Rowlett City Council and members of the public on Oct. 13 discussed updating Section 77-5-10 (exterior lighting) of the city code, with residents and several council members urging clearer, enforceable standards such as foot‑candle limits, shielding requirements and revising vague language.

During citizens input, resident Mark Tashic urged council to “vote to continue this conversation,” arguing that Rowlett’s ordinance uses “poorly defined outdated technical data” and is ambiguous about light trespass and glare. Another speaker, John Perigi, read the code’s stated purpose — “to contribute to a pleasant nighttime environment” — and emphasized that phrases like “glare” are not measurable without defined units.

Councilmembers and staff (including Christophe from community development) discussed neighboring cities’ approaches. The staff memo noted that Garland, Mesquite and Sachse provide specific illumination guidance and that Rowlett’s code is “somewhat silent” about appropriate foot‑candle levels. Councilmembers said they want rules that are both enforceable and allow reasonable security lighting.

Council directed staff to develop options for clearer standards — including measurable foot‑candle guidance and shielding/angle requirements — and to return with recommendations. Council also discussed whether to form a small subcommittee of councilmembers to work with staff and the city attorney on drafting ordinance language. No formal ordinance language or vote was taken at the meeting.

Supporters of more stringent rules cited nearby Heath’s lower allowable foot‑candle values for single‑family yards and asked that Rowlett consider limits closer to 0.1–0.25 foot‑candles in sensitive residential zones. Several councilmembers voiced concern about over‑regulating private property and said language must preserve reasonable security lighting while preventing nuisance light trespass.

Staff said the city owns a light‑meter and that any updated code should use measurable standards (foot‑candles and mounting/angle requirements) so enforcement is objective. Christophe told council the next step would be for staff to craft options and legal language and return for further direction.

The discussion also touched on holiday and decorative lighting, “jellyfish” LED eave lights, and wildlife impacts from nighttime illumination. Council asked staff to present a range of options with explanations of enforcement implications and possible graphics or diagrams to clarify allowable fixtures and angles.