PORTSMOUTH — Abutters finally got their turn last Thursday night to sound off on a proposed sand volleyball complex that would be built atop the old town dump in Island Park.

Of the 13 people who testified before the Zoning Board of Review, only two spoke in favor of the proposal — and one of them lives in Newport. Most complaints focused on noise, traffic, parking, and safety issues.

AP Enterprises, LLC is seeking a special-use permit to create an outdoor recreational facility featuring 13 sand volleyball courts and parking for about 100 vehicles. Art Palmer, the owner, calls it Island Park OASIS Beach Volleyball.

The area in question is a privately owned 18-acre site — 14 acres were leased for use as a landfill between 1954 and 1974 by the Town of Portsmouth — that juts out to the north of Park Avenue on the west side of the Island Park neighborhood. The majority of the property that’s proposed for development, a little over 7 acres, is zoned commercial with the remainder zoned residential R-10, according to the plan.

The zoning board began the hearing on July 20, while AP Enterprises was still presenting its case, and continued it to Thursday night to complete the developer’s case and to hear from abutters. By 10 p.m., however, a show of hands revealed that more abutters wanted to speak on the petition, so the hearing was continued again to 7 p.m. on Thursday, Oct. 5, at Town Hall.

Several abutters on Thursday wanted to talk about the health hazard they said the former dump site posed; the property is still in the process of being capped under the jurisdiction of the R.I. Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and Palmer needs to address any outstanding issues by Nov. 17. Chairman Jim Nott, however, disallowed any testimony regarding “dust” coming into neighborhoods from the site, or the presence of arsenic or other hazardous waste that may still be there.

At one point, he interrupted Jessica Kielbasa of Highland Avenue as she started discussing those issues. “We’re not going down the rabbit hole of closing the landfill,” said Nott, noting that was not the purview of the zoning board, but rather DEM. “They’re the ones who determine the arsenic levels down there.”

DEM will be doing its own review of AP Enterprises' application, and the public is welcome to comment at those hearings, Nott said. Zoning board members have read all of the DEM documentation and are well aware of residents’ concerns regarding the landfill capping, he said.

Added board member Charles Donovan, “We could approve this, and DEM could shoot it down.”

Despite Nott’s admonitions, some residents expressed concerns that the extra traffic generated by the project will kick up dust from the site and it will carry over to residential homes.

Deborah Cardoza said she purchased her Highland Avenue home back in 1999 but has only recently started the process of moving in due to the contaminated soils next door. “I have been effected by respiratory problems because of this,” Cardoza said.

Tom Casselman, of Riverside Street, said few children in the neighborhood use the play area near the dump. “Their parents call it ‘Poison Park.’ It’s not settled, it’s not finished, it’s not safe,” he said. 

Added Peter Roberts, a disabled Vietnam War veteran who lives on Ormerod Avenue, “I know what Agent Orange did, and nobody cared. And now we got someone doing it right next to us.”

Traffic, parking

Kielbasa, Roberts, Cardoza and other residents also disputed that the project won’t cause any traffic or parking problems, as the developer contends.

Earlier in the hearing, Todd Brayton of Bryant Associates, who testified for the developer as a traffic expert, said the number of trip generations resulting from the athletic complex — the highest was 80 trips during peak hours on a Saturday — would be appropriate and not cause “a significant increase in traffic.” The plans also call for 22 additional parking spaces than required under the zoning ordinance, he said.

Nott, citing a July 7 letter in which Brayton said a full traffic study is not required for the proposal, asked the engineer the date of his site visit. Brayton said he was there on the afternoon of Wednesday, June 28, and did not perform a traffic count, which came as a surprise to the chairman.

“Why would you not have gone down there during the busier time of year? Why wouldn’t you do a count? That’s what this board is used to; that’s how we determine whether traffic is an issue. Basically you just went down there and that was it — in the middle of the week on an afternoon,” Nott said.

The chairman noted that the higher end of trip generations cited was pushing the limits. “If this had hit the 100 sweet spot, then this would have mandated a traffic study,” he said.

Real estate experts 

There was also conflicting testimony presented by two real estate experts who were on opposite sides of the issue.

Thomas Sweeney of Sweeney Real Estate & Appraisal, a witness for AP Enterprises, said the proposal meets the standards of the zoning ordinance and is permitted within both zones by the special-use permit. 

“This is, run my opinion, a recreational use,” said Sweeney, adding he believes the complex will operate most of the time at a capacity of 50 to 60 percent. “We’re not looking at, all of a sudden, a free for all. This is a seasonal use … It’s only a daylight use. You’re not going to have 100 percent use 100 percent of the time.”

There will be no lighting, music or loudspeakers, he said.“The only thing you’re going to hear are people competing — yelling, clapping,” Mr. Sweeney said. “It’s a low-impact use for surrounding properties and is suitable for this type of use.”

He described the proposal as a “controlled situation,” unlike a pickup pickleball game. “The latest it will be open is around 8 o’clock at the height of the summer,” Sweeney said.

On the noise issue, Nott countered that anyone who reserves space on the court could yell, swear, or turn their Bluetooth speakers on. There are only two onside staff members being proposed for potentially 104 players, he noted. “It’s not necessarily controlled,” he said.

James Houle, a real estate expert from Portsmouth who prepared a report for Matthew Fabisch, a Pawtucket attorney representing several abutters opposed to the application, said he found Sweeney’s report to be “deficient in a number of areas.”

For example, Sweeney testified he found numerous examples of other volleyball complexes that were similar to Palmer’s proposal and close to residential properties. Houle said he did his own research, and came to a different conclusion.

“I was surprised there were very few open-air courts that were anywhere near residential properties. I really wasn’t able to find any that were comparable to this at all,” said Houle, adding that most of the complexes he found were in enclosures or not near residential areas.

He also took issue with Sweeney’s claim that the use is recreational in nature. “This is not a public park; this is a business. It’s not designed to service a neighborhood” the way a parks and recreation department would, Houle said. 

Activity on the courts could create a lot of noise, Houle said, especially with the direction of the wind in that area, and since traffic is so tight during the time of year the complex would be open, it will be difficult to monitor who is allowed to park on the site.

The proposal is no compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, the Comprehensive Community Plan, or the recreational master plan that was submitted to the council this year, he said. “I don’t believe it satisfies the five criteria for the special-use permit,” Houle said.

Two speak in favor

Nott said there are numerous people who are in favor of the proposal, but on Thursday only two of them testified.

Laura Hosley, of Mason Avenue, said she’s know Palmer for about 30 years and has played volleyball herself for 50.  “If this wasn’t happening tonight, I’d be playing,” she said.

Hosley said the board should consider the many positive aspects a volleyball complex will bring to the community, especially to younger players.

“If a child has a passion and finds out what they love and they’re good at, they have no reason to get into substances,” said Hosley, who has worked for years in substance abuse prevention and started a job this fall as a student assistance counselor at Portsmouth Middle School.

Hosley said she also believed there would be far fewer than 100 players on the courts most of the time, since a match usually features only four players. “I believe it will be mostly two on two, because that’s what beach volleyball has become,” she said.

Chris Carr is a Newport resident who said he’s part of a volleyball organization involving anywhere from 600 to 1,200 players. He plays in a semi-professional division and said players tend to speak softly and use hand signals during games “because we don’t want the other team to know what we’re up to.” Tournaments run under a regimented schedule, and players don’t hang around after they’re bumped from competition, he said.

The people who compete in sand volleyball are a “family-oriented group of folks” including many children, he said.