The Planning & Zoning Commission received a resubmitted 8-24 (municipal improvement) request for 13 Hyde Lane (the Long Lots Elementary School property) at midday today.
The request, from 1st Selectwoman Jen Tooker, includes 2 possible sites for relocation of the Westport Community Gardens. One is near the current spot. The other (labeled “alt. location”) is behind where the current school now sits.
Long Lots Elementary School 8-24 plan, submitted today. Click on or hover over to enlarge.
The application has been posted to the Town’s website. Click here to see all materials.
The request is scheduled for review by the P&Z at their remote meeting on Monday (January 22). Click here for the Zoom link.
Written comments may also be received prior to the meeting. Email: PandZ@westportct.gov by noon Monday, if intended to be distributed to P&Z members.
Written comments received after noon on the day of the meeting will be entered into the record, but will not be distributed until the next business day.
All correspondence received to date from residents on the prior 8-24 request (withdrawn on January 4) will be incorporated into the record. Residents do not need to re-send prior emails.
For the record, here is the official notice:
- 13 Hyde Lane: Appl. #PZ-24-00029, Request for a report from the Planning and Zoning Commission, submitted pursuant to CGS-§8-24, Municipal Improvement, by John Broadbin, Deputy Director of Public Works, on behalf of the First Selectwoman, for a Substantial Improvement to Town-owned property in the Residence AA/A Districts, PID #G10058000, for the construction of a new Long Lots Elementary School, a replaced and relocated multipurpose athletic field and a replaced and relocated community garden on site.(Must decide by 2/22/24). Applicant’s Presentation Time: 30 Mins.
It is the only item on the agenda.
This is a Long Lots posting and there’s no comment. Have we reached exhaustion on the subject? It’s eerily quiet here.
Sadly, it seems like a done deal.
You… two… pot-stirrers!
It is peculiar. I wonder if this will increase the likelihood of bifurcation? When you’ve got, “maybe we’ll put it here, but maybe we’ll put it there” as part of the proposal, how does that get approved in total?
Also, I really have a tough time seeing as how this addresses the expressed concerns of P&Z at all. Seems like the FS just wanted to fire up some of the parents with children in LLS to attempt to create political pressure on P&Z, rather than actually addressing the concerns of P&Z. I don’t think P&Z is inclined to fall for that approach.
In any case, if for some reason this passes, the (eventual) appropriation will be brought to a referendum by a combination of neighbors, gardeners, and budget hawks, delaying it further.
And if that fails, neighbors will probably sue. If these people want their school built in a timely manner, they need to accept that they are part of a larger community. Otherwise this will take as long as it took to install field lights at Staples.
Chris, thank you for laying out, in eloquent terms, exactly what “fires up” the parents with children, in LLS, and outside of it (news flash, people care about a new school and facilities even if their own children do not go there).
It’s amusing that you are proud to proclaim that you, and others, will do everything in your power to delay and derail this project by any means necessary including lawsuits, unless you get your way, 0 compromise.
Next time I see a fresh op-ed of concerned local architects, or the gardening club chairman etc proclaiming they support a new school…but with loose language full of ‘but’s and ‘if’s I will be sure to point back to your post as a beacon of truth.
Truly, thank you.
Jack, ask and ye shall receive! I hereby offer my letter to the P&Z below.
But first, I will add one thought not noted in my letter: The condition of the school is called into question with many parents believing it is unsafe. There is no clear response from the school administration, but just enough of a hint to create cause for concern and near-panic among parents. Carefully worded official comments wrapped in legal terms are offered so as not to create liability but to incite concern. It is truly confusing. Is the school safe, or is it not? The discussion on this at last night’s BOE was long overdue.
Here is my letter to the P&Z:
Thank you again, Chair and Commissioners, for the opportunity to comment on this, the most contentious issue I have observed in my 23 years in Westport.
Before I delve into my new comments, I would like to share with you an insight from the recent Martin Luther King Day tribute at the library last week, featuring Clarence Jones. It was a learning moment for me, personally.
Mr. Jones recalled the quote from Joachim Prinz, a rabbi in Hitler’s Germany: “The most urgent, the most disgraceful, the most shameful and the most tragic problem is silence.”
And I was further inspired to reach into my own soul by this from Rev. King: “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.”
This is not Hitler’s Germany, by any measure. Nor is it the Civil Rights environment of 1968. But the concept of speaking truth to power is as relevant today as it ever was, in tiny towns such as Westport, on tiny issues such as preserving our natural resources.
Now then … I believe my prior comments are still largely relevant. Here I would like to share a few additional ideas.
A Compromise Idea
Nobody asked, but still, I’d like to offer my own view for a compromise: Install a security fence around Terrace 1 and close it to regular use until after construction. Allow volunteers access (supervised if necessary) to the area twice a month during the growing season to maintain the grounds and prevent invasive overgrowth. This can absolutely be done, and until proven otherwise I do not believe anyone who says it cannot.
BIFURCATE ATHLETIC FIELD LAND USE
The “multipurpose field” is different than a baseball field in that presumably many more sports activities can be played on it. I’m glad we’re trying to get as many kids accommodated as possible, but this is an ad-hoc land use suggestion, put forward without thought to land use consequences or any semblance of genuine need.
The town would be better served if there was a comprehensive and holistic review of the Parks and Recreation facilities, current state of outdoor fields, size and type of demand for outdoor fields, demographics of users of these fields, and traffic studies … just as a few examples. We have been unable to get any legitimate or meaningful data on these P&R facilities in the course of this 13 Hyde Lane issue, including consistent data on field usage, numbers and sizes.
The only field sizes we’ve been able to confirm is what the LLSBC told a private audience: that two new 11v11 soccer fields were expected to be constructed next to the new school as a “replacement” field. According to various soccer organizations, each11v11 soccer field pitch is 110-120 yards (330’-360’) by 60-80 yards (180’ -24’), not including spectator areas. The LLSBC now says athletic fields will be of unspecified sizes, presumably so as not to irritate you the Commissioners. I personally heard/saw the LLSBC Chair dismiss his fellow committee members from discussing any “detail” questions on this at their last meeting on 1/11/24.
These fields would not be used routinely, or hardly on exception, by the K-5 students of LLES as part of their school day. It is believed the LLES students use the current P&R athletic field two times a year for what is known as “field day.” Their day-to-day outdoor space is the free play area and playground. The Lower Fields could be used for these two infrequent “field day” special events. Yet the town insists on managing Parks and Rec matters within the school building project. See my next point.
INTENSIFICATION OF USE
The multipurpose athletic fields is considered for several various sports such as soccer, lacrosse, rugby, and football, as well as various sports camps – for residents of all ages. The activity, traffic, noise, and loss of green space would negatively affect the abutting neighbors on Bauer Place. This constitutes a broken “promise” on the land use they expected when they invested in their properties in Zone A, abutting Zone AA, and upon seeing the existing green space and special-permitted Community Garden as a buffer to the school.
BREACH OF AUTHORITY
The real cause of the delay in this project is the incessant overreach of the LLSBC, driven by the Administration and Parks and Recreation Department. The LLSBC Committee was charged with evaluating the school, recommending a remediation plan, and executing that plan. Nowhere in their charge, as approved by the RTM, is a mention of building or rebuilding Parks and Recreation fields. The Board of Education supplied the education specifications for the school. The specifications do not call for any measure of athletic fields other than playgrounds and free-play areas for K-5 and Stepping Stones students.
The current land use and zoning of Terrace One is not designated for athletic fields so further PZC accommodations would be needed to fulfill the LLSBC’s out-of-scope desires. (I do not look forward to those deliberations, but would welcome an opportunity to provide volunteer citizen input on an honest and holistic review of P&R needs.)
Rebuilding athletic fields should be a completely separate process. Thus, I strongly urge you to bifurcate any decision on the use of all or any part of Terrace One for athletic fields. I further suggest that the PZC consider designating Terrace One as open/green space into perpetuity if that is a thing, either through your own initiative or in response to a citizen referendum.
STAGING, DRAINAGE, PARKING, ETC
The town has come up with numerous reasons why it is imperative to use Terrace One in the project. Firstly, it was to accommodate a new baseball field. Then it was for construction staging (a noxious nuisance for neighbors). The third pivot was for a drainage field. Now the fourth new reason that pushes further into Terrace One is “more parking.” The goal posts have changed with every new challenge and I would like to see a much stronger case for any of the above, from real experts, before I have confidence in the need to use Terrace One.
I truly believe the current architect and construction consultants were directed to develop all of these red herrings. Had they been directed to develop plans excluding Terrace One, they would have, just as they could in the next Phase: Design and Site Plans, should they be so directed.
It is too soon to know the site plan, the construction plan, the drainage plan, yet the town continues to proceed with these directives as if they had better information than they do. Perhaps at the next stage drainage experts and professional hydrologists could be consulted.
Finally, it is ludicrous to think pumping water uphill in a manufactured manner is a well-thought-out, sustainable drainage plan. The Conservation Dept. suggests low-impact methods of managing these types of things. I suspect that might mean: use gravity, not costly, noisy power stations that could fail.
The Common Good, In the Best Interest …
I know you will hear many comments about “doing what is best for Westport,” and “putting our children first” and “this is a town for families.”
Those comments are, frankly, an affront to those of us who make up the largest demographic group in this town: The over 50, 60, 70+ crowd. As Chairman Lebowitz stated at your last meeting, the 60-and-over age group is the fastest-growing demographic here and everywhere. Of course, we prioritize the needs of kids with good schools; no argument there. And sure some elderly leave to escape the burden of high school property taxes (>$20K per student). But, a lot of us are “aging in place” and trying to make a go of it.
So perhaps it’s time to rethink how we prioritize the limited resources of our elite town, how we manage our natural resources to a more realistic demographic landscape, how we treat all manner of residents no matter if they are 9 or 90, and how to care for our most vulnerable: the aged, the young, the ill, the unfortunate.
Thank you.
It’s not clear to me how the new proposal is any different from the one proposed and withdrawn a month ago. This application is for the new school. The only difference is the location of the fields and the gardens. Finalizing these details is premature. To support this position, I quote page 58 of the feasibility study that describes advantages of a new school option – “With the flexibility offered by new construction, various configurations of the site are possible. The next phase of design will require continued study to determine the appropriate balance between the school’s needs, as well as for the athletic fields, Community Gardens, Long Lots Preserve, traffic, and neighborhood concerns”. Why are we loosing precious time?
Ugh. Another round of trudging up the down elevator.
Imagine not wanting a new school building bc your four kids do not attend Westport Public Schools and attend a private school. Makes perfect sense!
Stephanie, if that was a thin skinned attempt at disparaging my views ? You failed.
I do have 4 children who live in Westport and do not for whatever reason attend long lots. They are Westport residents as am I. So you are welcome that they free up 4 spots in the Westport school system or at the very least do not further pressure it by their attendance there.
I and by that my children are Westport tax payers, ( paying for the schools they do not attend) , and by virtue of that we get an equal say as do you in the renovation /rebuild of the school. Since we will all share in footing the bill.
I have vocalized in almost all of my comments a renovated/new school is needed ASAP. I have never suggested LLS was perfect or that it did not need some immediate work. Let’s get that straight for the 100 time.
Not sure what part of the 100x times you missed.. possibly selective memory.
So. Long lots needs help. And quickly.
None of us are arguing about that.
Mind you it needed help 10 years ago, and count on down to today.. this is not breaking news. Long lots and many of the other schools have needed help for going on 10 years. In fact the very rtm’ers and administration now advocating finally for long lots have been in public elected office and saying no for 10 years. No to fixing the school. Imagine that.
Maybe you should take a day or 10 and look through minutes of and videos of meetings, ( spanning 10 years) where the very people now advocating for long lots all of a sudden were the same ones who voted against changes in the last 10 years, when they were so desperately needed. Yes the same public officials. Without exception by the way.
Instead of now looking to build Rome in a day please remember it had 10 years to be built.
Can hardly blame me for that. I’ve been living here and supporting every project for 23 years.
Including any school project. Not to mention paying taxes on them.
But the community garden of which I am not a member is a part of our community. A community I have lived in for 23 years. Oh and by the way one that I don’t expect judgement from even though I saved the town money by sending my kids to private school. I guess I paid x2. How amazing for me.
And though I have 4 children,and even if they were in long lots, I would still not support the destruction of those gardens for my children’s benefit when there are plenty choices for a field elsewhere.
Westports biggest problem is building something and then not wanting to maintain it.
Look at our parking lots ! Look at longshore.
Look at compo, look at the schools.
All built.. all ignored..
if you do not maintain your hard earned money gets washed down a sewer.
Find the meeting notes and videos. Cos I have.
Nobody was willing to spend any money to maintain.. 10 years.
maintenance is everything.
But do not accuse me when I have till I’m blue in the face advocated for the schools, just not the schools, if the garden gets destroyed.
I get to choose. My head is not in a guillotine. Remember I pay the same taxes as everyone else. Where my kids go to school.. not anything but an insane coup for you and the town.
So please do not selectively try to make me look like an anti school person..
it’s getting very very old.
Stephanie Frankel why are you not vehemently
advocating for the decoupling of the school build
mandate with the turf field/garden contentious issue.
If you are sincerely interested in the quickest build/
renovate possible this would most surely be
the safest path forward. This new proposal will again
be under intense scrutiny on many fronts-neighbor
infringement, noise, lights, traffic, micro plastic runoff,
drainage and exhorbanate costs to name a few.
There is no immediate critical need for a multi
purpose turf field. Proper and accurate town usage
statistics have never been resubmitted and made
public, to my knowledge, to conclusively
require this or in this particular place in the midst of a
residential neighborhood with little buffer.
Also beloved gardens and gardeners won’t go away easy
for a host of good reasons.
If Parks and Rec does their job and maintains
our current some 20 odd fields to the highest standards,
as should have always been the case, we would not
be in this position. At the least ask our First Select
man Jen Tooker iron clad reasons as to she has not
proposed decoupling. It seems unfair of her and
the LLBC to
roll the dice when her administration has let Long
Lots continue to fall into such disrepair that
apparently it has become a health and safety issue.
Her plan has now made the children, neighbors
gardeners and tax payers collateral damage and
wasted precious time.
Please pardon my naïveté!
Just a thought after looking at the current plot map and the proposed project.
The new school will be constructed on site of the small baseball field that is to the immediate right of the current school. The lower field is immediately adjacent on the right to the site of the proposed school and could be the construction site that is away from the current school, the current access routes and the current parking lots.
The new building and construction zone would therefore be on the far opposite side of the school property from the preserve and community gardens, the current access and the current parking- all of which would be untouched.
Also, playgounds #1 and #2 would be untouched and available for the elementary school students throughout construction.
It would be easier and cheaper to restore the lower grass field at the end of construction than to move and try to recreate the preserve and community gardens.
Anyone know if this plan was rejected, unfeasible or not an acceptable plan for the construction of LLES.
Please advise what I apparently missing?
Steve,
Pure unadulterated vengeance.
That’s what Steve.
You bring up such valid points. Thank you for pointing them out.
But to admit that now, is perceived as defeat, by llsbc etc..
Even though your comment is so perfectly correct.
By the very virtue, that, that is perceived as “giving in to the gardens” it is unacceptable.
Narcissism on high high alert.
You are spot on. Gardens and preserve are, so far away from construction, and impede nothing. Other of course than the school shooter ridiculous theory after 2 decades of peaceful existence.
But it’s all about authoritarianism and ego.
Hi Ciara-
Your answer is a combination of speculation and personal opinion on possible motivation.
I am simply asking a construction planning decision question.
Now that the Babe Ruth field is no longer in the current 8-24 plan and at the end of the construction it would be possible to have a multipurpose field on the lower field (immediately adjacent to the school and not across the school’s parking lot) what are the reasons the lower grass field could not be used for the construction zone (instead of the community garden and preserve)and then be refurbished for use as the multipurpose field.
I would hope this possibility was discussed and I am asking for some insight into the decision which has raised much discussion on 06880DanWoog.com.