By Gretchen Webster
WESTPORT–Because Westport town officials have taken too long to give feedback on a proposal to designate six town-owned bridges as local historic properties, the Historic District Commission (HDC) voted to hold a second public hearing on the project. That hearing will take place in August.
But members of the HDC aren’t happy.
“I’m not good with that. We already had a public hearing and they had the opportunity to respond, but they didn’t,” Scott Springer, HDC Vice Chairman, said of the lack of town response since an earlier public hearing on the bridges. “This is a real problem, not just with the HDC, but with everything. I’m not in favor of another public hearing,” Springer said.
The six bridges are:
- Evergreen Avenue Bridge over Deadman Brook
- Jesup Road Bridge over Deadman Brook
- Greens Farms Road Bridge over Muddy Brook
- Cross Highway Bridge over Muddy Brook
- Long Lots Road Bridge over Muddy Brook
- Myrtle Avenue Bridge over Deadman Brook
Nicholas Bamonte, representing the town attorney’s office, told the HDC that a second public hearing should be held on the bridge proposal “to give the town and others an opportunity to comment on the proposed designation.”
Why do it again?
But a second public hearing seems unnecessary, several HDC members agreed. “Why do it again, if they haven’t commented?” Commission member Alina Cravero asked about the town’s lack of response.
“If they aren’t in favor of it, they should just not be in favor of it,” Springer added.
Bamonte said town officials are concerned that if the bridges get an official historical designation putting them under the purview of the HDC, the town won’t be able to make safety repairs to the bridges. “Having the [bridge] owner’s opinion is a prerequisite to continue with this process,” he said.
After the meeting Bamonte clarified the process, saying that the town’s role is to review the bridge study and proposal and if there is no objection, the plan to designate the bridges as historical properties would proceed to the RTM for approval, as would any new ordinance proposed by the town.
Process began in 2020
The HDC voted in March 2024 to undertake a study on the bridges, some of which are over 100 years old. The study, which had been discussed for more than two years, started with nine bridges. But three of them were dropped: a bridge on King’s Highway that had been replaced; a structure on Main Street near Willowbrook Cemetery which was determined to be a headwall, not a bridge; and a Saugatuck Avenue bridge over Indian Creek which is controlled by the state.
The plan to study the bridges was originally proposed in 2020, but then delayed by the pandemic lockdown. The study was finally completed in October 2024 by the Historic District Commission’s Bridge Subcommittee and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Council.
At Tuesday’s HDC meeting, Bamonte agreed that it is not clear whether the town will approve the study’s recommendation that the bridges be given a local historic designation.
“We don’t know exactly where the town stands on this, but if it is approved, the next step would be to go to the RTM,” he said.
HDC Chair Grayson Braun made a motion to place a second public hearing on the Commission’s August agenda as recommended by Bamonte. The motion was approved in a 4 to 2 vote with Springer and Art Hayes opposing.
Gretchen Webster
Gretchen Webster, a Fairfield County journalist for many years, has reported for the daily Greenwich Time and Norwalk Hour, the weekly Westport News, Fairfield Citizen and Weston Forum. She was editor of the Fairfield Minuteman for ten years. She has won numerous journalism awards over the years, and taught journalism at New York University and Southern Connecticut State University.
Oh, that’s nice. More sleazy, low level corruption in our local government. The only reason any of this is coming out now is because a resident caught the HDC on June 14 trying to bury the bridge designation effort (which, BTW, is explicitly supported by our Plan of Conservation and Development). Its spent years and years slow walking a simple project that shouldn’t have taken more than one. It finally held the required public hearing on January 14th. The Board of Selectwoman then had 35 days to object to the designation(s). And it was required by state statute to refer the matter to the RTM within 65 days of that January 14th hearing. Instead, it quietly slipped the report into a desk drawer – figuratively speaking – and assumed nobody would notice.
Somebody noticed.
Although the bridge designation effort is obviously doomed, I appreciate and respect the two HDC members who stood up for what’s right. Thank you for that.
There is no reason to believe Bamonte’s statement that the town can’t make safety repairs to the bridges if the bridges were under the purview of the HDC. The town would simply have to consult with the HDC if repairs were needed. The HDC would then make sure that the repairs were sensitive to the bridges’ historic materials and aesthetics.
Efforts to encourage the town to pursue historic designation for these stone bridges go back in time years before 2020. See the following story for more about the history of these bridges and the early initiatives to preserve them.
https://06880danwoog.com/2018/01/08/9-stone-bridges/
Talk about the town slow-walking these efforts! Preservation and preservationists have become dirty words at Town Hall when town properties are concerned. Thank you to the two HDC commissioners who tried not to slow-walk the bridge talk any longer.
Regarding attorney Bamonte’s reported comment: “having the bridge owner’s opinion is a prerequisite to continue with this process”.
No it’s not.
This statement is 100% false. Bamonte knows perfectly well that CGS Sec. 7-147q(g), the statute which governs the formation of Local Historic Properties and Districts, doesn’t not say that.
Here is what it says: “The owner or owners of record of a proposed historic property may object to the proposed designation by submitting to the [HDC] a notorized statement certifying that the person filing such an objection is the entire or partial owner of the property and objects to the designation”.
The statue continues by stating that the owner or owners of the proposed historic property have 30 days from the date of the public hearing to file such an objection.
The public hearing was on January 14th and the Board of Selectwomen DID NOT file a notarized objection within 30 days of that January 14th public hearing.
In fact, the BoS said absolutely nothing one way or the other. And that’s their right. The statue DOES NOT require them to issue their “opinion” of the proposed designation. It merely states that, within 30 days of the public hearing, they MAY file a written objection – if that’s how they feel. Apparently they’re ok with the proposed designation. Or at least they don’t object.
But now, half a year after the January public hearing, unnamed “town officials” are suddenly tearing at their clothing and we’re supposed to accommodate them with a blatantly illegal do-over?
We have several local historic districts in Westport – and exactly nobody living in them has ever, ever, ever been afforded something like this. Ever.
Apparently it’s good to be the king. Or the queen.
Another example of how lawless this town government is.
Is this world-ending event? Of course not. But we lose democracy and the rule of law one small, seemingly insignificant step at a time.
Yes, all the above mentioned bridges should be designated historic.
What about the Cribari Bridge, undoubtedly the most historic flagship bridge in the entire community?
Why is the community not able to recognize the significance of this steel structure?
The current, (and soon to be leaving, thankfully) administration is blind to the historic significance of this bridge.
The Town should champion the effort to rebuild Cribari Bridge. I am sure State and Federal funds are available for historic bridge repairs, if only the current administration had the will to “conserve” our historic asset, instead of maintaining willful ignorance to the State’s desire to construct a flattop bridge similar to the Post Road Bridge.