Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lighting And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board advances 25 South Bedford Road canopy proposal, requires reduced under‑canopy lighting and ZBA variances
Summary
At a first public hearing the board reviewed a proposed canopy at 25 South Bedford Road; the applicant agreed to reduce under‑canopy fixtures from eight to six and reposition fixtures away from a residential property, and the board directed staff to prepare a resolution and noted the project will need ZBA variances for setbacks.
The New Castle Planning Board opened a public hearing on a proposal to erect a canopy over the existing fuel island at 25 South Bedford Road and advanced the application with conditions on lighting and direction to pursue required zoning variances.
Anthony Nestor, representing the applicant, described a canopy roughly 34 feet wide by 56 feet long with about 14 feet 6 inches of clearance beneath the canopy and said the top of the structure would reach about 17 feet 6 inches. He told the board the canopy design must account for taller vehicles using diesel pumps and that it would include recessed lighting under the canopy and additional floodlights on the building. “We would be able to reduce the lights over the canopy from 8 to 6,” Nestor said; he proposed centering two lights over each fuel island and moving fixtures inward to reduce illumination at the eastern property line adjacent to housing.
Staff and board members raised concerns about nighttime spillover and recommended a performance limit or a reduction target for lumens. One board member suggested a 20–25% reduction in lumen output as a performance target; another recommended moving some building floodlights or switching fixtures and adding motion sensors. The applicant agreed to work with staff post‑approval to reduce brightness and adjust fixture placement.
The board voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution for the project and noted the canopy will require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals because the site is nonconforming with existing setback deficiencies. The transcript records vocal approval when the board voted in favor; no roll‑call tally is included. The board advised the applicant to submit required materials for the ZBA schedule and to coordinate resolution language with staff ahead of the September cycle.
Next steps: staff will prepare a draft resolution incorporating lighting performance limits and conditions that fixtures be reoriented or reduced; the applicant will proceed to the ZBA for required setback variances.
