A Plea To P&Z—

Residents: Scuttle

Sports Center

By Andrew Gorosko

A group of residents upset over the prospect of living near a proposed major private recreational indoor/outdoor sports complex is asking the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) to reverse a decision it made last spring to allow such sports complexes as a permitted use in a M-2A (Industrial) zone.

At a July 19 P&Z public hearing, applicants Mary Gaudet-Wilson of 12 Whippoorwill Hill Road, and Patrick Napolitano of 13 Whippoorwill Hill Road explained why the P&Z should reverse its April decision.

Developer SEPG, LLC, has a purchase option to buy a sloping 33.4-acre site at 93 Mt Pleasant Road where it wants to build the Newtown Sports Center. The initial construction phase would include indoor and outdoor sports facilities, as well as office space. Future phases would include office space and industrial space. One version of the overall project has been proposed to enclose more than 320,000 square feet of space. The site would contain an estimated 500 parking spaces. The site is west of Whippoorwill Hill Road.

In April, the P&Z unanimously approved a set of zoning rule changes for the M-2A zone requested by the developer, which would allow the developer to submit a P&Z application for a sports complex. Nearby residents have charged that a legal notice that advertised a March P&Z public hearing on the then-requested zoning rule changes was vague, leaving them unaware of the project.

SEPG would require many town approvals before a sports complex could be built, including approvals from the P&Z and the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC).

At the July 19 public hearing, Ms Gaudet-Wilson said that the legal notice advertising the March public hearing “did not provide adequate information to the public” concerning the rule changes that SEPG was seeking from the P&Z. The legal notice did not mention sports complexes, and thus left nearby residents unaware of what the developer was seeking, she said.

“Due to this lack of prior information, there was no significant feedback from the public at the [March] hearing, which is the purpose of a public hearing,” Ms Gaudet-Wilson said.

“The real issue here is to consider the implications of adding the use of ‘recreational facilities’ to the M-2A zone,” she said.

Until the M-2A zone rules were expanded in April to allow recreational sports uses in the zone, only uses that occurred indoors were allowed, she noted.

“This is not an insignificant change,” she said. “The addition of outdoor activities raises significant concerns about noise, lights, and security adjacent to a residential neighborhood,” she said.

Outdoor activities at a sports complex would occur at night and on weekends, she said.

“Neighbors will be affected by noise from the fields, noise from increased traffic, and lights from the fields at times when they will be at home trying to enjoy their off-hours,” she added.

Ms Gaudet-Wilson said the presence of a sports complex would be inconsistent with the M-2A zone’s stated intent of providing for significant economic development without adversely affecting the character of the surrounding neighborhoods, or overburdening the natural or built environment.

Mr Napolitano told P&Z members that the legal notice of the March hearing on the developer’s requested rule changes did not provide any details on the nature of the request.

“I feel we were excluded,” he said. “There seemed to be a predisposed desire to approve this [zoning] amendment,” he said. There was little discussion among P&Z members before the rule changes were eventually approved, he said.

Mr Napolitano questioned traffic information that was presented to the P&Z by architect/engineer Peder Scott, who is a SEPG partner.

The traffic aspects of the project would be much more intense than was described by Mr Scott, Mr Napolitano said. If built, the project would increase traffic volume on Mt Pleasant Road by more than 20 percent, Mr Napolitano said.

Mr Napolitano said that the P&Z noted traffic issues as one of the reasons why it rejected the construction of a Buddhist temple on Boggs Hill Road in 2003.

The bright lights and noise associated with nighttime outdoor recreation at a sports center would far exceed the activity connected with a Buddhist temple, he said.

The presence of a sports center next to Whippoorwill Hill Road would pose security issues for its residents, changing the neighborhood’s character, he said.

Mr Napolitano urged the P&Z to reverse its April decision to allow recreational sports centers as a permitted use in the M-2A zone.

P&Z Chairman Lilla Dean told Ms Gaudet-Wilson and Mr Napolitano that they had clearly stated their objections. “You’ve done an excellent job in bringing forth your issues,” she said.

Resident Doug Lutz of 8 Taunton Lake Road said a sports center poses nighttime lighting issues and traffic issues for area residents. “I don’t like the way the P&Z handled this,” he said.

P&Z members are listening to and considering residents’ concerns, Ms Dean said.

Ms Dean pointed out that the P&Z has yet to receive an application for the sports complex, adding that the residents’ objections should be publicly stated when the application is discussed at a future public hearing.

P&Z member Robert Mulholland said that the legal notices for P&Z public hearings should be more specific.

Ms Dean added that she was disappointed that the legal notice advertising the July 19 public hearing was not more specific.

P&Z members are expected to act on the application from Ms Gaudet-Wilson and Mr Napolitano at an upcoming session.