There’s a big battle brewing on the Wilton sports fields, and we don’t mean this weekend’s Homecoming game.
A proposed plan to install an athletic turf field and lights at Middlebrook School is being challenged by a handful of Wilton residents who say they oppose the idea of 70-foot high lights to illuminate the field. Calling themselves the Committee to Preserve Wilton’s Character, they plan to speak out against the proposal at a Town of Wilton Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission public hearing about the field being held tonight at 7:15 p.m. at the Wilton Library.
The turf field is being offered to the town by a coalition of youth athletic leagues—Wilton Youth Football, Wilton Youth Lacrosse and Wilton Field Hockey Association—under the name “Time to Turf.” They have joined together to fund the project privately and have gone in front of the Board of Selectmen, Parks and Recreation, Board of Education and the Inland Wetlands Commission, in addition to P&Z to propose a field that would be used by several sports associations in town as well as by Middlebrook students for physical education classes. Parks & Rec and the Board of Education have both stated their support of the project.
The project involves a lighting plan that would incorporate 70 ft. light poles around the field; it would require an amendment to current town zoning regulations that currently limit light pole height to 30 ft. “Time to Turf,” through the lawyer for Wilton Youth Football, J. Casey Healy of the Wilton law firm of Gregory and Adams, has applied for the amendment to 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.”
Anthony LoFrisco is one of Wilton residents who is organizing opposition to the lighting plan.
“They are trying to introduce these 80 ft. poles all over town. In other words they can’t go into P&Z and say, ‘We want them to change the zoning for Middlebrook field, and allow us to put up 70 ft. poles there.’ The regulations call for 30 ft. poles. The 30 ft. poles are there. They attempted to get a variance, they got a variance, we took them to court, the court reversed the variance. So now they’re coming up with this zone change that’s going to affect the entire residential zones throughout Wilton,” LoFrisco said. “Why do you need to introduce 80 ft. light poles all over town just to accommodate their wish to put them in that part of town?”
Healy, who represents the athletic associations, said that there are actually very few locations in town that would qualify under the language in the proposed amendment. “You can only apply for the special permit and seek permission to put up athletic field lights on publicly owned properties or privately owned used institutionally, such as private schools or churches. So if your neighbor came in, unless your neighbor is a publicly owned property or something like a private school or a church, they cannot even file the application. They don’t qualify for the regulation.” Plus, he added, “The regulation that allows athletic field lighting up to 80 feet is for athletic field lighting only.”
He added that it’s an issue that has to be applied to residential zones because that’s where all of Wilton’s schools are located.
“The entire Wilton Schools complex—the 100-plus acres that ranges from the high school all the way up to Middlebrook, Comstock, Cider Mill, etc.—it’s all zoned residential. Churches and schools, libraries, museums, and other similar uses are permitted in residential zones. Every single school in Wilton is located in a residential zone. So where you have schools, you have athletic fields. And where you have athletic fields, there are times that will require lighting.”
LoFrisco, who lives on School Rd between Middlebrook and Rt. 7, said he cannot see the current lights at Middlebrook field from his home; the people with whom he co-founded the Preserve Wilton’s Character organization can. But he said the issue is a larger one than just how it affects him personally. To him, it’s a question of keeping a sense of “the feel and character that Wilton does have.”
“The town’s plan of development and conservation is very clear about one thing: that it is the goal of the town to be a dark town, to limit the amount of light at night. And they’ve done a good job of keeping lights low. Go along Rt. 7, you’ll notice the lighting has been kept down in the commercial area. The absurd part of this amendment is that it allows 80 ft. light poles in residential zones, but keeps the prohibition in commercial zones and that’s upside-down. In my view, if you put this high-intensity lighting in residential zones, the commercial interests in town are going to say, hey, what about us? How can you increase the intensity of lights in residential zones and tell us we can’t? That’s why Wilton wisely limited pole heights to 30 feet, precisely to avoid the kind of overwhelming garish look you get in parking lots and places like that. Why have it in residential areas, it makes no sense.”
Healy disagreed that any proposed regulation changes would encourage businesses to seek out the same kind of higher light fixtures. “If you talk to a developer, they have no need for 80 ft. lights, or 70 ft. lights or 60 or 50 ft. lights. If they had, they would have looked to amend zoning regulations in municipality sessions in Wilton a long time ago.”
Addressing the issue of how additional lights might impact the character of the town’s “semi-rural village” self-characterization, Healy suggested that the fields are actually contributing to improving the town’s character.
“Part of the charm of Wilton and its ambiance is also the public school system and the youth athletic associations and opportunities that you have. All of the lighting that’s existing is on publicly owned or privately owned properties that are used institutionally, such as the Wilton Y.”
LoFrisco argued that Wilton is already at the upper limits of the number of lighted fields, compared to other surrounding towns. “I understand why people want to have places to play after dark. We counted all lighted outdoor venues, including basketball courts, multi-purpose fields, tennis courts, anything that was lighted for kids and others to play, and Wilton had more than any other town in Fairfield County, including towns that are larger than Wilton,” he said, adding that he looked at Darien, Greenwich, and Fairfield among others, but excluded Stamford from that list.
“There’s no shortage of outdoor lighted venues. And we’re going to try to introduce this intensity lighting just in residential areas because somebody wants to raise the height of poles that have been there and have served well for 15 years? It makes no sense,” he said.
Healy disagreed. He explained that from the point of view of the athletic associations, the lighting is outdated, and the overall plan is to make major improvements to a field that doesn’t serve anyone well anymore.
“What I think is getting lost with the opponents is the field is already lit, it’s just inadequately lit. They’re seeking private funds to turf the field because the field can’t even make it through a fall and spring season—it’s closed down in the spring. And to put up lights that meet today’s standards on an athletic field.”
The Time-to-Turf side has hired Musco Lighting to design the lighting plan for the field they’ve proposed. Musco previously designed and installed the lights at Kristine Lilly Field, the Wilton High School baseball and softball fields, Fujitani Football Field and the Little League fields at the Wilton Family Y—all of which have lights higher than 30 ft.
Andrew Dyjak, Musco’s field sales representative working with Time-to-Turf, explained that the proposed lights have been designed to limit the amount of lighting “spill and glare” outside the field—in other words, for residents living close to the Middlebrook field. He said raising the lights to 70 ft. high would make it easier to prevent the light from bothering neighbors.
“The aiming angle of the fixture can be more direct to the field, the higher the mounting height. Which means that there’s less spill and less glare on abutting property. If you’re up at 70 ft., the aiming angle of the angle can be direct or drastic to the field. If you want to get that same amount of light on the field, when you drop that pole height, the fixture can’t be aimed at the same angle because if it was the light would hit before the field. So what you have to do is lift the angle of the fixture upward, creating light on the field but also off [and over] the field.”
He also explained that lower lights make it harder to play—and may impact safety. “When you’re playing sports, soccer or football, the ball goes over 30 feet. So the ball will either be right around the same height as the fixture so the ball will get stuck ‘in’ the light, or, if the ball goes above the light, then you lose the ball, because there’s no light behind it. It creates shadowing, and you lose the ball. Playability-wise, it’s so much better to have light all around the light at all times, and at 70 ft. it accomplishes that,” he said, adding, “For the players and for the spectators, you don’t want them looking up into the lights for the ball. At 30 feet it happens a lot, at 70 ft. it happens infrequently.”
For his part, LoFrisco is encouraged by the number of people who have started following his group’s Facebook page called “Say Say No to 80-Foot Stadium Lights in Wilton and website, “PreserveWilton.org.” He said people have also responded favorably to a postcard mailer the group sent out to encourage residents to attend tonight’s hearing. He hopes people will turn out.
“I would urge everybody to come, whether they’re in favor or opposed. I believe in a full discourse and debate about the facts, and I ask everyone to stick to the facts. At the end of the day, if people understand the facts and they’re of good will, reasonable people at the end of the day ought to be able to come to the same conclusion. Nobody is trying to deprive any child from playing sports, that’s for sure.”