Two prominent Westporters — former State Representative Ken Bernhard, and attorney Larry Weisman — have followed the Long Lots Elementary School building project with interest.
Today they delivered a letter to the Planning & Zoning Commission, with copies to the Board of Finance, Board of Selectwomen, and RTM moderator.
In it, they ask the P&Z to treat 2 components of the project — the school building itself, and the baseball field that may replace the current Westport Community Gardens — as separate issues, rather than one.
The letter has been signed by nearly 200 residents. They include Democrats, Republicans, and former members of bodies like the Board of Education, Board of Finance and RTM.
The letter says:
Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners,
With respect to the administration’s decision to replace the Community Gardens with a Babe Ruth-sized playing field, many in town feel that good governance and fair play have not received their due.
Advocates for additional playing fields, including the administration and its handpicked committee, have prevailed notwithstanding complaints by other legitimate stakeholders that the process was flawed on multiple levels.
Even requests for a second look by the Public Site & Building Commission (designated by the Town Charter as the “school building committee”) have been denied, despite the obvious value of review at no cost to the town by an independent body with expertise and experience in construction and development of similar projects.
The Long Lots School Project has two distinct and independent components: 1. demolition and reconstruction of the school, and 2. construction of a playing field on the adjacent town-owned property now occupied by the Community Gardens.
Letter writers say that the construction of a new Long Lots Elementary School …
The matter will soon come before the Planning & Zoning Commission upon the request of the administration for a single 8-24 review, on the mistaken assumption that the two parts should or must be treated as one even though they involve two separate and distinct uses on two separate pieces of land.
We believe that it is a mistake to treat the two components as one because the P&Z can only either approve or disapprove an 8-24 request; it cannot modify the submission or impose conditions upon its implementation.
… is a discussion separate from the future of the Westport Community Gardens.
The effect of treating these disparate uses on unrelated sites as one is to limit the ability of the P&Z to evaluate each of the components of this project on its own merits and perhaps to approve of one while disapproving of the other.
Furthermore, after reviewing the relevant documentation, several qualified observers with considerable expertise and real-world construction experience firmly believe that there is adequate land on the school site to accommodate both a new school, (including staging and storage during construction), and a playing field without encroaching upon the adjacent site occupied by the gardens. To date however, those opinions have not been heard because those holding them have not been afforded an opportunity for meaningful participation in the decision-making process.
In view of the aforesaid, we respectfully request that the P&Z either encourage the administration to submit two 8-24 requests acknowledging the separate components of the project or, failing that, that it issues a negative 8-24 report on a submission that combines the two severable components.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Bernhard, Larry Weisman
Other signers:
Ken Wirfel Elle Lowenstein Sybil Steinberg
Bob Jacobs Mimi Greenlee Dave Matlow
Dede McDowell Mike Guthman Jo Ann Davidson
Lucy Johnson Sandra Urist Diane Wildman
Rick Benson Jane Jessup Mike Szeto
Nancy Vener Janine Scotti Pietro Scotti
Andrew Coleman Relly Coleman Jeff Nevill
Yulee Aronson Mary-Lou Weisman John Paul
Lynn Paul Valerie Szeto Sam Levenson
Don Bergman Carolanne Curry Diane Bosch
Eric Bosch Bill Klein Idalia Rodriquez
Larry Kleinman Kate McGarvey Jean-Pierre Montillier
Brian McGarvey Phil Glick Sara Glick
James Mather Jesse Harte James Brown
Dalma Heyn Shelia Smith Mary-Claire Grosgogeat
Mark Steckel Ellen Winnick Willian Anderson
Linda Mak Chin Ethan Chin Edward Chin
Sally Kleinman Allegra Gottizemel Elizabeth Duvall
Lee Wrubel David Meth Linda Pryele
Mathew Sagal Linda Kowalsky Morgaine Pauker
William Berson Gene Byrne Art Gang
Debra Smolka Ed Smolka Jane Jacobs
Emily Jacobs Gavin Broady Chuck Greenlee
Lori Meinke Theresa Roth Eric Friedland
Ann Matlow Sari Bodi Deborah Press
Michael Press Eleanor Spangler Douglas Spangler
Susie Anderson Irmgard Gwilliam Al Gwilliam
Lori Hammer Pamela Davis Jeff Gershowitz
Will Hamilton Marc Fischer Jean Pierre Montillier
Sara Montillier Sara Montillier Maura Keenan
Peter Keenan Patricia Boyle Edward Boyle
Alec Head George Waterman Mary Sue Waterman
Benjamin Head Marguerite Webb Phyllis Freeman
Joseph Wiles Michelle Wiles Joyce Barnhart
Nancy Gentile Andrew Gentile Amy Unikewicz
Leslie Meredith Chris Grimm Miriam Roth
Julie Cook Peter Cook Alison Freeland
Ellie Tsurdinis Margaret Freeland Tim Simons
Kataryna Parciak Christopher Clanton Ester Clanton
Orly Angerthal Julie O’Grady Martin O’Grady
Liam O’Grady Terrie Langer Chris Singer
Steven Chin Pam Barkentin Marjorie Donalds
Lous Weinberg Cris Haggerty Erin Loranger
Laureen Haynes Melody Ware Paddy Duecy
Pat Duecy Mickael Beebe Netta Levy
Sally Kleinman Jacque Masumian Monique Nebelung
Greg Rosen Jeff Schorer Edward Saenz
Karen La Costa Zuzana Daure Eric Daure
Susan Poretta Peter Swift Leslie Gransberry
Kathleen Kiley Cynthia Mindell-Wong Martha Corneck
Hayes Clark Clare Clark Laura Schwartz
Josh Schwartz Phillip Schemel Alexander Jinishian
Megan Will Tim Cook
Nancy Lewis Greg Wolfe Mayann Alley
Yun Mai Lewis Bellardo Julietta Bellardo
Joe Mackiewicz Kim Mackiewicz Nancy Sinclaire
Glen Hodes Kathleen Wauchope
Will be interesting but hard to call these decisions separate when the land in question is so closely coupled. Part of the decision reached was based on a new school having a different footprint from the existing structure, and the related land requirements for staging equipment, materials, etc. And despite this and other attempts to frame this as a baseball (really multi-sport use if one is being fair) vs garden decision, it really isn’t. I get the “garden people” hate this outcome but let’s call it what it is, the committee 1) pre-ordained a new vs renovate school decision with a major capital outlay coming to the town’s taxpayers, and then 2) domino effect the rest of the land use with a multi-sports field being the easiest decision and the best one for the new school construction project. Pretend it’s two independent decisions but it isn’t. I’m still at a loss as to why the major $ decision to build new is glanced over and readers of this blog are far more concerned about the secondary effect of the field/garden. Guess the heart wants what it wants.
I don’t think there is broad awareness of the impact the project might have on individual property taxes, estimated to bump up in excess of 3.5% for everyone. They might become more interested in the monetary aspect when that hits home.
I believe that 3.5% increase was based on historic bond rates. The board of finance will assess the uplift required to our taxes using current bond rates which are now approaching 6%. the cranberry school construction costs call into question the hundred million plus estimate from the building committee and it’s consultants.
Ken and I think that the matter would best be aired in an “in person” rather than a Zoom session.
I’m thinking that there are many more who would have signed this petition had they known about it… me for one. (I’m reasonably sure that I did sign a petition, ‘guess it was a different one). Many of my friends, neighbors and acquaintances would have as well.
Finally someone is taking Westport town hall to task on this important issue. What a shame so much extra effort has needed to be taken to get fairness. Our Selectwoman needs to take a hard look at how she makes decisions contrary to residents concerns. It’s very disappointing that she handled legitimate concerns in this dictatorship manner.
that’s the Republican government.
Peter, Maybe those in Westport should take a hard look at the First Selectwoman and think about replacing her! Don’t write her an e-mail, you’ll get “tookered” She doesn’t answer them!
Mike Keller would like his name removed from the list of people signing the letter. Ken Bernhard
Done
Fine that Mike Keller’s name is removed, but it’s a legitimate question how the 200 heard about the petition when many times as many are wishing they could have signed.
Hmmm, I like that word “tookered”!
Linda, I coined the word “tookered” which means “ghosted” or “ignored.” I have been told that many in Westport have found this new word hilarious! I coined it when I wrote the First Selectwoman an e-mail and was ignored (tookered.) Tooker me once, shame on you. Tooker me twice, shame on me! I’m looking in to getting the word patented so I can print it on T-Shirts and sell them in Westport and throughout the state!
I find you’re one of select group of men who continually bully the FSW. Is it because of your inadequacies? Or are you just a loudmouth? Keyboard wise obviously.
Let me set you straight, Keisha. It wouldn’t matter if I was dealing with a First Selectwoman or a First Selectman. Put a male in the office, have him ignore me, and he’ll get the same treatment! Understood?
Keisha, You haven’t had the opportunity/pleasure to read what I’ve written about the “Orange Menace” in the comment sections of the Washington Post. I’ve scorched the lying woman abuser, who told over 3,000 lies while President. And then there’s George Santos.
Jack, the women get you. You were ignored by a woman with power, that triggers you, which results in your rants, which provides us many chuckles
Keisha, I have a sense of humor. Up until two months ago, I was neutral about Ms Tooker. What made me negative? Westport residents commenting on her very negatively, even a few stating she doesn’t answer her e-mails! I’ve been told that my “tookered “ coined word was met with laughter by many!! From what I understand, she didn’t win by many votes and she seems to be getting more unpopular. Nothing is “triggering” me. Hopefully, my numerous, humorous comments will draw attention to her seeming inadequacy as a leader. The vast majority of comments about her on 06880 are negative! Now, I’m going to “tooker” you and not comment anymore tonight on your comments!
Keisha you are simply, and repeatedly here, full of crap….Backiel is systemically anti Republican (with fine reasoning, I might add) and goes to where the offenses lie.
Dan, Then there’s Melania, who came from a poor Eastern European country and bagged the sleazy Tangerine Twitter Machine, who she barely tolerates from the other side of the house! Darth Tax Evader may put on a brave facade, but nine people could put him away for life! He’s scared.
I agree that it would have been good if our letter had been more widely circulated. Not having access to a town-wide list or the resources to use it had we had one, we relied upon our personal mailing lists, the Community Garden mailing list and some distribution to neighbors. Those who would have liked to have signed would do well to say so in a comment on 06880
in that case then please me up Larry.
John F. Suggs
Please add my name – Susan Eastman.
Please add my name, Larry. Had no clue about the letter.
“sign”, please sign me up. excuse the typo.
John F. Suggs
I would like my name added to this letter. Thank you
Add my name to the petition please.
Add my name!
I’d love to add my name to this
Add our names to the petition please – Bonnie & Richard Moon
Please add our names to the petition.
Lynn Untermeyer Miller
Jason K. Miller
Please add my name to the petition.
Please add Bruce Wolfe and Elizabeth Wolfe to the petition.
Thank you
Please add my name, Susan Goldma
Please add my name to the petition.
Please add Mike and Julie Loparo to the signature list. Thank you.
Thank you Mssrs. Weisman and Bernard. Please add my name. In ALL CAPS.
please add my name, thank you
Lindsay Blackburn. Thanks.
You can add my name to the list as well.
Please add my name
My name should definitely be on this list. Thank you! Joanne Heller
Please add my name to the list.
Andrea Turner
Please add my name to the petition.
$100M to construct a new Long Lots Elementary School is an appallingly high number when Norwalk constructed and opened a new Cranberry Elementary school this year for $45M with the State of Connecticut picking up $10M of the cost.
Please add our names on the list. Lisa Fellah and Franco Fellah
I would like to add my name to the petition. Kitty Graves
Please add our names as well! Chris and Ester Clanton
Daryle & Susan Kowalsky signed the letter. Not sure why are names are not listed. Thank you.
Please add my name.
Please add my name to the petition too.
Please add my name.
Please add my name.
Please add my name to the petition.
Thank you Merle!
How about a petition for all those who are in favor of this position. Meanwhile we are leaving those school children and faculty in a school that has mold
Misinformation. If the school had mold they would not be holding classes there now. If the school was uninhabitable and a health risk, you should be talking to the Superintendent and BOE for continuing classes there now and next year . The children are not at risk in that school. If they are, there’s ANOTHER lawsuit waiting to be filed. Please show your evidence of unhealthy mold in the school today.
Go see it
LLSBC member, sharing my own thoughts…the removal of the gardens is for the new school construction as sufficient staging area (lower field and garden area) to construct the school in the timeframe that is desired and not significantly increase staging costs (well above the cost of the recommended rebuilt gardens). Also to complete a comprehensive drainage approach for the whole property. Others suggest to stage off site but that comes with costs and construction traffic on local roads. Again, our focus is on the best solution for the town over the next 50 years.
One engineer has put estimated offsite staging costs to be far less than relocating the gardens. Keep in mind we do not have an accurate assessment from you (the committee) to move the gardens and preserve because you have spent zero minutes on actual plan to do so. I have an estimate in progress that exceeds $1.5M so far. Read Yulee Aronson for a real expert’s opinion on staging options. Offsite and just-in-time deliveries are not new concepts.
Everyone here should read Yulee Aronson’s analysis of the planning process in the Westport Journal.
Based on Aronson’s well-reasoned analysis by a planning professional it would be irresponsible for the town to barge ahead with phase II without considering all options. Chen’s solution in the article, for example, is compelling.
https://westportjournal.com/opinion/opinion-alternatives-must-be-explored-in-phase-ii-of-long-lots-project/?unapproved=3518&moderation-hash=34b0d3f21332ca517fe06d540202afba#comment-3518
Below is step by step analysis of staging costs if gardens are left in place:
1. Sitework
a. Strip and Stockpile Topsoil
If there was not room on site to store and screen 10,000 cy of topsoil, then it would need to be hauled away and then hauled back. Using the numbers above:
10,416cy x $10 = $104,160 – out
7,812cy x $10 = $78,120 – back in
b. Site Earthwork Hauling Soils designated in the estimate to be reused.
8,342cy x $20 (in and out) = $166,840
Total Item 1 = $349,120
This is most likely a worst-case scenario because community gardens could not accommodate 10,000 cy of topsoil with a screening operation and another 8,000 cy of fill as a separate stockpile. Also, the estimate doesn’t take into consideration the costs of protecting and maintaining these large stockpiles for 12+ months. Putting it all together, the worst case the extra cost of this item would be $300k.
No other sitework items require long-term storage of materials on site.
2. Foundations.
Concrete formwork, steel reinforcement, misc. material do not require on-site storage and can be delivered on as-needed basis.
3. Steel framing and decking do not require on-site storage and can be delivered on as-needed basis. In fact, the most economical way is to erect steel directly from the delivery truck, eliminating double handling.
4. Exterior envelope.
a. Brick and CMU can be delivered as needed with 1-2 weeks’ worth of supply maintained on-site. Staging areas in the enclosed graphic can accommodate this.
b. Curtainwalls/Exterior Windows/Entrances shall be manufactured and then warehoused at the factory until needed. These materials should not be stored on-site to protect them against damage and can be delivered on an as-needed basis.
5. Roofing.
The roofing materials shall be staged on the roof deck. This is where they are needed after all.
6. Interior work
Once the building is weathertight after the above work is completed, all interior materials shall be staged inside of the building to protect them against elements.
7. HVAC units/Electrical Switchgear, Etc.
All of these shall be manufactured and then warehoused at the factory until needed. These materials should not be stored on-site to protect them against damage and can be delivered on an as-needed basis.
The 300k that would be spent in logistics to leave community gardens in place would be less than the cost of moving them. Also, the 300K cost that is a part of the school construction is reimbursable by the state, while the cost of moving the gardens is not.
The argument about more traffic as incremental increase due to tracking of soil is not correct because it will be done in non-peak day hours.
That’s what I’m talking about! Thanks Yulee.
I respectfully disagree with this simplified analysis. Makes a nice narrative for your desired position but not accurate for all the staging and drainage needs of the property.
I believe the abutting neighbors would be greatly interested in your expert analysis of drainage needs on this property. Where would we find that?
Please add our names to the petition – thank you
Peter & Annemarie Sternbach
I’d love to sit down with you and go over in detail, reviewing my analysis as well as yours. BTW, did you ever provide back up to your statemet ? I used the estimate that you provided in the feasibility study.
Please add our names to list: Joel Davis and Carol Davis
We also signed the petition, but probably our technical incompetence, or that of optimum caused our names not to appear Jerry and Valerie HELD
Though I realize that names can’t be added to the petition at this point, please add my name to the list of those who support it.
Please add my name to the list. Thank you.
please add my name to the list, thank you.