Attorneys Mark and Valerie Seiling Jacobs have lived in Westport for more than 25 years. They have followed the Long Lots Elementary School building project closely. They write:
On May 16, the Long Lots School Building Committee filed 2 documents with the Planning & Zoning Commission: a new 8-24 request (presumably because the existing approval requires that the Community Gardens remain on site, which is no longer the plan), and a request for site plan approval for the entire project.
Almost immediately, the project began to appear on the agendas of other town bodies, including the Board of Finance, Flood & Erosion Control Board, Representative Tonw Meeting Finance Committee, Conservation Commission, and full RTM.
Eight critical meetings are now expected to take place in the space of the next 10 days. Given the tight timetable, some of the meetings are being combined. Others are scheduled to take place on the same night.
This of course has prompted many people to ask: Why is the schedule so compressed and rushed? After all, this is the largest expenditure in town history.
Preliminary designs for Long Lots Elementary School.
According to Eileen Flug, the assistant town attorney who was quoted in the Westport Journal, the rush was due to a “realignment” of 2 state agencies that moved the deadline for state bonding applications up to June 30, and the fact that the town had only learned of this on May 16.
In that same article, however, Jay Keenan, committee chair, attributed the rush to the fact that he had not realized that the Town Charter contains a 14-day window for residents to file a referendum request, meaning that the effective deadline was actually June 16.
Neither of those explanations, however, holds water.
First, we have been unable to find any such realignment of state agencies. Nor have we been able to find any evidence that the state deadline changed. (We’ve asked Ms. Flug to provide the backup for her statements, but, so far, we’ve received nothing.)
And second, even if we accept Mr. Keenan’s version, it begs the question: Why did the committee wait so long to file to begin with?
If they knew that they only had until June 30, then why did they wait until May 16 — a mere 45 days from the deadline — to begin securing the necessary local approvals, when they knew they needed to appear before 6 separate town bodies?
Long Lots School Building Committee members, meeting in 2023.
One explanation is that the committee is not being honest, that they somehow missed the fact that everything is due on June 30 and are now using the 14-day window to obscure their mistake.
Given this committee’s historical willingness to blame others (usually, the gardeners) for problems of their own making, it wouldn’t be surprising if that turns out to be the answer.
There may, however, be an even more sinister explanation: that the committee deliberately delayed filing specifically to truncate the review process, limit public participation, and deny other boards the opportunity to conduct the type of in-depth analysis that a project like this requires.
Such a strategy would be consistent with this administration’s modus operandi, which seems to be based on rushed requests coupled with a “sky is falling” mentality.
The repairs to the Mill Pond walkway and flood gates are a perfect case in point. The RTM and public were repeatedly warned by the administration that if they didn’t go along with the plan, the town could lose the federal money. (Never mind that the place had been falling apart, for years or that we’d had a long time to draw down the ARPA funds.)
In this case, however, rushing the process carries even greater risk, given the cost of the school and the topography of the site. As one resident correctly pointed out, the “site is chock full of flooding, wetlands, inland waterways, abutting residential housing, difficult terrain and contaminated soil.” And it is no secret that this area is already plagued by water issues.
The committee keeps telling the neighbors not to worry. “Trust us,” they say. But this committee has not earned the public’s trust. Their vague assurances are small comfort to a homeowner who is facing the prospect of a flooded basement or worse.
Muddy Brook flooding, near Long Lots School. (Photo/Peter Swift)
We urge our Conservation Commission and Flood & Erosion Control Board to examine the application carefully — to kick the tires when it comes to drainage and environmental issues.
We all know that the storms keep getting worse. And this project calls for a doubling of building coverage during construction and the permanent loss of vegetation that previously acted as a buffer and sponge for runoff.
Please do not be lulled into thinking that the old way of managing water will suffice. One-hundred-year-storms are now arriving like clockwork. We need you to step up and protect neighbors, even if that means imposing novel or extra protections.
And the same holds true for P&Z. We need our commissioners to ask hard questions and demand fact-based answers — not settle for off-the-cuff responses.
Does, for example, the new school really need 30% more parking, which would vastly increase the amount of impervious material? The traffic consultant didn’t think so, but he appears to have been persuaded to say otherwise by someone involved in the process.
Long Lots Elementary School, with current parking. (Drone photo/Brandon Malin)
Similarly, if the committee is truly committed to using natural grass for the fields, then why do the plans call for the type of underground drainage typically used with artificial turf?
Putting aside the PFAS and microplastic risk associated with artificial turf (which, frankly, is pretty difficult to ignore), this particular site is spectacularly unsuitable for artificial turf given the ongoing drainage issues and the fact that artificial turf impedes the natural infiltration of water.
In fact, the EPA classifies it as impervious and there is now a call to deny LEED certification to any site with artificial turf. In any event, P&Z needs to get to the bottom of these and other troublesome issues and questions.
We all want a better school for our children. But this project needs to be properly vetted by our various boards and commissions.
If this process is not handled properly, we fear that residents will take advantage of another provision in our Charter — one that gives 20 electors (or 2 RTM members) 30 days to appeal any Conservation or FECB decision to the RTM. (How Mr. Keenan intends to square that appeal period with the June 30 deadline remains to be seen.)
Were an appeal to ensue, this project could be indefinitely delayed. And the Committee members will have no one to blame except themselves.
(“06880″‘s Opinion pages are open to all readers. Please send submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com.)