerce President Bob Schepps.

"Let's try 'thou shall not shine light on thy neighbor,'" offered Bill Berkoski, chairman of the Southampton Business Advisory Committee. "Be mindful of our fragile economy."

For almost three years, Southampton Town Councilwoman Nancy Graboski has been working on legislation that would mitigate outdoor lighting for residential and commercial properties throughout the town. After four public hearings on the topic, however, after meeting with local business groups, Graboski announced on Tuesday that she was going back to the drawing board.

"I want to acknowledge," she informed the crowd at the Town's regular meeting, "that I'm very aware we're in the midst of a severe economic downturn. [The business groups] are opposed to mandatory requirements…mandatory time-frames. I'm going to go back and review and address concerns."

Graboski's most recent version of outdoor lighting legislation mandates that all outdoor lighting newly installed after the effective date shall comply with the law. Pre-existing lighting that does not comply would be considered "non-conforming," and shall be brought to compliance in accordance with different timelines depending on the type of lighting, which could be anywhere from six months to 10 years.

Southampton Town Councilwoman Nancy Graboski has been trying to create outdoor lighting legislation within the town for approximately three years.

While many of the business owners who spoke at Tuesday's public hearing maintained that they were in favor of "the spirit" of the legislation, still many argued that compliance would be costly, unsafe and unfair to new or small businesses, as well as residents struggling through hard times.

"We believe this is a public-good policy," Rich Warren, president of the Southampton Business Alliance, asserted. But, "this is the wrong time to add financial burden to homeowners. Those that can't afford an electrician may try to do it themselves. Don't try and hit a fly with a sledgehammer, which is what you're trying to do with this legislation."

While the proposed legislation exempts emergency, holiday, flag, underwater, and runway lighting, as well as lighting for radio, communication and navigation towers, lighting for public monuments and historical-style fixtures, it prohibits strobe lights, neon lights, blinking lights, flashing lights, day burners, and other non-essential lighting. In addition, it mandates that all new lighting be designed and installed to prevent over lighting, excessive energy consumption, glare, light trespassing, unnecessary sky-glow, detriment to natural communities, interference with traffic and public hazards and nuisances.

Not complying with these mandates could mean a maximum fine of $1,000 and 30 days in jail for residential property owners and upwards of $3,000 and 30 days in jail for commercial property owners.

"We do not have the money to do what you want us to do," Flanders resident Carl Iacone asserted. "I'm stating right now, if this law goes into effect, you better hire more people that you know how to enforce it."

Southampton Business Adivisory Committee Chair Bill Berkoski said the Town should focus on those lights creating a nuisance to residents.

Also up for consideration is separating the legislation into two laws, one for residential properties, and one for non-residential, or commercial, properties. Business-owners, backed by Town Councilwoman Anna Throne-Holst on this point, argued that the two are glaringly different, and show be handled in two separate laws.

"I do believe they are two different animals," Throne-Holst asserted. "The testimony today alone speaks to that. I think it's a practical way to move forward."

But not everyone at Tuesday's hearing was opposed to the legislation as written. Joan Hughes, of the East Quogue Citizens Advisory Committee, said that most of the comments her organization was receiving were in favor of the law, as well as a mandatory 5-year amortization period. "No one has to go and change their lighting immediately," she offered. "That's an important point. In 10 years, we won't be in the kind of economic situation we are in now."

Graboski adjourned the public hearing on this topic until Sept. 22, to give herself more time to address the communities' concerns. Until then, it is unclear if the town of Southampton is any closer to outdoor lighting legislation that it was three years ago when Graboski began her pursuit.

"We have no lighting law – we need some kind of law," Ernie Trillo, of Hampton Bays' Old Harbor Colony, asserted, adding that he has had a neighbor harass him with outdoor lighting in the past. "Some people are just spiteful. Having a law with no teeth in it is useless."