Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Simsbury committee discusses artificial turf at Curtis Park; members raise environmental and process questions

November 06, 2025 | Simsbury Center, Capitol County, Connecticut


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Simsbury committee discusses artificial turf at Curtis Park; members raise environmental and process questions
During a sustained discussion the Simsbury Open Space Committee addressed proposals for artificial turf and related capital improvements at Curtis Park and whether the committee should take a position or monitor developments in other Connecticut towns.

Members referenced recent local debates—Glastonbury and Norwalk among others—where ballot measures or ordinances on artificial turf were considered; Glastonbury's measure failed narrowly. Speakers emphasized environmental concerns for fields located near a wild‑and‑scenic river and on alluvial soils, noting that inland‑wetlands or alluvial‑soil designations would trigger conservation or wetlands review for any capital project.

The group discussed a longstanding arrangement in which a soccer organization holds primary/priority access to Curtis Park fields and has in the past invested in field improvements. Members expressed concern that an exclusive or priority use arrangement had been reached with a private organization without a clearly public procurement process, and several participants suggested that any long‑term or capital agreements should be subject to a request‑for‑proposals (RFP) or a public hearing to protect the town's public‑land responsibilities.

Committee members also discussed technical alternatives and tradeoffs for artificial turf: older systems use crumb‑rubber infill; newer options include organic infill or no‑infill systems that are intended to reduce runoff and floatation risks in floodplains. Members noted that fields in flood‑prone locations (including the high‑school field) may flood repeatedly, shortening turf life and increasing replacement costs.

No formal motion was made to ban or permit turf. Several members said the committee will monitor developments in other towns, request referrals if a formal application is filed, and raise conservation or wetlands concerns if a proposal touches regulated areas. Members also asked town boards (Board of Selectmen, Park & Rec, Planning/Zoning, Conservation/Inland Wetlands) to coordinate referrals when applications are submitted.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Connecticut articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI