Ridgefield Golf Driving Range Proposal Draws Noise, Traffic Concerns At Zoning Hearing

RIDGEFIELD, CT — A proposed golf driving range along Route 7 drew renewed opposition from nearby residents at the Oct. 27 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, with disputes over noise, traffic safety and changes to the project's design leaving several questions unresolved.

The commission continued reviewing a special permit application for a nine-bay driving range at 0 Ethan Allen Highway, submitted by Robert Jewell on behalf of property owner EAP Property.

The applicant has revised the proposal to include sound-absorbing enclosures around the hitting stations, seating, accessible walkways and natural grass instead of artificial turf. Jewell said the changes were intended to address concerns raised during earlier hearings.

However, commission Chair Robert Hendrick said the expanded proposal now requires more detailed architectural and engineering plans.

Hendrick questioned whether the commission would receive enough information to evaluate the project before its December deadline. Jewell said the applicant would consider withdrawing and resubmitting the application if the necessary plans could not be completed in time.

Noise Study Predicts Levels Above Town Limits

Attorney Dan Casagrande, representing neighboring property owners John and Deborah Arbucci, urged the commission to deny the application, arguing that the driving range would create unacceptable noise impacts on nearby homes.

Casagrande presented an acoustic analysis prepared by SH Acoustics. Consultant Jesse Kay said the study predicted sound levels of approximately 75 decibels from the nine hitting stations operating simultaneously.

See Also: Ridgefield Committee Reviews New Police, Fire Station Plans As Cost Questions Remain

Kay said the projected noise would exceed applicable limits under Ridgefield's noise ordinance at nearby residential properties, including locations along Haviland Road.

The study treated the combined sound of golf balls being struck at multiple stations as continuous noise rather than isolated impacts. Kay said the analysis assumed golfers would strike an average of four balls per minute at each station.

Hendrick questioned that methodology, noting that golf shots are separated by time spent preparing and positioning the ball.

He asked the consultants to provide additional evidence explaining why the activity should be classified as continuous noise under the ordinance.

Hendrick also established that the acoustic study was based on an earlier version of the proposal, before the applicant added sound barriers.

Kay said the barriers would not necessarily eliminate the projected noise impacts, but acknowledged that his firm had not modeled the revised design.

Jewell said the applicant had hired its own acoustic consultant, who was expected to examine the property and provide additional findings.

Residents Question Traffic And Safety

Residents also raised concerns about additional traffic on Haviland Road, which several described as a heavily traveled shortcut between Routes 7 and 35.

Scott Robin, who lives next to the proposed site, said the revised plans represented a substantial change from the original application.

See Also: Ridgefield Finance Board Reviews $1.6 Million School Budget Shortfall, Plans For 2027 Budget

The initial proposal called for nine unsheltered hitting stations and 10 parking spaces. The newer plans include a covered seating area, screening walls, a walkway and other improvements.

Robin said the commission should require detailed plans showing the proposed netting enclosure, including its appearance from nearby homes.

He also questioned how the facility would be supervised, whether the seating area would attract additional visitors and how the property would be secured after operating hours.

Suzanne Scherter, a Haviland Road resident, raised concerns about pedestrians crossing Route 7 and visitors parking on nearby residential streets.

Other residents described increased traffic on Haviland Road and questioned whether the proposed driveway could operate safely near an existing school bus stop.

Jewell disputed the need for a full traffic study, saying the proposal's limited number of parking spaces and lack of a substantial building did not trigger the applicable regulatory requirement.

He said the applicant's engineer had evaluated driveway sight lines and that the Police Commission had expressed no safety objections to the proposed Haviland Road access.

Hendrick said commissioners had previously questioned whether a more extensive traffic analysis would be appropriate.

Disagreement Over Lighting And Neighborhood Impacts

Commissioner Sebastian D'Acunto questioned Jewell about earlier testimony alleging that a property owner had discussed adding lighting to the driving range in the future.

Jewell said lighting was not included in the application and disputed the reported statement on behalf of his client.

He said any future lighting proposal would require additional commission review.

See Also: Ridgefield Selectpersons Approve State Aid, Advance Leaf Blower Proposal Toward Public Hearing

Hendrick said the commission could impose an explicit prohibition on lighting as a condition of approval.

Casagrande argued that the commission should consider the project's potential effects on nearby residential properties even though the proposed facility is located in a commercial zone.

He cited the commission's previous denial of a town pickleball proposal, arguing that noise impacts could justify denying a special permit.

Hendrick noted a significant difference between the proposals: The pickleball project involved land in a residential zone, while the driving range property is commercially zoned.

Jewell also challenged the comparison, saying the driving range would have sound screening that the earlier pickleball proposal lacked.

The attorneys disagreed over how the commission should evaluate the special permit criteria, including the significance of other uses allowed on the property and potential impacts on neighboring homes.

Additional Plans Expected Before Next Hearing

Jewell said the applicant intends to provide revised engineering and architectural details addressing the enclosure, sound barriers and other improvements.

The commission also requested additional information about the acoustic analysis, including how the frequency of golf shots affects the applicable noise standard.

The application remained under review, with the next regular commission meetings scheduled for Nov. 10 and Dec. 8. The transcript identifies Dec. 17 as the applicable deadline following an extension.

No approval or denial of the driving range was recorded during the Oct. 27 discussion.

Other Commission Actions

The commission also approved two Village District sign applications for businesses on Main Street.

Commissioners unanimously approved signage for Monet Nails & Spa at 421 Main St., including signs at the front and rear of the building.

The commission also approved signs for Fieldhouse Kitchen and Bar at 439 Main St., the former Tequila Escape location. The approval incorporated Village District design recommendations, including a 2,700-kelvin color temperature for illuminated signs.

Commissioners voted to advance a proposed zoning amendment concerning native plants in landscaping plans to a public hearing. The draft includes exemptions for certain plantings and flexibility when suitable native species are unavailable. Although Dec. 8 was initially discussed, staff subsequently explained that notice requirements would push the hearing into January or later.

The commission also received two new applications and scheduled site walks for Dec. 6 and public hearings for Dec. 8: a two-lot resubdivision at 33 Oak Knoll and a short-term rental application for 237 Florida Road.