Lost in Translation
A Public Hearing was held by the Plan Commission on October 8th to discuss the Village's Application for a Text Amendment to allow 60 ft. Stadium Lights in 17 of the Village's 18 Parks. Not only would this Text Amendment double the permitted height of lights, but it would also allow 60 ft. lights to be installed with no setback from the nearest residential property line. Hundreds of homes abut Hinsdale's parks and would be negatively impacted by this text amendment.
The Village Staff stated the primary reason for the Application was to bring existing lights into compliance. Over 20 residents spoke out against the Text Amendment at the Public Hearing, but supported "grandfathering" existing lights, so they could be maintained or replaced. The primary concern of these residents is to provide a standard of protection to maintain the character of residential neighborhoods and ensure property values are not diminished. Specifically, residents requested changes to the Application which would:
- Provide appropriate public notice and public input for any new lights;
- Provide standards of consideration by the PC and BOT more strict than the proposed site plan and exterior plan review standards suggested by the Village Staff;
- Limit 60 ft. Stadium Lights to designated areas (larger parks);
- Require restrictions on where 60 ft. Stadium Lights could be placed and differentiate between the standards of a 15 ft. light versus a 60 ft. light via additional setback requirements for taller lights (consistent with other aspects of the Village Code and codes of other communities)
Residents submitted valid testimony, including a 2001 report by a Village Park Consultant detailing that any additional lights in Village Parks should have at least a 100 ft. setback from residential property lines. Jeff Finlay, Chair of the Zoning Code Rewrite Task Force, provided input stating that any new lights should be considered under a Special Use section of the Code which requires more stringent standards and setbacks than a Permitted Use.
After 2.5 hrs of public comment, the Plan Commission closed the Public Hearing. Chairperson LaPlaca summarized the comments made by residents and provided feedback to all parties with a suggested compromise balancing the needs of all parties involved. Chair LaPlaca continued the meeting to November 12th and asked the Village staff to "re-draft" the Application to "grandfather" all existing lights while providing the Village the ability to install new lights under the appropriate circumstances. Specifically, Chairperson LaPlaca requested additional lights to be a Special Use, which would provide for a higher standard of review, more stringent notice requirements to residents surrounding parks and provide setback requirements from the property line. Chair LaPlaca made the following comments in her summary:
"We have heard good and valid points tonight, which isn't to say there isn't merit in the amendment, but I do believe it could be made better, based on what we have heard this evening [the Public Hearing]... I think it is a valid point that all residents [surrounding a subject park] be notified. I also think the standards that are required by exterior appearance and site plan review--while they provide some subjectiveness on the part of the Planning Commission and Trustees--are different than the standards for a code amendment. Now I do think the standards for example, for a Special Use are much stricter and much more similar to the standards for a code amendment. In addition the Special Use requires a Public Hearing. So, perhaps it is appropriate, as one or 2 people have suggested tonight, that lighting of this nature or lighting of a specific height perhaps be deemed a Special Use in the Open Space area which would again allow it, but would create some additional constraints of the approval process, which seems to be a valid and well-voiced concern of the people here tonight. So, I see those things as something I would like to have clarified and perhaps changed in this language (to the amendment). I would also like to point out the Section of the Code which I referred to, there is a provision, Section 2 of Section 7-210 which states that lot area dimensions and setbacks shall only apply to Special Uses and not Permitted Uses in the Open Space district. So if you made lighting a Special Use then you would have setback requirements under this Section of the Code which are already there... In my opinion I would like Staff and the Village Attorney to work toward what we have discussed tonight as a compromise position on this subject, so that we could come up with something that would be defensible on our part for people that live near parks as well as others who want to enjoy lights in parks."
The other four Plan Commissioners then commented and generally were in agreement with Chair LaPlaca's statement. In reference to the Public Hearing and directives of the Plan Commission, one resident summarized the result of the meeting as "a great balance between property owner's rights, and the proposed needs of sports organizations."
The "Re-Drafted" Application was posted to the Village website on November 3rd. In short, the Re-Drafted application fails to address a majority of the salient points raised by residents and suggested by the Planning Commission. The Re-Drafted Application includes the following terms:
- A Public Meeting - Not a Public Hearing At a "meeting", residents within 250' of the effected park would not have to be legally notified; officials would not be legally bound by hearing procedures; and participants' comments would not have to be recorded, as part of a legal record.
- NO classification of Special Use. Even the tallest lights (60 ft.) are classified as a Permitted Use.
- NO setback requirements at all 60 ft lights could go in small parks - next to lot lines of private homes.
- Reduced standards of approval For approval, only site plan and exterior appearance review standards in the Zoning Code would have to be met. These are a lower hurdle than standards required for Special Uses.
The only term addressed by the Re-Drafted Application is an enhanced level of public notice. However, the public notice is for a meeting, which does not have to allow public comment. If additional lights were classified as a Special Use, it would allow new lights to be installed to meet the ongoing need of our sports organizations and it would provide a reasonable level of protection for residents via: (1) a Public Hearing with residents provided the right to speak and be heard; (2) enhanced standards for approval; and (3) setback requirements so a 60 ft. pole could not go right next to a residential property line.
So, what happened between the Public Hearing and the Re-Draft of the Application? There was a clear, concise and unanimous direction from the Plan Commission, which simply is not fully reflected in the Re-Draft of the Application. 20-plus residents who voiced their opinions last month left the Public Hearing feeling confident that a reasonable compromise was reached. Unless you check the Village website daily, most will probably not realize what has occurred. Ultimately, I hope this matter will be corrected by classifying new lights in our parks as a Special Use under the Village Code.
Luke Stifflear
Preserve Hinsdale Parks