Tag Archives: Toni Simonetti

RTM Petition: Restore Community Gardeners’ Hours

On April 3, Westport’s Parks & Recreation Commission adopted a regulation restricting access to non-school personnel and guests, on schools and adjacent property, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.

The Board of Selectwomen approved the regulation on April 10.

The Westport Community Gardens, near Long Lots Elementary School, is among the sites impacted by the new rule.

Toni Simonetti — a 23-year town resident, and longtime Gardens member — has petitioned the Westport Representative Town Meeting to reject the regulation, or modify it to restore prior hours of operation for the Community Gardens. (Gardeners were previously restricted from 8-9 a.m. and 3-4 p.m. only, when school was in session.)

The RTM has not published the agenda for its May meeting yet. Simonetti’s petition has 24 signatures.

Simonetti hopes members will examine these points:

— The Westport Community Gardens are “non-school grounds, but rather public town land adjacent to a school but a great distance from the school building and outdoor play area.”

— The garden is fenced and locked. No other part of the property, encompassing the entire perimeter, has a security barrier. Bauer Place is “within a few feet of the school’s’ playground.”

— Only Garden members can unlock the gate. The combination is changed each season.

The Westport Community Gardens gate. (Photo/Peter J. Swift)

— “Members and registered guests, restricted to town residents and employees, are screened by the garden’s Steering Committee; names and addresses are submitted to the town of Westport for sex offender status. Those approved must carry a hand pass while in the garden when school is in session. The town
knows exactly who the gardeners are and where they live. This is a significant security measure that far exceeds any other public space in Westport — including the unrestrained and unrestricted access that Compo provides anyone from anywhere to approach the hundreds of children (and staff) at Camp Compo.”

— There have been no “untoward incidents” in the Gardens’ 20 years at the Hyde Lane location.

— Gardeners can actually serve as “a valuable early notification adjunct for school resource officers and local law enforcement.”

— “Resources are better spent securing the grounds at more exposed school sites such as Greens Farms, Saugatuck and Kings Highway Elementary Schools.”

(“06880” is your source for hyper-local journalism. We rely on reader contributions. Please click here to support our work. Thank you!)

[OPINIONS] 2 Views On Downtown Parking Plans And Process

The long debate over downtown parking continues.

On Monday, the Representative Town Meeting’s Transit Committee voted 7-2 against recommending that the full RTM spend $630,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to redesign Jesup Green, and the nearby Imperial Avenue parking lot.

A week earlier the Planning & Zoning Commission put off their own vote on a plan for those 2 sites, plus Parker Harding Plaza. The P&Z discussion will continue at next Monday’s meeting (April 8, 7 p.m., Zoom).

Meanwhile, the Flood & Erosion Control Board and the Conservation Commission have both approved the Jesup Green redesign.

As downtown parking remain stalled, 2 residents offer differing views of the plans.

Downtown Plan Implementation Committee (DPIC) chair Randy Herbertson writes:

Downtown Westport master planning has been underway for more than 30 years — with consistent objectives, countless hours and investment, but little execution.

Here is a deck with pertinent excerpts.

Formed after the 2015 Master Plan exercise, DPIC was created to support town efforts to bring plans finally to fruition, after failed attempts in the 2 previous master planning exercises.

This screenshot from the Downtown Plan Implementation Committee shows the Parker Harding lot and Saugatuck River.

When I took over as chair of DPIC in 2021, I was tasked with bringing a number of our bigger project visions to life. Springboarding from the 2015 plan, we summarized the vision into 5 key pillars articulated on the website we re-vamped and launched at that time.

As identified, a careful balance must be struck between maintaining the right level of safe, accessible and up-to-code parking with green space for pedestrians, river views, and flood resiliency.

Our decrepit lots have been in need of updating for decades. Our residents (especially those who don’t attend town meetings) have consistently told us they desire better access to our unique downtown riverfront.

But we can’t invent land to perfectly serve the divergent needs of all, including the merchants who want close employee parking, exclusive loading zones and no loss of spaces for customers, as well as the many who provide opinions that are not founded on the expertise we hire professionals to give us.

Our overall master plan does not call for the loss of any parking inventory, and future prospects of a relocated Police Department and possibly a parking deck (if warranted somewhere once we assess the impact of timed parking areas and new lot configurations) will provide even more.

Currently, we just want to complete our “commerce sub-district” with Parker Harding plans, which are now complete.

Due to the heavy pushback on short-term parking inventory loss, the Department of Public Works developed a solution in the only close-in area possible: the top of Jesup. This development area has been in the master plan schematic since April of last year, and was shown in public forums and on the website.

The Jesup Green redesign plan.

The current proposed DPW plan calls for 3 phases — the first 2 to be completed with the Parker Harding work.

When done with just these 2 phases, we will have net zero loss in parking and more green space on Jesup than today, all closer to the river.  It will also provide more Americans with Disabilities Act-accessible and clustered parking to serve the many library and Levitt events, which was part of the objective on this “culture sub-district” side.

This said, we had ideally hoped to assess this further with holistic planning and public feedback devoted to Jesup and Imperial (funding for which was not approved this week by the RTM Transit Committee, although it still goes to full vote next week.) However, if the cost of progress is moving in phases, we may have to do so.

The whole downtown process marks a new low in delays, many of which are quizzically politically driven and divided.

It’s been 30 years. Isn’t it time to provide a downtown experience that will support real estate values and serve all our residents?

=======================================================

Toni Simonetti has lived in Westport for nearly 24 years. A retired corporate communications executive and former journalist, she has become “passionately interested in good municipal governance, as the town works through a number of high-stakes projects.”

She writes:

After reviewing the most recent to-and-fro on the town’s uncertain plans to address downtown parking, I am compelled to voice my strong objection to proposed plans for the Jesup Green and adjacent parking areas, and further to express my concern once again for a less-than-transparent process.

I strongly oppose the Jesup plan for the following reason: It will pave over 1/3 of the green space known as Jesup Green. That is a travesty. The town’s Plan of Conservation and Development puts a priority on green space. We are losing green space in Westport at an alarming rate.

I am aware of the counterargument that Phase 2 and Phase 3 will restore the green space lost. However, that is a pipe dream contingent on Westport getting $400 million in capital projects approved (so that the police station is moved out of the Jesup area). There is no guarantee Phase 2 or 3 will ever see the light of day, be approved, or be funded.

Until there is a concrete plan that includes the immediate replacement of green space, the Jesup plan should be rejected.

Second, to pre-empt the expected protestations about lack of transparency claims: The public was not made fully aware of the Jesup Green parking plan until mid-March, when a schematic was first made public for a Planning & Zoning Commission 8-24 hearing.

Trees at the top of Jesup Green. (Photo/Jennifer Johnson)

Here is the tick-tock:

In October 2023, the P&Z expressed reservations about Parker Harding parking plans, citing among other things a lack of a holistic plan for downtown parking in general, and at Jesup and Imperial lots.

On January 12, 2024 — unbeknownst to the public — 2 town agencies acted in accord to write up appropriations requests for studies:

  • Fire/Emergency Medical Service to study proposals for a new joint headquarters with the Police Department and
  • Public Works design appropriation to pave 1/3 of Jesup Green into 44 parking spots, and modify parking spaces at the Imperial lot.

On January 17, the public got its first cryptic glimpse that the town would pave over 1/3 of Jesup Green when the chair of the Board of Finance issued its agenda for its Feb. 7 meeting, with items #8 and #9 as follows:

Upon the request of the Fire Department Deputy Chief, to approve an appropriation of $110,000 from the Capital and Non-Recurring Fund Account 31502220-500188 for work to update and merge FD conceptual plans to include PD and EMS in a new concept analysis for a Joint Public Safety Facility.

Upon the request of the Director of Public Works, to approve an appropriation of $630,000 from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Fund 51003310-500189-13012 for design and permitting of the redevelopment of Jesup Green and the Imperial Lot.

On February 7, both agenda items were withdrawn from the Board of Finance meeting. It seems the items were a surprise to more than just myself.

On February 8, the Downtown Plan Implementation Committee, the hardworking appointed body charged with all things downtown, held an in-person-only meeting at 8:30 a.m., which I attended and at which no detailed information was given on the Jesup Green plan other than additional parking was being considered.

Members of the public, and even a member of the DPIC who is also on the RTM, expressed surprise by the sudden appropriation requests that appeared out of nowhere. We all had a lot of questions. The answers pointed to one person who was not there: the first selectwoman.

On March 6, the BOF reviewed these items and approved the appropriations.  There was no specific detail or schematic posted or presented in the BOF meeting packet on where the additional parking would go. A specific plan was not shared, though some questions were answered verbally,

The Jesup schematic plan was drawn Feb. 15, but was not made public until posted in mid-March as part of Planning and Zoning’s March 24 meeting process.

On March 14, DPIC again held an in-person-only meeting, which I was not able to attend. There is no specific Jesup Green parking plan posted in conjunction with the meeting.

On March 24, the P&Z heard 8-24 requests for Jesup Green and Parker Harding. Though much has been publicized on Parker Harding Plaza, this was the first real look at what was planned for Jesup Green.

Redesign plan for Parker Harding Plaza. The Saugatuck River is at the bottom; backs of Main Street stores are at the top.

I believe once the public comprehends the paving plan for Jesup Green, they will be outraged. The P&Z did the right thing by continuing the matter to April 8 – at which time I suggest they issue a negative 8-24 report.

I live on Evergreen Parkway in RTM District 9, in what I consider a downtown neighborhood. I love the location of my home because I can – and do — walk downtown to shop, dine and recreate.

There is much ado about parking, but it’s not a problem for us (though I empathize with downtown merchants and support their stance).

This is a walkable town and one big reason why I choose to live here. I walk my dog Max nearly every day past Town Hall, along Main Street, through Parker Harding Plaza and along the river, then across the Post Road down the Riverwalk around the Library and Levitt Pavilion over to the Imperial lot and up Imperial, back over to my neighborhood. Sometimes Max detours us over to the Winslow dog park on our way home.

My Westport is a walkable Westport. Please preserve our green space.

(“06880” regularly offers a forum for residents to express their views. Please click here to support your hyper-local blog. Thank you!)

[OPINION] “The Garden Makes Me A New Person. Who Is Talking For Us?”

Toni Simonetti — a Westport resident for 23 years — is a transplant from Detroit, by way of New York City. She and her husband Jeff Neville live near downtown with their goldendoodle Max.

She loves spending time with town elders, playing bridge, and gardening. That last passion led her to Town Hall Monday night, for the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting about Long Lots Elementary School and the future of the Westport Community Gardens. 

She writes:

Westport has about 27,000 residents, and 52% are over the age of 45 years. A quarter of our town’s population is over the age of 60, while children ages 5-15 account for about 13% of the town’s residents.

Yet some fuzzy math used by the town declared that there are 11,000 “participants” who use the town’s athletic fields.

Fuzzy math notwithstanding, you cannot deny the town’s demographic. We have a lot of “old people.”

So what, you say?

Alfred Gwilliam has gardened at Plot 29 in the Westport Community Gardens for as many years as I can remember. I walk past him every time I go to the garden; mine is just a few plots down. He is always there, tending flowers, gooseberries and blackberries.

Irmgard and Alfred Gwilliam, at the Community Gardens. (Photo/Toni Simonetti)

Earlier this year, he said it was becoming difficult to tend the entire 10’ x 40’ plot. He is, after all, 90 years old, and he had just had a pacemaker implanted.

But he was not willing to give up gardening, so he worked the plot as best he could. As one of the garden co-chairs of membership, I suggested he reduce his plot size by half, which might make it more manageable.

“I can do that?” he asked.  “I don’t want to give it up, but I didn’t know I could keep just half.”

One quick phone call to my partner in membership, Laura Riguzzi, and it was settled.

On Monday evening, October 30, Alfred and his wife of 58 years, Irmgard, found their way to Westport Town Hall. They were there to support the gardens, and to hear if the Parks & Recreation Commission would really vote to destroy them.

As the meeting swelled with this baseball dad, that soccer mom, other young mothers and fathers of school age children, and town staff describing the difficulty they have scheduling all those games, the Gwilliams took it in.

“We need more soccer fields. We need the baseball field. We have children. They need sports. The children need the fields. The children need a school. The children need our help. This is a family town, and we are all about the children.”

Other gardeners were there too, giving their usual raft of reasons why the town is making misguided decisions to bury the gardens. The usual cadre of abutting neighbors were there again, still worried about water, lights, noise and traffic in their quiet neighborhood.

Some speakers at the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting talked about issues with nearby Muddy Brook. (Photo/Peter J. Swift0

The matter was being pushed through the artifice of a public meeting, with an appointed body that has no authority whatsoever on building a school or approving land use requests.

German-born Irmgard is not a public speaker. She was there “because I love the garden.” She told me of the difficult year she has had with caregiving her beloved sister who has dementia, and worrying about Alfred and his health issues. Her daughter succumbed to cancer recently.

“With all of this on my plate, the garden is where I go to find peace and beauty … ever since I was a child in Bavaria. I wasn’t there to speak,” she told me later.

“I knew the decision had already been made, but I couldn’t help it.

“I saw this beautiful young woman, talking about her 3 sons and how they need the field. How much they needed it,” she said.

“It was too much for me. I need the garden. My husband needs the garden. The weight of it all — I had to say something.”

She raised her hand to speak, then made her way to the podium. Immaculately dressed and coifed with bright pink lipstick, she silenced the room with her smile.

Her well-spoken English was flavored with a German accent; her voice, delicate and fragile.

“Thank you for an interesting and incredible meeting. It is amazing. It is my first time here. I have lived here 53 years and raised 2 children here,” she began.

“It is amazing what is being said. What I have to say is just a footnote.

“But no one knows the pleasure, the mental health that I get from the garden.  When I am ‘out of it’ I go to the garden, and I am a new person.

The Westport Community Gardens are a sanctuary for many. (Photo/Karen Mather)

“We are talking tonight about the children, and yes, yes, the children need everything.

“But who is talking for us; who is talking for us and for our garden?” She repeated the word children several times, with some trepidation.

“These are big, big issues. My husband, he is born an Englishman, American now, and he is very ill. He goes to the garden every day. It makes him live. So, who is talking about us; who is talking about the old people and the pleasure we get from the garden?”

I was literally in tears.

The chair of the committee thanked her for her comments. Shortly thereafter he read his prepared statement about how this is a town for children.

Tears welled up again.  I got up and left the meeting.

On my way out, as the chair droned on about how great the Parks & Rec facilities are, I rushed passed Jen Tooker. She sat in the dark, in the back of the auditorium, as is her habit.

She glanced at me. I glanced back.  I hoped she was listening.

But I worried she was not.

[OPINION] Reader Asks: Who Directs And Decides The Long Lots Project?

Toni Simonetti — a 23-year Westport resident  — is a retired global corporate communications public relations executive, with degrees in journalism and an MBA.  

She is also a University of Connecticut Master Gardener, a consulting rosarian, and a longtime member of the Westport Community Gardens, where she serves on its Steering Committee. She writes:

At last night’s Board of Education meeting, chair Lee Goldstein asked the golden question: Who is directing the scope and activities of the Long Lots School Building Committee?

She is understandably confused. The Long Lots School Building Committee is a misnomer.  It should be the “Westport Parks and Rec, Public Works, Finance, Zoning, Conservation, Community Garden and Long Lots School Building Committee as directed by the First Selectwoman.”

I’m joking. But as my husband is fond of saying of my jokes: not funny.

The very serious subject of building a new Long Lots Elementary School is getting caught up in a web of irreconcilable differences. The LLSBC of tried-and-true volunteers is very good at what they do.  But it seems they are victims of what we corporate types call scope creep:  trying to do too much outside the project’s original scope.

Their stated mission: Come up with a plan to remediate the current school or build a new a school.* The BOE has made their preference crystal clear: Build a new school to include a Stepping Stones facility. They’ve supplied the committee with crystal clear education specs. They call for outdoor spaces such as playgrounds and fields in close proximity to the school building, presumably for the exclusive use by Long Lots students.

Toni Simonetti

Here is the rub: also on the town property, on which the school sits, are other town assets not related to Long Lots school — specifically Parks and Recreation resources such as soccer fields, a baseball field, the Westport Community Gardens and Long Lots Preserve.

Parks and Rec hasn’t (won’t?) talk publicly about its role in the process. The appointed Parks & Rec Commission won’t respond to my emails or requests to discuss the matter at their meetings.

The LLSBC says they’ve asked P&R for a study of potential other locations for athletic fields and the Community Gardens. This “study” is expected within days. I’ve got a Freedom of Information Act request ready to go, because if past behavior is any indication, it is not likely to be made publicly available.

The BOE was astute in questioning the committee reps at the meeting.  I’ll paraphrase:

Are you going to wall off the entire property during construction, shutting down access to the gardens, preserve and athletic fields, and for how long? (Yes; anywhere from 18 to 30 months.)

Why didn’t you engage the community gardeners and neighboring residents in your deliberations? (No answer.)

Are any of the schematics made public? (No, not by the town — but photos were taken and posted on social media by yours truly.)

Toni Simonetti took this photo, at a Long Lots School Building Committee meeting. The plan — one of 6 being considered — shows a new school on the site of the current Community Gardens (left).

What is the process you are following? (Something like this: the BOE reviews for compliance to specs; recommendation to selectwomen; request to fund design work to Board of Finance and RTM; various P&Z reviews and permitting; back to BoF and RTM for construction funding.)

When will the LLSBC deliver the 6 options and their recommendation? (Sometime in October).

The appearance and statement of Board of Finance chair Lee Caney at the BOE was prescient. In not so many words, he noted that the decisions to be made by the town’s deciders must be good for the town as a whole, and not skewed to any one small [albeit passionate] group of interested citizens.

I appreciated the discipline of the BOE meeting, their interest in citizen viewpoints, and the no-nonsense leadership of Lee Goldstein at the helm of the meeting.

Last night’s Board of Education meeting. Don O’Day (far left) and Jay Keenan (blue shirt) presented information from the Long Lots School Building Committee to the BOE (left and center) and Westport Public Schools officials (right). (Photo/Toni Simonetti)

In the end, the BOE is not the decider of the plan that will go forward. The deciders will be elected officials of Westport (Selectwomen, BoF, P&Z, RTM).  This is not Tammany Hall. But still, the fight is daunting to the average Joe Gardener.

Save the gardens and build the school.  Do the impossible!

*Here is the stated mission of the LLSBC:

“Upon the request of the First Selectwoman, a Long Lots School Building Committee (the ‘Committee’ or ‘LLSBC’) is hereby established in order to meet the following goals (the ‘Goals’):

  1. In consultation with Building Envelope Engineers, MEP Engineers and other available information (i.e., Antinozzi, Colliers, Tools for Schools, Maintenance Committee reports, etc.), evaluate the existing conditions of the Long Lots Elementary School building envelope, MEP systems and site conditions.
  2. Provide feasibility studies for both a new build and renovate as new options inclusive of cost and schedule.
  3. Provide a recommendation to the First Selectwoman regarding a course of action for either a new build or renovate as new (the “Project”).
  4. Execute the Project as approved by the Town Boards.”