Anthony LoFrisco, whose Committee to Preserve Wilton’s Character is objecting to proposed lighting at Middlebrook Field, prepares to present to the Planning and Zoning Commission. At issue is the zoning regulation change that would allow light poles up to 80 ft. high at athletic fields around town, enabling similar lights to also be installed at a proposed turf field at Middlebrook.
Both those in favor and those opposed to 70 foot stadium lights for Middlebrook field showed up to Monday night’s public hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), and each side brought deep benches of supporters and fans to argue their respective sides. You might have thought they were all prepared to show up in full helmets, protective pads and mouthguards, believing they were battling it out on real turf as opposed to battling it out about turf.
The coalition of three youth athletic associations (football, lacrosse and field hockey) were represented in their application for an amendment to a Wilton zoning regulation by a couple of lawyers, town planning and lighting experts, as well as by various fans and association officials who spoke in support of needing additional fields and better and safer lights for the children of Wilton.
Similarly, the newly formed Committee to Preserve Wilton’s Character, an ad-hoc collection of residents were joined by their lawyers, town planners, and an able-bodied “guy Friday” (a young man named Buck Parker who passed out papers and when questioned, told the P&Z board members that he had made some calls to do research for the committee head, Anthony LoFrisco). There were several people in the assembled audience who spoke against having more lights mar the Wilton landscape, and who cautioned against the likely spread of lights to other neighborhoods should P&Z let this pass.
From the beginning, the tone of the meeting was expected to be tense. P&Z chair John Wilson cautioned, “Before we start, I know that this can be an emotional issue, whenever we talk about our property or advocating for our families. This can get a little bit of emotion tied up in it, but I ask that you check that.”
For the most part attendees at the meeting were able to avoid any rancor or emotion. It opened with a straightforward presentation by Casey Healy, the Gregory and Adams attorney representing the athletic associations as the petitioners for the proposed zoning change; Dave Schiff, a town planning consultant; and Andrew Dyjak from Musco Lighting (who came armed with drawings, photos and diagrams of light angles and visored optometric-designed light fixtures). There was lots of talk about “light spill and glare” and how much light would actually creep out and bother neighbors who abut stadium areas; they also covered how to safely and adequately light a field of the size that’s been proposed .
And there was lots of talk about how the proposed amendment has been worded, with a good deal of focus on the word “institutional.” The amendment that’s been proposed by the lawyers would allow lights up to 80 ft. tall “…for outdoor athletic facilities …in all residential districts on publicly owned properties and privately owned properties used institutionally (such as private schools or churches) subject to Special Permit and Site Plan approval.”
Several of the commissioners initially asked for more specific definitions of what “institutional” would mean. Chris Hulse asked Healy to “tighten up” the definition as it related to publicly and privately owned properties while Marilyn Gould brought up past controversy when similar lighting issues have been brought up in front of P&Z with regard to private clubs, like the Lake Club.
It was around the word “institutional” that the meeting sparked some moments of drama. Several opponents to the plan spoke about their fears that anyone could simply declare the formation of a “group” or “association” and be able to erect similar kinds of tall lights in a private home because that would be considered “institutional.”
One of those who spoke in opposition, Alex Sgoutas, of Range Road, said exactly that, stating, “Gregory and Adams have opened up a can of worms. I have a neighbor with 3.5 acres, if he wants to in a tennis court or a bocce court, and chooses to put lighting 80 ft. high, as bright as possible, whatever, what recourse do I have, to stop this? What does the town do to stop it? You’re going to tell me it’s not institutional? He could form a group, pretend he is an institution, fall under the slippery slope of legalese, and I get massive lighting. I’m not near football fields, but I’m sure there are hundreds of homeowners like me, and is this opening up a nightmare for you, for me, for us to not know what can happen? I don’t know if this is opening a slippery slope we don’t want to open.”
LoFrisco, a 40-year Wilton resident and former P&Z member, also caused a stir by raising what he called a “substantive, critical and simple” issue in front of the board, saying that “regulations state very clearly that in order to bring an application to amend the regulations, you must be an owner of property in this town.” He challenged the board by saying that the Gregory and Adams law firm does not own property in Wilton.
“It’s not just a technicality. There’s a reason why you want to have just property owners. The fact of the matter is if you don’t have a property owner bringing the applications, you can’t entertain the application. I think the sensible thing to do is to decide that issue here and now, so that whatever action you take is not going to be tainted. If you take an action now you’re not going to have jurisdiction. I was going to say it’s wacky but I’m trying to think of a more intelligent word… I urge you to take a recess and consider it. It’s very simple–it says you’ve got to be an owner; the law firm is not an owner of property. Therefore you have no jurisdiction to entertain it. Nobody wants to go through a whole hearing and the results are tainted.
While that seemed to rattle the Time to Turf lawyers, and somewhat stun the commissioners and the audience, the officials decided to continue anyway and hear from the audience since people had come out for the meeting. Town planner Robert Nerney asserted that he would check with town counsel at a later date but that because the attorney’s clients were based in Wilton he assumed the proceedings could continue. Healy said he’d look into it later as well and if necessary re-file.
It certainly threw many of the hearing’s participants off their game a bit. One commissioner rebuked LoFrisco for not bringing up the regulation earlier before the hearing. Marilyn Gould called it “a scandal,” and said, “This [petition] would have to be on behalf of the town as the owner of the publicly owned fields, or on a private school or church as listed on the proposed regulation. So I do agree that in the past that standard has been held by this commission. That you couldn’t come in and ask for a regulation that applied to a property owned by somebody else. It has to be the property that’s under potential use. This says only ‘town-owned property.’”
Chairman Wilson decided to move forward with the hearing because so many people had shown up to participate. “They deserve an opportunity to be heard.”
Much of the town testimony fell into step with the well-known arguments on the issue. Opponents cited their proximity to the field as neighborhood residents close to Middlebrook. Others decried the noise and light pollution that already exists. As LoFrisco put it, “We’ve already got a lot of lights. We’re not light deprived in wilton.”
Proponents talked about the benefits of play for kids and the shortage of field space for teams to play in Wilton. John McDermott, who said he lives on Hunting Ridge Lane, within five houses of the Middlebrook field, said he purposely chose to live close to the center of town to be near the sports fields. “I like to hear kids playing in the background. I am also a coach, on the board of Wilton Youth Football. I think the quality of the fields and the support we provide as a town important for the kids.”
Out of a room filled with approximately 60 spectators, the majority who spoke out seemed to speak against the kinds of lights proposed by the youth athletic associations. Several of them were self-described long-time residents of Wilton who decried the kinds of changes that this type of development has brought to the town (including threatening wildlife, destroying the rural charm, ruining the view). Others said the lights would offer no cost benefit for a majority of the town. The Commissioners did read into the record the names of residents who they said wrote letters.
Paul Sobel, the lawyer representing LoFrisco and his associates, hit a point that ready strikes a nerve with P&Z, emphasizing that the burden of application is inconsistent with the commission’s guiding document, Wilton’s Plan of Development. He said he found it curious that the plan was never mentioned in the lighting regulation changes proposed. He specifically cited the “semi-rural nature of the town and Wilton’s character and also cautioned about sliding down a slippery slope of overzoning because the applicants can’t spot-zone.
“It proposed a broad regulation that would allow the lighting anywhere in the residential zone. The reason why they do it broadly is because they know that they can’t have spot zoning. That’s the conundrum that the applicant is facing: If they broaden the application, so they would not be accused of spot zoning. Be careful for what you wish for. The proponents are really interested in getting lighting for one field, but you can’t spot zone. By allowing regulation for this really bright lighting, you would be altering the course of the town that you’ve preserved for so many years.”
Richard Creeth (a former selectman) was confused as to why the proposed regulation changes were being written by the applicant. “It’s seems strange to me that the process is such that an interested party should write these regs for the commission to consider. I think it’s the commission’s job, and I would encourage you to write the regs, and not be influenced by a party who is trying to influence one thing. If the purpose was to talk about Middlebrook. we should talk specifics and come to some conclusion. But it’s not about that, it’s about expanding the regs forever, and I think this is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge.”
All that moving the virtual game ball up and down the field, trying to score points and get the win over an opponent. But it seemed the P&Z referees made the call to delay the game–there was no decision made, and instead the board tabled further discussion on the zoning change application until the next meeting on Oct. 28.
Excellent reporting that captures the nuance