Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Neighbors challenge Country School turf plan; P&Z keeps hearing open pending field‑use audit
Loading...
Summary
The commission continued the special‑permit application for New Canaan Country School (635 Frogtown Road) after neighbors contested the school’s field‑use chart and asked for an audit of actual rentals and bookings; the school agreed to post a baseline audit and accepted several conditions including no permanent or temporary lighting.
The Planning & Zoning Commission on March 31 kept the hearing open for New Canaan Country School’s application to regrade fields and build retaining walls in connection with proposed artificial turf installations, after neighbors and counsel challenged the accuracy of a field‑use chart the school submitted as the project baseline.
Attorney Steve Finn, representing the school, said the notice and neighbor outreach had been adequate and urged the commission not to single the school out for conditions that don’t apply uniformly. "Under the law," Finn said, "in order for a condition of a special permit to be valid, it must bear a substantial relationship to the application request." Finn and the school team said they were willing to accept several staff recommendations, including a condition prohibiting permanent or temporary lighting of the fields and administrative review for any increase in use above an agreed baseline.
Several neighbors and their lawyer disputed the school’s usage matrix. Neighbor Steven Metler told the commission the submitted schedule "is so far from reality, it scares us," and attorney (opposition) said the chart’s broad daily windows mask the actual frequency and intensity of rentals. Neighbors sought more specificity: an itemized, audit‑style list of actual 2025 bookings and a clear record of what outside organizations rented fields and when.
Aaron Cooper, New Canaan Country School’s head of school, stood by the chart and emphasized the school’s stated intent: "We are not intending to intensify the use of the fields," he said, and added the fields selected for turf are "as far from the neighbors as we could get." Cooper also told commissioners the school routinely documents rentals and can provide a calendar/audit showing who used fields and when.
The commission asked the applicant to post a more granular audit of 2025 bookings and the planned 2026 schedule on the town website for neighbor review, with the applicant targeting an April 10–12 posting. The commission continued the public hearing to April 28, 2026 to give neighbors time to review the audit and submit written comments. Commissioners also suggested neighbors submit any legal analyses about the validity of potential conditions in writing before the continuation.
Key points agreed in the hearing record: the applicant accepted a condition against field lighting and accepted the planner’s recommendation that administrative approval be required if the school seeks to go above the submitted baseline. The dispute that remains is the accuracy and specificity of the school’s field‑use audit; the commission asked the school to supply documentation (booking records, rental agreements and cancellations) to reconcile the chart with neighbor testimony.
Next steps: applicant to post detailed 2025 booking audit and 2026 planned uses to staff by approximately April 10–12; hearing to resume April 28, 2026. Neighbors and counsel may submit written rebuttals to be part of the record before the continuation.
