Bennington board approves AT&T parking‑lot lighting upgrade, requires restated window‑shade condition

Bennington Township — The Bennington Township Land Board on Jan. 9 approved AT&T’s amended site‑lighting plan for its office complex along Route 206, permitting replacement of 46 fixtures with LED heads and installation of 11 new 12‑foot poles while adding conditions intended to limit nighttime glare.

John Michalski, representing AT&T, opened the applicant’s presentation and said the project was designed to improve parking‑lot illumination and employee safety without requiring zoning variances. "We are upgrading 46 existing lighting fixtures ... and installing 11 new 12 foot poles," Michalski said, summarizing the application and noting the applicant had received one review letter and would comply with the township engineer’s comments.

The board heard technical testimony from Imran Malik of Carbon Engineering Services, an electrical engineer who identified himself as the applicant’s lighting expert. Malik said the proposed LED fixtures have internal shielding intended to prevent spillover to neighboring properties and that the photometric study submitted with the application shows an average site illuminance of about 1 foot‑candle and a maximum near 3 foot‑candles, under the township code’s upper limit. "The photometrics that we submitted do show that by the time you get to the property line the foot‑candle levels are 0," Malik testified, adding that many fixtures would be motion‑sensor controlled and would dim to 50% when no activity is detected and return to full output when motion is sensed.

Board members questioned how that dusk‑to‑dawn, dim‑on‑motion approach differs from a prior phased lighting approval and from a local ordinance provision that calls for extinguishing nonresidential illumination at 11 p.m. Some members said the earlier approval envisioned sections of lights shutting off at designated times and that a blanket practice of keeping fixtures at reduced levels overnight would be a departure. Malik explained the plan: designated entry and handicap fixtures would remain at full output for life‑safety reasons; other fixtures would be on a time clock or photocell and would dim when idle, with programmable motion‑sensor intervals (typically 15–20 minutes).

Residents told the board the combined effect of interior office lighting and the proposed exterior fixtures creates a visible nighttime "glow." James Stadtmueller of Lamington Road testified that interior lights were often left on and urged automatic shades; "there is a definite glow there," he said. Jillian Young, who lives directly opposite the site on Route 206, said about 75% of the windows facing the road did not have shades drawn and worried the project could increase perceived brightness even if exterior fixtures produce lower measured luminance. Malik responded that the proposed LED fixtures should reduce measured site luminance compared with current conditions.

After extended discussion about security needs for employees who work late and the practical difficulties of assigning reserved parking, the board conditioned approval on several items: submission of the night‑light test results to the township engineer for review; adherence to the design details and shielding shown in the submitted exhibit; restatement of the existing condition requiring shades on the windows facing the brook/residences (the board recorded intent to enforce that condition); and provision of a contact person for the zoning officer to use for any enforcement concerns. The board’s motion also noted the proposal yields a net reduction in impervious coverage and that no variances were required for the changes proposed.

The motion to approve the amended preliminary and final site plan as described in testimony passed on a roll call with ayes recorded for members present. The board did not require AT&T to commit to automatic shades at this hearing but directed staff to recirculate the existing window‑shade condition in the written approval and encouraged the applicant to reduce unnecessary interior lighting where feasible. The applicant also agreed to perform and submit the required post‑installation night‑light test.

The board closed the public hearing and adjourned. The township engineer will review the night‑light test results and the board’s zoning officer will have a designated contact for enforcement if neighbors report noncompliance.

What the board recorded on the record: the application will replace 46 fixtures, add 11 new poles (12‑foot for new perimeter poles), use LED heads with a color temperature of about 3,500 K, include motion‑sensor dimming (down to 50% after an inactivity interval, typically 15–20 minutes), and result in a net impervious coverage change of minus ~22 square feet once a walkway is narrowed. The applicant also agreed to submit details of fixture mounting and concrete bases for review.

Next steps: AT&T will provide the night‑light test results to the township engineer for approval and supply a point of contact for the zoning officer. The board reiterated that enforcement of prior window‑shade conditions remains the primary remedy for residents reporting interior‑light glare.