Surprisingly the issue that seemed to sway the three council members was not about open space, scenic corridor, rural or water conservation. Instead it was about the fact that artificial turf was not a living organism. The three council members who voted to reject the Planning Commission's decision said they had "gut instincts" against the artificial turf and that they "read into the General Plan" a value that would not allow something inorganic to replace an existing organic material.
I have a deep respect for all our volunteers in this town, especially our council members who put in so much time and effort. However, I respectfully question this decision. How can a town that upholds a water-conservation code that regulates new construction to a limit of 1,000 square feet of irrigated grass now turn around and insist that the Priory put in two acres of it? How can a town that put in a mile of asphalt (inorganic material) on one of its town trails to make it a year-round recreational facility now turn around and deny the Priory a recreational facility the children can use year-round? The decision seems very contradictory.
What is done is done. Now the Priory will have to figure out how to make lemonade out of lemons.
If this upsets you, as it does me, there is something you can do. As citizens who have the right to vote, I urge you to pay attention to the Town Council election this upcoming fall. Two of the three Town Council members who voted to reject the Planning Commission's decision and have denied the Priory a facility that would be "on-par" with every high school in it's league, are up for re-election.