To the editor:
I am concerned that the process for making a decision on whether or not to add permanent lighting to Hunnewell Field remains very unclear even to those who have been following the issue closely. During the discussion at its February 3 meeting, two members of the Natural Resources Commission (which has legal control of the high school and surrounding fields) stated unequivocally that they were prepared to vote down the School Committee’s proposal, which includes lights, bathrooms, and team rooms. But no vote was taken, and it was not stated when a vote would be taken, though it sounded to me like it could happen at the next meeting. It was also not determined whether the NRC might actively provide any useful feedback to the School Committee on its proposal.
I am very concerned that the deliberations have gotten this far without a public hearing being scheduled, which was both promised previously by the NRC and is a requirement under its Change of Use policy. Public hearings need at least 14 days of public advertisement, so it seems like with the NRC’s schedule, any public hearing would fall to March, at least 3½ months after the School Committee’s initial proposal was delivered. But again, when that will happen is still unknown to the public, because it has not been discussed in the meetings. Comment at the meetings has been robust, but a public hearing as defined by Massachusetts law is a legally distinct and formal event that requires certain types of notices and procedures.
But beyond the NRC’s own requirement for a public hearing on this proposal, I think that the community also would greatly benefit from hearing the NRC and the School Committee discuss the proposal together, in detail, in a joint meeting. This type of meeting would allow for the two boards to share ideas and discuss pros and cons in an effort to reach common understanding and perhaps a solution of some kind.
If the proposal is voted down, for example, does that apply to just the lights? Does a “no” vote mean the NRC would also not approve the updated plans for the much-needed new bathrooms? Or the team rooms? Would a majority of the NRC find a smaller number of nights acceptable? As someone in the public watching the many meetings of deliberation on this issue, I have no idea and think these questions and others are valid.
There is nothing in their policy that prevents the NRC from giving the School Committee feedback on what they agree with and what they don’t, or suggest alternatives. That would show basic respect, and in this case I think it would be expected practice, given all the work that has been done by a fellow board.
After all, this all started with a joint meeting one year ago when the NRC came to the School Committee and asked for guidance with exploring bathrooms, team rooms and lights for the field—which was one of the NRC’s publicly stated goals for 2021. The proposal is a result of that request from the NRC. It has clearly been put together by the School Committee in good faith, following the NRC’s policy, and taking what I would estimate is hundreds of hours of School Committee and School Department time during an exceptionally busy and challenging period.
I still believe there is an opportunity to work out a compromise—one that is respectful of the neighborhood and their very valid concerns about noise, traffic, and general disruptions, but also meets many of the long-held and very strong desires of the community and our students to be able to finally have night games on a field that is allocated for public use.
Personally, I am in support of a limited and specific plan that can be codified in an eventual Zoning Board of Appeals decision, so it is binding and clear to everyone.
Sharon Gray
Arnold Road
There was a public Zoom meeting in January and I and many people attended.
The NRC currently is against the lights and the public address system use after dark. Indeed the lights and the public address system would be Very Close to many homes and there are No other similar facilities in other towns that are that close to private homes, including the Boston College soccer facility in Newton that is very close to a few homes, modified their lighting, reduced the number of night events and do Not use a public address system. The public toilets are another consideration and the d sewer connection would be an issue. It might be possible to get lights allowed if they were Turned Off at 8:30 pm for varsity games and 8 pm for any other use. Maybe. And NO USE of a public address system after 6 pm. Simple.
Tom, I keep hearing that there are no other towns like ours with field lights but when I pull up a Google Earth view of Newton South High School it very clear there are house nearby. It may not be as many but they are there. Newton North High School is also surrounded by houses and they are working on lights there too.
Lisa, If you look closely at the Google maps for Boston College’s soccer filed in Newton next to Newton Country Day School, and the Newton South stadium and the Wellesley HS stadium, you will see that for Newton South the closest house is at least 100 feet away, at BC there is at least one or two houses that are 50 feet away and for Wellesley there are many houses that are only 50 feet away. I referee soccer at all of those fields, and because of the stands and the trees, you can’t notice those houses at Newton South. And a night game (which I have officiated at Newton South) starts at 5pm and ends by 7pm. So, as I mentioned in my original reply, if the school and users agree to turn off the lights Earlier than they have currently proposed AND do Not use the public address system after 5pm or 6pm, that might be a workable compromise. However, as currently proposed, the lights and NOISE will be Horrible for well over 100 people who live near the Wellesley stadium that was always a Day time use only. Thank you.
This is spot on! Well done.
Well said! And the town is very much in need of these school facilities. Lets not be railroaded into a decision made by the vocal minority, as almost happened with the elementary school debacle.
A clarification: I heard from Brandon Schmitt, director of the NRC, that according to Town Counsel, the NRC does not have to host an advertised public hearing (as defined by MA law) on the School Committee’s proposal.
He noted that the “public hearing” required in the NRC’s policy, according to counsel, is not the same type of public hearing that is commonly held by numerous town boards and which require advertising and an amount of notice that differs from a regular open meeting.
Mr. Schmitt confirmed that the NRC change of land use policy (which states that “the change must be voted on at a public hearing after a proposal is submitted to the board”) does not define what is meant by a public hearing. He noted that the chair has the discretion to determine what is meant by the public hearing in this case, and confirmed that it is up to the NRC to decide how to follow their own policy.
I apologize for making the assumption that all public hearings have the same requirements and felt it important to issue this clarification. My hope would be that regardless of requirements, the NRC would make the effort to reach out to the broader community for input.
The Newton South location is NOT comparable to Wellesley. In Wellesley, the homes are directly across the street, with one home as little as 60 feet or 20 yards away, and the average of the 5 closest homes being about 102 feet. By comparison, The closest homes to the Newton South location are, on average, 246 feet away,. What Is more, at Newton South, the closest homes are elevated on a hill above the field, and shielded by a large grouping of trees. Even given all that, the light is quite apparent when standing outside these homes. You can read a book. Have you gone and looked yourself? Would you be happy with this across the street from YOUR home? An appropriate compromise would acknowledge that this is a terrible thing to do to our fellow residents.