
By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Planning and Zoning Commission on Monday delayed its vote on whether to approve two pickleball courts at the Fairfield County Hunt Club.
It was a lengthy discussion continued from an earlier hearing on a plan opposed by neighbors worried about noise.
The commission seemed at the beginning of the meeting concerned about the effects on neighbors, but reassurances from the applicant’s acoustical expert, Kevin Peterson, that noise mitigating efforts would indeed work appeared to have some sway. It looked like a vote might be taken, perhaps in favor of the plan.

But after much discussion and comments from the applicant’s lawyer, John Fallon of Fairfield, appearing to raise the specter of legal action, some commission members appeared rankled and/or concerned.
The emergency brake was pulled, and further action delayed until the commission could call in the Town Attorney’s Office. The commission voted to keep the hearing open, and P&Z staff suggested discussing it again Nov. 6 to give the town’s lawyers time to look it over.
Earlier in the meeting, neighbors again voiced concerns about noise, some as far as a half-mile away. They also expressed disappointment that the club didn’t scale back its plan to allow play 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., seven days a week.
Some neighbors questioned why another area of the sprawling property wasn’t chosen. One man was concerned about several large trees he said appeared perhaps a century old would be felled. The answer was that the existing trees, Norway maples, were non-native and would be replaced by native pin oaks and American elms.
But the main concern was noise, and there were questions about whether the proposed six-foot acoustical screening was adequate.
“There’s a lot of concern about the impact on neighbors, from the 80 hours a week especially,” said Lauren Karpf, who lives nearby and is a Representative Town Meeting member from District 7. She and other neighbors have said activities at the club resonate in their yards and inside their homes.
There was pushback from the applicant. Fallon raised the legal question of “uniformity” in zoning decisions, noting the commission’s approval of pickleball courts at Birchwood Country Club last year.
“If we’re looking at uniformity and fair treatment to all, there’s not a lot of topography at Compo, and pickleball courts were approved there as well,” he said. “And pickleball courts were approved there without any limitation that I’m aware of with regard to hours.

The approval of Birchwood Country Club’s pickleball courts, about a year ago after extended discussions and revisions, was also referenced.
“So, I’m very, very concerned about my client in this case being exposed to a condition of approval that is not warranted by the uncontroverted evidence of the record and which will be disparate in its treatment of them relative to every single other property owner, public or private, in the town of Westport with regard to similar outdoor recreational activities being racquet sports.
“And I don’t think the weight of the evidence, certainly the expert evidence is uncontroverted here, and I think Mr. Peterson’s veracity and track record speaks for itself, because he said the same things at the Birchwood hearing and he delivered,” Fallon continued. “And that would be the case here.”
“We simply want to find a balance between what our reasonable rights are to enjoy our club facilities, and our neighbors’ rights to enjoy their property,” he said. “And I think that with the mitigation we are suggesting we have done that. And we’ve done that only after looking at alternative sites that would not be in any way more favorable than what we’re proposing, and all we ask at the end of the day is that we receive the same treatment, within reason, as you have seen in the past fit to apply your regulations.”
“Thanks so much Mr. Fallon,” said Commission Chairwoman Danielle Dobin. “You’ve really convinced me that it’s important that we keep this hearing open …
“I think we need to undertake an exhaustive search of all the different ways in which this commission has really shown sensitivity to the intensification of uses pursuant to a special permit in a residential zone …” she said.

“I also think if the point you’re making is that we as a commission made one other decision, vis-à-vis pickleball at a private club, and that, as a consequence of that, we are somehow locked into making a very specific decision in this case, or that if we made a decision in this case that we would never in the future, depending on different circumstances at a different piece of land, make a decision to limit hours in a different way then, that we really have to explore that further with the town attorney who is not here tonight,” Dobin told Fallon.
Member Jon Olefson said that as commissioner he was looking out for all of the interests in town.
“But in this particular case, if something takes us a week longer or two weeks longer, I’d sure rather err on the side of making sure I get it right for the residents around the club,” he said.
“I would like, in all circumstances, to find a path forward that generally leaves people mostly satisfied on all side,” he said. “But I’ve gotta be careful if every decision I make is now going to be held against me in the future in terms of disparate treatment or disparate outcomes. That makes me nervous.”
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 35 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.


“But I’ve gotta be careful if every decision I make is now going to be held against me in the future in terms of disparate treatment or disparate outcomes. That makes me nervous.”
What makes ME nervous is that:
A) A P&Z commissioner suddenly realizes that he “has to be careful” when making decisions, and
B) Has not always understood that “Uniformity” and “Consistency” in decision-making-is critical for preventing the perception, and more importantly the implementation, of “favoritism”, “cronyism” and other “intentional or unintentional influences” that might plague those who are in power.
Unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances that mandate the breach of precedent, decisions do, and should, generally set precedents; otherwise capriciousness can infiltrate and become an undesirable factor in outcomes.
As we’ve recently witnessed regarding the “tortured” and biased RTM Charter assertion, the Town Attorney can devise a legal opinion to suit a pre-determined outcome of “The Town’s” choosing. The P&Z requesting that our Town Attorney essentially adjudicate this application is, in my mind, an unfair obstacle being placed upon this particular applicant. I imagine that EVERY P&Z application has some “unique distinction” that could at some time be potentially twisted into being interpreted as being “a basis with which to break away from prior decisions”. THIS is dangerous.
Has such a burden ever been a condition or factor in obtaining a similar P&Z approval?
This P&Z request for Town Attorney influence is fraught with prejudice, and should not, indeed must not, become the precedent for this and future P&Z decision making. – P&Z decisions must be based solely upon the merits of the application before them. Period.
In my opinion, this P&Z request is simply an effort to obtain legal “cover” and an excuse to not make a decision based upon the evidence presented by the applicant and its expert consultants. If the P&Z commissioners do not want to believe the expertise of the consultants they should just say so; however they;d better have damn good evidence in so doing as THAT (i.e. over-ruling experts without having the expertise themselves) would be an important precedent to have to later defend.
I do not have a personal stake in this application – I am not a member of the Hunt Club and not a resident in that vicinity – but on the face of it, any alleged “topographical circumstances” being asserted are not important when the desired outcome is identical to prior decision making mandates – i.e expert assurances that the underlying P&Z concerns are effectively addressed and mitigated, and all regulations adhered to. Making “suggestions” to the applicant is fine and good – and the willingness of any applicant to consider them is a benefit; however these :suggestions” are NOT conditions for approval if the underlying concerns are satisfactorily addressed and current regulations adhered to.
In this instance those assurances were provided to the P&Z; and everything requested and necessary to that end was satisfactorily obtained and provided. Nothing else was required of the applicant to have this application approved. Therefore, at this point, any further demands appear to be a capricious attempt to impose un-mandated deterrents, obligations and restrictions.
Or perhaps, being election season, this is actually “grandstanding” to garner votes?
I sincerely hope not.