Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Modification Lighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicants propose dimming modules to meet lighting rules; board allows Chase Bank interior occupancy
Summary
At a public hearing on 154 Turnpike, applicants proposed manufacturer dimming modules to reduce fixture lumens and resolve lighting noncompliance; planning staff recommended, and the board agreed, that a certificate of occupancy for Chase Bank’s interior can be signed once an engineer’s certification is stamped though the exterior lighting modification remains open.
At the public hearing on 154 Turnpike Road, planning staff described two outstanding noncompliance items (landscaping and lighting) and outlined a path forward that would allow interior occupancy for Chase Bank while the exterior lighting modification is completed.
Karina told the board applicants had submitted a revised landscape plan that appears to meet the town’s requirements. For the lighting noncompliance, staff and the applicants discussed a manufacturer-supplied dimming module that can reduce lumens at each fixture. Karina said the applicant ordered the modules and Boller Engineering would prepare a photometric plan using the module specifications to demonstrate compliance once installed or in mock‑up form.
Marnie praised the collaborative effort and said the dimming modules “will probably work better than the 3D shields,” while the applicant Justin said the parts were currently showing a roughly 30‑day lead time and that Boller had the specification materials and expected to respond quickly. “The parts are…30 days out from when we ordered them the other week, so we're probably not going to have [them] until sometime in August,” Justin said.
Karina noted there are two separate administrative tracks: (1) closing out the prior major site plan approval for Suite 140 (Chase Bank interior work), which requires an engineer’s stamped certification letter to finalize conditions, and (2) the separate site modification for noncompliance that includes lighting and landscaping. She recommended staff be allowed to request the building commissioner to sign off on the certificate of occupancy for the interior suite once the engineer’s stamp is provided, and board members agreed.
The board asked that the applicant return with an actual photometric plan and, ideally, a demonstration of the installed modules before final approval of the modification. The planning board continued the modification hearing to Sept. 14 and extended the decision deadline to Oct. 2 so the applicant can install modules, obtain photometric documentation, and complete landscaping.
The board did not deny or approve the site‑modification pending receipt and verification of the photometric plan; it allowed interior occupancy to proceed with staff recommendation to the building commissioner once the engineer’s certification is stamped.
