Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission
40 Old Farms Road
Willington, CT 06279
March 10, 2020 – 7:30 PM
Regular Meeting Minutes
Members Present:
Walter Parsell
Andy Marco
Joseph Hall
Robert Shabot
Laurie Semprebon
Members Not Present:
Douglas Roberts
Joe Lucia
Also Present:
Michael D’Amato- Zoning Agent
Ashley Stephens- Assistant Land Use Agent
W. Parsell called the meeting to order at 7:30pm and went through roll call.
L. Semprebon made a motion to change the order of the items on the agenda to move PZ-20-3 Amend Special Permit: Addition of site lighting around basketball court, volleyball, and playground. Owner: Town of Willington Applicant: Maureen Parsell as the first item on the agenda.
J. Hall seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion approved.
W. Parsell opened public hearing for
PZ-20-3 Amend Special Permit: Addition of site lighting around basketball court, volleyball, and playground. Owner: Town of Willington Applicant: Maureen Parsell
J. Colangelo - Chair of the Recreation Commission who came with the applicant started the conversation about the lighting and said they will be on a timer so they do not burn all night long. They will get 15 minutes of time and they will automatically turn off with the parking lot lights no matter how many times the mushroom button is pushed.
W. Parsell asked if these the same fixtures Beacon used in 2019 are.
J. Colangelo stated these are the full cut off and dark skies complaint lights according to the approval seal on the site plan.
W. Parsell asked what time do the lights shut off?
J. Colangelo stated right now it is at 11 pm but it may be amended.
M. Parsell stated that many people drive over there and have their cars with headlights turned on. She also stated that they have concerts on certain nights and it would be beneficial to have the lights on the playground and basketball court.
B. Shabot stated that most facilities usually have a close time, what is your take on that?
M. Parsell stated that right now it closes at dusk, so it will need to be amended. As a commission they will decide on a different time and are aware of it.
M. D’Amato asked how many lights will be installed.
J. Colangelo stated that there will 4 on the basketball court, 2 on the volleyball court, and 1 on the playground.
M. Parsell submitted an updated map that will be uploaded to the application.
J. Colangelo stated that each report has the amount of lumens for the areas and was engineered for the appropriate amount of light.
Public Comment:
R. Tuils asked if the lights would be turned on by activity or would the switch turn on the lights for everything?
J. Colangelo stated these lights would be disabled to work, but as for spring, summer and fall, if someone wants to play, they can turn them on with a mushroom button for each space, they wouldn’t all come on. They would be on a 15 minute timer.
R. Tulis stated his concern that if someone would want to play basketball and all the lights would come on, there’s no need for that.
J. Colangelo said there would be different buttons but they would put up a sign to ask people to only use the light for what they needed, and not to turn on all of them.
W. Parsell made a motion to close the public hearing for:
PZ-20-3 Amend Special Permit: Addition of site lighting around basketball court, volleyball, and playground. Owner: Town of Willington Applicant: Maureen Parsell.
L. Semprebon seconded the motion. All in favor. Public hearing closed.
W. Parsell opened the public hearing for
PZ-20-1 Amend Special Permit: Modification of site lighting at FedEx; 350 Ruby Road Applicant: Ricky Gehret
A. Renfrew was present on behalf of the applicant, Dynamic Electric who is the contractor for this project.
A. Renfrew stated that the project seeks to upgrade lighting already there to LED, for additional energy savings and onsite safety for FedEx. There will be 12 additional poles for safety lighting because there are additional hours for FedEx. They want a 1 foot candle standard for the lighting for safety for their employees. They added in the trailers on the site plan to ensure they can reduce the shadows and so there are no dark spots on the facility to keep employees safe throughout all hours of the evening. They will be saving 50% on lighting with the LED lighting compared to what is out there now.
W. Parsell asked what exactly is being used for the fixture. Are they dark skies complaint and cut off lighting?
A. Renfrew showed the lighting that is a standard shoe box with full cutoff. She said she can provide additional material if necessary.
A. Marco stated that there is concern about the lights, even though they seem to be full cutoff.
A. Renfrew stated that the existing lights are square flood lights, but the fixtures will be mounted, with a 90 degree angle, to cover a smaller area. She believes it will be more focused without glare, and there will be more fixtures for a smaller area.
A.Marco stated that the light shouldn't go beyond the line of the property.
B. Shabot asked what the amount of lumens per square foot is. How much light is on the ground for every square foot? What level are you at now?
A. Renfrew stated that the unit of foot candles are listed on map. The FedEx criteria is that no spot can be less than 1 footcandle and does not leave the area.
There was discussion about the lights on the property and how much light is leaving the property and how much you can see from the neighborhood. The applicant stated that the lights will be focused on the ground and not be illuminated outwards as much as it is now. It will be brighter in the parking lot, but the lights will not project the light outward and will be focused at the ground.
W. Parsell- Asked if the application showed that the lights will be dark sky compliant, and the applicant said it does not state that. W. Parsell stated that the applicant will need to show that they are dark skies compliant and the applicant said they will comply.
A. Marco asked how many more fixtures will be added.
A. Renfrew stated that 12 more fixtures will be added, and the highest are going to be 44 feet.
There was discussion about the map and what the different symbols stand for (anything in red with a circle around it is a new light).
Public Comment:
J. Uziemblo asked which direction is towards Wilderness way, where she lives on the map to be able to explain her situation.
There was discussion on where pine trees have been cut down and how things changed at FedEx. There was expansion in 2017 and there were fewer residents then too.
R. Tulis stated that when you illuminate a surface, it will reflect back up. You will still see light off the site either way, even with full cutoff fixtures, but the hope is that the spill off is no different or less than what it is right now.
J. Uziemblo’s main concern is the amount of light that comes off of the property. She can see the lights off her back porch from FedEx and says it started in 2017. There are no dark skies at her house and that is why she moved to Willington.
A.Marco asked if she could see it in the summer as well.
J. Uziemblo stated you can see the lights in the summer as well especially because a lot of trees had come down.
B.Shabot asked what the height of the fixtures now.
A. Renfrew stated that the mounting height is on the drawing, but the tallest will be 44 feet.
R. Tulis asked how that is compliant with the original special permit for the height.
M. D’Amato will look into the original permit and compare it to what is proposed.
W. Parsell asked M. D’Amato to look into the original permit and is requesting more information to see how the fixtures are dark skies compliant.
B. Shabot asked what the red squares on the access road.
A. Renfrew stated that is highlighting where they are not getting a 1 foot candle which is a corporate standard of FedEx.
B Shabot- asked what the height of those poles are on the access road.
A. Renfrew stated they are 25 feet.
B. Shabot stated that because those are areas where you are not getting the recommended light output, does that mean you'll adjust the length of the access road?
A. Renfrew stated that they spoke about it, but it would be a lot more time, work and money and FedEx decided because it was close to the 1 foot candle and it is only on the access road, that they would be okay with it and they would just be updated with the new LED lights.
M. D’Amato asked if the existing poles will be replaced and increased in height.
A. Renfrew stated that all existing poles will stay the same height.
W. Parsell stated he would like to make sure the lights are dark sky compliant fixtures before approval regardless of who is applying.
A.Marco asked the applicant if they are the company who does the lighting and is that what they specialize in. Not all parking lots always have 40 foot lights to light area, there are other ways to do it, why is that not an option in a place like FedEx.
A. Renfrew stated that it is a requirement from Fedex to have light all the way around the trucks, and in order to do so they need to get up high so the light fills in the shadow from the truck.
R. Tulis stated this is why TA went with high rise lights to minimize shadows. He also asked why the owner wasn’t on application. It should be the owner or the applicant. Interested in why the owner and applicant aren’t listed on the agenda.
It was stated that FedEx is the owner and the applicant is Ricky Gehret and the agenda was incorrect.
There was discussion if the public hearing should be kept open or if there should be conditions on the permit if it was approved tonight.
W. Parsell called a 5 minute recess at 8:21 for staff to look for the original special permit and see if the applicant can receive information on the dark skies compliance for the lighting fixtures.
W. Parsell called back the meeting to order at 8:29pm.
A. Renfrew stated that she will need to go to the manufacturer to see if they can show that the fixtures are dark sky compliant, to do this they would need to pay for the seal. She also stated that she can show you that the light distribution and in the 90 degree angle on the fixtures means that nothing would go behind the sky which meets the definition of full cutoff, and what a dark sky compliant fixture is.
M. D’Amato read a condition about lighting from the special permit from 1992 for FedEx, which mainly stated that the lighting should not leave the premises and the lights should not be excessive but there was nothing specific about how many poles were allowed in the original special permit. He stated we will continue to look through the files for other permit conditions before the next public hearing.
W. Parsell made a motion to keep the public hearing open for
PZ-20-1 Amend Special Permit: Modification of site lighting at FedEx; 350 Ruby Road Owner/ Application: Ricky Gehret.
J. Hall seconded motion. All in favor. Motion approved.
There was discussion from the applicant with the Zoning Agent about the time frame and what is needed from her before the next meeting.
New Business:
No New business
Old Business:
No old business
Minutes:
It should be added to the minutes from the previous meeting on January 29, 2020 that M. D’Amato issued a letter regarding the safety and traffic concerns of the 84 ramp and not having a dedicated turning lane to the DOT to give DOT a basis of understanding of the sensitivity to the issue.
It should be noted that M. D’Amato did send a letter to DOT and it will be discussed during the Staff Report.
Minutes will be tabled until the following meeting.
Correspondence:
M. D’Amato stated he did write a letter to DOT that outlined the concerns that were discussed at the final meeting for the Loves decision. District 1 reached back out to M. D'Amato requesting a copy of the plans and stated that they will review the plans and make sure they agree.
Public Comment:
R. Tulis stated his concern that someone who might have shown up at the meeting but did not, is interested in purchasing his property for a specific reason. This person is exploring the property R. Tulis owns and would like to put an auto body shop there. He believes it is a respectable thing to do on this property as it would be minimal water usage and basically just need septic for employees. He stated the obstacles he has is that the regulations permit limited repair & services in DC zone for a special permit. There is no definition of what a limited repair & service is. Table of uses states automobile repair services are listed as a special permit. He believes automobile repair services would be an auto body repair shop. Index states there should be something on this definition but there is nothing there. He wanted to bring up the issue to the Commission to see if he can help the person interested in buying his property and get a clear definition on what is allowed and if a text amendment could be made in the future.
M. D’Amato stated that this gentleman has come to the office to discuss his options. It was stated that there is a difference between limited and general repair in the regulations. We do not have a comprehensive perspective on what is allowed and what is not allowed. The general statutes give four different definitions. M. D’Amato stated he told this gentleman to find out from the state DMV what he would be considered before they spoke again and know if his definition will comply with the regulations. He has to be limited or general repair but the regulations do not seem to allow general repair and do not have a clear understanding on what can be done.
M. D’Amato feels the regulations do not allow general repair comparing that to state statutes and that the regulations have not been kept up with the state statute changes. The Commission can look at regulations and should decide what it means and potentially make a text amendment in the future.
Staff Report/Discussion:
No report, there was only a correspondence.
Adjournment:
Meeting adjourned at 8:56 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ashley Stephens