To the Editor:

At the hearing for the Winter Club on Oct. 16, we listened to lengthy expert analysis from the applicant that bordered on comedic if it weren’t so seriously misleading.   

During lengthy sound analysis it became clear that it was entirely devoted to showing marginal conformance with codes that aren’t the criteria the Board uses to determine its action on special permit applications.   

The sound and light experts also provided novel, new scientific assertions regarding the magic 40-foot light poles that purportedly will direct light at such an angle that it will not reflect light upward but somehow be absorbed by the ice sheet. Ditto on the loudspeaker sound mounted on those poles which the ice sheet will somehow help suppress.

Really? Aren’t the characteristics of an ice sheet that it acts as a mirror surface and is hard.  Anyone ever watched a western movie where they used mirrors for signaling? Doesn’t that provide a clue that reflection of light from the rink together with the multiple light sources from this facility will light up the night sky?   

As to sound not reflecting think echo in rocky terrain. Even more revealing was the sound codes do not consider all the noises that will resound from this facility such as crowd, auto and overall hockey sounds. To cover this gaping hole we were advised that this would be a hockey rink unique in human history as only participants from club members will use the rink with a crowd of only a few people watching such that contest noise heard off site will equate to that of two people talking.  Has anyone ever attended a hockey game? Doesn’t it take two teams to play and how often did you see anyone quietly watching? How could this extensive rink time operation be utilized and profitable, as this is a business for sure, without considerable visiting team competition and even tournaments planned? It’s time to cut through the fog and demand overall operations and business plans for this facility which I’m confident will reveal both activities are planned.

Perhaps a better question is how much longer do we have to listen to the creative arguments of proponent in support of a facility that is not a “private” club but a business operation that is simply fatally inharmonious with the area and fails to meet the board’s special permit criteria in every respect.    

Harold, Suk Yean and Stephen Saxton


Peaceable Street, Oct. 17