Letter to the Editor: Further study needed before approval of enlarged Amsterdam field

June 18, 2010
by Phil Rice

To the Editor:

I along with several of my colleagues on the Millwood Task Force attended the meeting of the New Castle Planning Board on June 14, at which the Board considered an application by the Town for a wetlands permit for construction of a second athletic field at the Amsterdam Park facility on Hoags Cross Road.

The 2007 site plan previously approved for the Amsterdam property was designed to accommodate two multi-purpose fields.  Only the west field was constructed when the facility first opened in 2009.  The east field was located carefully as part of the overall plan for the property to avoid the 150-foot wide buffer zone for the wetlands on the east side of the property.  The Town is now seeking to construct the east field not as originally planned but as a wider regulation soccer field.  This modified site plan requires the field to be built partially within the wetlands buffer, and for this incursion to be accepted, a wetlands permit is required.

The modified proposal also requires a 79% increase in the number of trees to be removed over the original plan, a figure that could actually be higher depending on the actual space needed for construction equipment to build the entire field, including the perimeter drainage system.

While the Millwood Task Force recognizes that there is a serious need for additional athletic facilities in the Town, this need should be balanced with the Town’s important commitment to protect wetlands areas.  The establishment of the wetlands buffer requirement is a reflection of that commitment.  We therefore believe that the Planning Board should only grant a waiver of that requirement if there are no possible alternatives that avoid an incursion of the buffer zone. 

This is of particular importance for the case of the Amsterdam facility, for which the original 2007 site plan was approved only after years of study, detailed review and careful evaluation of potential impacts by the Town and the community.  It was not clear from the discussion at June 14 Board meeting that alternatives to the current proposal for the second field have been considered by the Town.  An alternatives study should include consideration of other potential sites in the Town, such as existing school fields that could possibly be upgraded to provide sufficient space for a regulation width field without involving a wetlands issue.

We prefer the construction of a second multi-purpose field at the Amsterdam site in accordance with the originally approved site plan for the property, a plan that avoids an incursion of the wetlands buffer.  If the Town still intends to build a wider field at the Amsterdam facility, we urge the Town not to move ahead with this modified plan until a thorough site review has been completed, with careful consideration of all impacts, including tree removals, parking, site grading, the need for safety fencing and backstops, landscaping, relative costs for construction and long term maintenance, as well as other off-site alternatives.

Phil Rice