The third time was not the charm for lights on 2 athletic fields.
The Planning & Zoning Commission once again delayed a decision on the Parks & Recreation Commission request, for the Wakeman B and PJ Romano Fields.
At last night’s Zoom meeting, Parks & Rec director Erik Barbieri and recreation superintendent Carmen Roda presented charts and graphs showing field usage, the number of participants in current programs (including those turned away because of lack of space), the impact of 50-, 60- and 70-foot poles, and the deterioration of grass fields due to overuse (without the availability of lit, synthetic turf surfaces).
They cited the support of several hundred youth sports families, and groups like the Westport Soccer Association and Westport PAL.
Rendering of 4 70-foot light poles at Wakeman B Field.
However, the majority of speakers — nearly all of them neighbors — objected to the plan. Many cited a lacrosse tournament last weekend, sponsored by a private organization, that brought noise, traffic, even outdoor barbecues to the Wakeman fields.
Other objections included the height of the poles, the effect on the environment, the length of time lights would stay on, field usage by adults and outside (non-school and town) groups, and how well Parks & Rec would manage oversight of the lights.
Attorney Joel Green, representing the ad hoc “Lights Need Limits” group, questioned whether the lights plan met the P&Z’s own requirements.
But one neighbor — John Sabino, who said he is the second-closest neighbor to Wakeman — spoke in favor of lights. The sound of children playing, even air horns, was preferable to “the deafening silence” of youngsters using cellphones and computer screens, he said.
Rendering of 70-foot light poles at PJ Romano Field.
Though 2 fields are in the Parks & Rec proposal — and the P&Z agenda included both Wakeman and PJ Romano Field, behind Saugatuck Elementary School — nearly all of the discussion centered around the Bedford Middle School property.
The P&Z voted unanimously to continue the hearing to July 20.
To see last night’s full Parks & Recreation Department proposal, click here. To see all materials relating to the lights proposals — including plans, letters from interested parties, etc. — click here; then scroll down to 70 North Avenue (for Wakeman B) and 170 Riverside Avenue (for PJ Romano).
(“06880” regularly covers town politics, sports and more. If you appreciated this hyper-local blog, please click here to support our work. Thank you!)
The impact on surrounding homes is real. When I lived in RI, adjacent to a city park with a ball-field, lights went up with no discussion. Life became very difficult because the lights stayed on with a limit of 10 PM. The crowd noise was bad enough; but, the light pollution was even worse.
Why was the hearing extended to July? Is there new data and/perspective required to effectively make a decision? Doubt very much and new info will be forthcoming that changes the decision. What’s the presumably political value in delaying?
Parks & Rec will withdraw and resubmit the 8/24 plan, for administrative timing purposes.
In my view, there is more opposition than expected and opposition from real stakeholders: property owners.
The P&R presentation is disappointing in that the data is clearly skewed. For example, the good ole “8,000” field users reappears. This is clearly a manipulated number, and not entirely explained, IMHO.
As a parks and rec commissioner, I don’t feel that I can comment specifically on my lights position here. But I do want to react to the commentary about this weekend’s tournament at Wakeman, which I was in attendance at both days. This is an annual event. It brings in countless dollars to our local businesses by the way of meals and team dinners (just ask Lyfe Cafe, Riko’s or Gaetano’s about their weekend) and employs our high school and college athletes who do a tremendous job working long hours to keep everything clean and under control, and, as stated, prevents all the participants from laying around on screens all day and being part of a vibrant community. The tournament was during daytime hours and if neighbors are bothered by a sports complex hosting a sports tournament that brings so much to the community, it needs to be restated many times that Westport has dozens of neighborhoods that do not abut facilities like this. We should be more grateful that our local coaches, players and parents are willing to spend a weekend at Wakeman – instead of out of town or out of state – to give Westport a nice weekend economic bump!
This lacrosse tournament feels like a red herring, for a few reasons. One, if I’m not mistaken it was an event hosted on multiple fields across the complex, while the issue at hand is lighting only one single field. Two, given there are no lights at the complex, this was a daytime event, same as it’s current use profile, which would imply the people citing it as a reason to oppose lights are actually just advocating against any activity at of the complex. And three, this was an event hosted (1) by an outside organization and (2) for teams from out of town. While I wasn’t there and have heard no specifics on why it was presumably so awful, surely that’s different than our own town’s organizations running programs for our own friends and neighbors.
But I suppose for a group that’s gone so far as to hire an attorney to oppose something that feels like an obvious solution that would benefit so many at – arguably- mild personal inconvenience to a small group, there’s no distinction.
Woa. “Mild personal inconvenience?”
Our investment in our homes is the single largest investment most of us will ever make. Our homes are our sanctuaries from the vagaries of the world.
My Westport property is not directly affected by sports fields, but in a past life I had a home that was. I understand the disruption in a homeowner’s pursuit of peace at home.
Many of these field-side homeowners may have purchased their home knowing the characteristics of the property location. Some not (ie Long Lots neighbors).
Even still, adding lights, extending hours for noisy sports activities, and increasing traffic nearby is AN INTENSIFICATION OF USE, and should concern every Westport property owner and every P&Z Commissioner.
I stand by what I said, Toni. And the fact that the group opposed is being represented by the same out-of-town attorney that is representing the group fighting the Old Mill Grocery neither suggests there is a compromise forthcoming nor makes me more sympathetic to their cause.
We’re not talking about building a rock quarry with daily blasting, or a chemical factory that will emit toxic fumes, or a concert venue that will bring thousands of out of town traffic and unruly behavior to the area. We’re talking about adding lights to a single field (specifically focusing on Wakeman) to extend usage by a few hours. Some extra traffic, the sounds of kids playing for a little bit longer each night and, for a few of the closest residents, being able to see the lights in the distance. All in a complex that has existed for decades and that nearby homeowners were surely aware of when they invested in their properties. Holding the town back to avoid these, yes, mild inconveniences is not keeping with the spirit of being part of a community.
To use a personal example that I know is close to your heart: I I invested in a home on the road that is, at least last I heard, the fashionable choice to be the new home of the community gardens. We chose the road in part because of the fields, and we currently enjoy near-unfettered access to them, to play soccer, let the kids ride bikes, fly kites and – Eric Barbieri, close your ears – throw the ball to the dogs. Redeveloping that plot will almost certainly lead to intensified use, including more car traffic where families walk their dogs and neighborhood kids ride bikes, and reduce our ability to use it as we have for a decade.
One option is to cite the mild personal inconvenience to me as a reason to oppose the plan, dig my heels in and make things harder for the town to help solve an acknowledged problem. The other option is to accept that I’m only one person and that my singular experience shouldn’t stand athwart progress, especially when the number of people that will benefit dwarfs the few of us that will have to accept a small change to our daily routines.