Longtime Bridge Street resident Werner Liepolt keeps a close eye on the Cribari Bridge project. Today he describes 3 meetings, over the past 2 years.
February 15, 2024
At a meeting of the Western Connecticut Council of Governments, former 1st Selectwoman Jen Tooker released Statewide Transportation Improvement Program funds of $4.1 million previously withheld by former 1st Selectman Jim Marpe, to the Connecticut Department of Transportation to start the Cribari Bridge Project.
May 15, 2025
At an “invitational” meeting in the Town Hall Auditorium, CTDOT, with Tooker in attendance, announced they were replacing the bridge with “a preferred option,” one that can accommodate all vehicles.
Invitations were based on the inactive-since-2018 Planning Advisory Committee list of stakeholders. This meeting was neither publicly noticed by Westport’s town clerk nor on the CTDOT Project page for the William F. Cribari Bridge. The few Westporters who learned of it had to request an invitation.
Cribari Bridge (Painting by Werner Liepolt)
December 18, 2025
At another “invitational” meeting held at 6 p.m. in Room 201 of Town Hall, Mandy Ranslow, supervisor, Cultural Resources CTDOT, confirmed their “preferred option” is to demolish the William F. Cribari Bridge. As CTDOT had determined this was an “adverse effect,” they offered to move it wherever the town wanted.
CTDOT officials said that tractor-trailer trucks would not be restricted by structural limits on the preferred option replacement bridge, and that it was up to Westport to deal with it.
Invitations to this meeting were sent to only a few consultants; several did not receive them. Attendance by elected officials depended on forwarded emails and word of mouth.
My published opinion piece in the Westport Journal and a sentence introducing Wendy Crowther’s tribute to the bridge in “06880” were perhaps the only publicity for the meeting.
The public hearing that didn’t happen
Curious as to how all this happened without any attempt to inform the public —you — and elicit your views, which is required on federally funded projects that involve nationally registered historic properties (there are 24 on the east bank of the Saugatuck, and more across the river), I researched whether the “invitational” meetings were publicly noticed.
The 1877 Hotchkiss-Wheeler House on Bridge Street is on the National Register …
Questions and answers
Regarding the May 15 meeting, the town clerk replied: “This was not an official meeting of the Town, which is why it does not appear on the Town calendar. It appears that the State simply used the Auditorium to host the event. Any questions regarding the publication or notice of this event should be directed to the State DOT.”
I directed my question to James Barrows, the project manager. and got an answer: “Thank you for your inquiry and for your interest in the State Project 0158-0214.
“To ensure your request is handled efficiently and in compliance with the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we kindly ask that you submit a formal FOI request through the CTDOT website. This process helps us track, process, and respond to all FOIA requests in a consistent and timely manner.”
Under federal law (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), the public must be informed and meaningfully involved before historic resources are evaluated, impacts determined, and alternatives narrowed.
In this case, those steps occurred out of public view. The community is now being presented with an offer of mitigation — a stage that only follows a formal finding of adverse effect — without having had the required opportunity to help identify historic resources, evaluate impacts, or advocate for avoidance and minimization.
… as is the 1932 Anna E. Dolan House. It’s the first one on the right, after crossing the river on the Cribari Bridge from Saugatuck.
Your right to be heard
I have posted a petition, which I will forward to the Federal Highway Administration, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and our Congressional representatives, asking for oversight to ensure that our rights to be heard are honored. Please sign it.
I have also filed the Freedom of Information request as suggested by the CTDOT project manager, asking for all records pertaining to the William F. Cribari Bridge Project.
Next steps
What you should do: Submit written comments to the Federal Highway Administration, the Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation requesting the complete Section 106 and NEPA administrative records.
Ask how and when the public was consulted prior to the adverse effect finding, and formally request that alternatives and avoidance options be reopened for transparent public review.
Contact all our local elected representatives and the Select Board, with your need to have your voice be heard.
(“06880″‘s Opinion pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com)
(“06880” is your hyper-local blog. We rely on reader support to bring you news, features, photos and much more. Please click here to make a tax-deductible contribution. Thank you!)