By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Long Range Planning Committee of the Representative Town Meeting on Wednesday discussed the Baron’s South property, and what some recent proposals might mean for the open-space tract.
Affordable housing is under consideration there to help the town reach the state-mandated threshold, and more recently, the Long Lots School Building Committee recommended relocating the Westport Community Gardens to the property when forwarding its plan for a new elementary school to First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker. The gardens, which have been adjacent to Long Lots more than two decades, would be replaced by a baseball field.
The committee’s main agenda item read: “Discuss with Jen Fava the schedule for bid proposal to upgrade Baron South property. Need to know in light of Town Gardens; possible use of Golden Shadows for affordable housing and Senior Center plans.”
However, Parks and Recreation Director Jennifer Fava did not attend, nor did any other administration official.
“My objective tonight is to have communication back and forth on a number of issues,” said committee Chairman Jack Klinge, District 7, “most of which center around Baron’s South, including gardens, passive versus active, arsenic versus no arsenic, affordable housing — all those issues are suddenly descending upon Baron’s South.”
“The property is currently zoned passive by the Planning and Zoning Commission,” Klinge said. “Passive means not active, you can’t be driving mopeds around or things like that.”
“However, in talking with Jen Tooker, [school building committee chair] Jay Keenan, and other people, I’m led to believe that passive includes gardens,” Klinge continued. “It can include affordable housing, and right now there’s five houses being looked at that topic, there’s four there, there’s Golden Shadows. It can involve other things that might happen along with gardens and affordable housing.”
Golden Shadows, a two-story, brick Georgian Colonial Revival-style residence, was the former home of Evyan perfume magnate “Baron” Walter Langer and his wife, Evelyn, and is the largest structure on Baron’s South. The town acquired the Baron’s 22-acre estate in 1999, and except for a carve out to build the Westport Center for Senior Activities, the site has remained open space since then.
Wednesday’s discussion was heated at times, with Klinge and John Suggs, a candidate for RTM District 9, sparring over a report about the safety of soil on the portion of Baron’s South where the gardens might be relocated.
Suggs said it showed there was contamination; Klinge said there was no danger.
There also was some levity, people laughing after hot mic moments and such.
“The past history of the property requires that we do a fresh assessment of what’s there, what has been put there in the more recent history, and whether that is safe for gardening,” said Toni Simonetti, a gardener.
“Yes, it would best if the gardens could stay where they are, but for God’s sakes if they have to move, we’d have to do a huge independent study and check every inch of it,” said RTM member Karen Kramer, District 5. “I’m sorry, for safety and of course ,the gardeners wouldn’t want to put anything there if it’s unsafe …”
Some RTM members, and RTM candidates, tangled. A couple RTM members suggested Klinge run the committee meeting in the usual manner, with members speaking first and then hearing public comments.
Klinge said he saw it more as a town meeting than a meeting of an RTM committee, and let everyone speak. “It’s less our committee than the town of Westport sharing their thoughts with our committee,” Klinge said.
No action items were on the agenda, so there were no decisions to be made.
The discussion, according to gardener Julie O’Grady, was appreciated.
“I want to thank you for actually having a dialogue,” she said. “Since June, since we found out that this was happening, we have not been allowed to have any sort of two-way dialogue with anyone so I think if it seems like we’re unpleasant, it’s so frustrating.
“I can’t tell you I’ve been to so many meetings … they do not let us speak, they do not reply or give us any sort of two-way dialogue so thank you, thank you, for being the first people that actually have conversations,” she added.
State Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-136, had a different idea for Long Lots and Baron’s South.
“As long as we’re going to speculate about the potential uses of Baron’s South, which are not in conformance with current passive zoning, I submit we should contemplate putting the Babe Ruth field there instead of displacing the gardens,” he said.
“That is actually more easily located than the gardens would be,” he said.
Susie Kowalsky suggested Winslow Park would be a suitable site for the baseball field.
John McCarthy, a former RTM member, said it made him sad to hear a speaker say thank you for getting the opportunity to speak.
“That’s not the way it is supposed to be,” he said. “It is not supposed to be us thanking you for listening to us, it’s basically, you are expected to listen to us.”
“I think that’s awfully sad, because we need more of these types of conversations,” he said.
“They’re giving their feelings,” McCarthy said. “This is exactly the type of forum that I was envisioning when I asked the RTM to affirm that citizens had the right to petition their government.
“I’m not going to go into that from a few weeks ago, but I do want to note the irony that today, several gardeners put in a petition to have the RTM discuss this issue at a full RTM meeting,” McCarthy said. “That petition has been denied by the RTM moderator, who is the gatekeeper for anything going onto the RTM agenda.
Ross Burkhardt, a committee member from District 3, suggested to Klinge that the committee meet again “to make some recommendations about what we think has come out of this.”
“I really think that there’s some concrete things we should be following up on,” Burkhardt said.
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 35 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.
Clarification: Klinge and Suggs were citing the SAME soil toxicity report.
Mr. Klinge appears to have somehow overlooked the bit which concludes that the contaminated soil isn’t a health issue because almost no one walks on the site at present and, to the extent they do, the area is covered with grass and pavement – thus reducing the chance that toxic dust will be raised and injested or that other intimate contact with the soil will occur.
The authors of the report would obviously have said something much different had they been asked about the suitability of the dump as a community garden.
Mr. Klinge, intentionally or not, spreading misinformation is unhelpful. Please try a little harder.
I feel like a broken record.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is the only elected body in town authorized by CGS 8-2 to make municipal land use decisions. The first selectperson is required by statute 8-24 to ask the P&Z Commission for their opinion regarding all municipal projects, before the start of the project.
The P&Z Commission since 1989, and continually updated, issued a very clear memo to all town departments to assist them in navigating the process.
Why are all these projects attempting to circumvent the 8-24 process. The DPIC likes to think they have the authority to redesign the town, but they don’t. Their project should have come before P&Z for review and recommendation early into the project.
The LLSB should have done the same.
The P&Z would have given guidance to these UNELECTED committee members so that their projects would have fit within the 2017 POCD and the zoning regulations.
The POCD is also explicit in that the First Selectperson, Chair of BOF and Chair of P&Z are to meet annually and prioritize municipal projects.
Let’s get back to basics which will assist in more orderly decision making.
BTW -The Long-Range Planning Committee does not have the authority to move gardens to Barons South or baseball fields to Winslow Park.
All these boards and commissions may discuss whatever they like, but they are not given the power by the state to act on any of them.
One last thing, all CT General Statutes employ the word SHALL. Until those Statutes are rewritten, the meaning means the same even if they were written 74 years ago.
Come on, we can do better than this.
And … What about the BOF plan to hold three meetings, yet there is no application! How does this happen? Flagrant. And this manipulation of the process is truly a purposeful delay, wholly attributable to the FS, her cronies, and their political maneuverings. Conduct unbecoming.
I will reiterate thoughts I have expressed for three potential locations for a new Babe Ruth size (90’ diamond) baseball field;
Compo Beach; I am flabbergasted why the existing, underutilized ball field at Compo Beach is always undervalued by both Parks and Recreation and theWestport Baseball folks? I cannot think of a more ideal location for a lighted, flagship Babe Ruth baseball field. If the Town would sacrifice 50’ of land from the parking lot, this is an ideal location for a summer activity featuring existing toilets, access to an existing food concession stand and an existing parking, on a site already zoned for recreation. With the use of the least amount of community funds by far, this site has the potential to become one of the best baseball venues in Fairfield County. Why are our leaders unable to see this?
Winslow Park; Most residents are unaware of the size of this park, (29) acres. A new Babe Ruth size field requires approximately 3 – 4 acres of field and perhaps 2 acres for parking. I believe this site can share 5 – 6 acres of land without compromising its passive recreation use, primarily as a dog walking park. To the North of East Main Street, the park’s western boundary line doglegs (pun intended) to the west behind the Playhouse parking lot. Unlike Compo, this land lacks infrastructure ie; toilets, food and lighting. With respect to zoning, Deadman Brook lies to the north and west and Compo Road North to the east. The benefits of this site include a location in a commercially developed part of town, just off the Post Road, with easy access to local retailers and main roads. A good reason to bring more people to our Downtown. I can envision a long term recreational development plan for future additional active recreation on this site.
Red Barn Restaurant Site; Currently owned by the YMCA, this dilapidated, abandoned restaurant is currently teetering on violating our blight ordinance regulations. This site offers easy access to two major roads; Wilton Road (north – south) and the Merritt Parkway (east – west). Perhaps a deal to lease the land from the YMCA for an extended period of time can be arranged? In addition to the convenient access to the Merritt, the YMCA can most likely accommodate overflow parking. Domestic water and a septic facility already exist on the site and are most likely adequate for the limited seasonal use required for a ballpark.
Major Reason for Serious Consideration; The one major selling point all three of the above mentioned sites offer; limited access to single family homes and would surely be deemed less intrusive to local residents, as opposed to the construction of a new lighted, Babe Ruth field on the Long Lots School site, deep in the middle of a single family residential neighborhood. As a professional, who studied urban planning at Pratt Institute, without question, the Westport Community Gardens, in their existing location, provide the abutting single family residents, a peaceful and passive buffer zone from the school building and its recreational activities.
What I read in that report is that the levels of contamination in the soil are SO Bad that even walking on them or disturbing the soil would create a health issue.
Surely it goes without saying and someone please do correct me if I am wrong, that if walking on this soil would present a health danger, then it is not rocket science to conclude, if the same person writing this “scientific” report had been asked, “would it be safe under these circumstances to grow vegetables here”
Their answer would have been absolutely NOT.
I’m not sure what part of that report Mr Klinge missed, but it reads incredibly black and white to me.
I think Jonathan Steinberg’s suggestion is one many of us believe makes perfect sense.
Why would an established garden, the elementary children attending long lots can benefit hugely from, why would that same garden which cannot be moved or would take 20 years to re establish somewhere else, be moved, when in fact the baseball field ( not for use by the children at long lots) could simply be built at barons south or somewhere else.
Why destroy something existing which will cost the tax payers hundreds of thousands of extra dollars when it can simply be left where it is, to continue to flourish and provide amongst other things valuable teaching moments for the children attending long lots school.
And enough already with the staging area talk.
Think manhattan, projects go on all the time and have to make do with remote staging areas.
No doubt it would be easier for the construction company to be able to have a large tract of land( bulldozed gardens) in order to make it more convenient, but with a 100 million dollar price tag, I’m sure that company can dig deep and work it out.
SMH
We have yet to hear directly from the construction experts who will do the job what the staging options are. This narrative was all a ploy to get the gardeners onboard with a move to Baron’s South.. a move that, and of itself, requires a long and deliberative process before it can be promised as an option.
As a member of the community with proficiency in understanding the Westport Zoning Regulations, I urge the 1st Selectperson, the RTM Long Range Planning Committee, Ms. Fava and Mr. Keenan to contact our Director of Planning & Zoning or the Deputy Director and ask if the Westport Zoning Regulations permit a Special Permit use, like the Community Gardens, on Baron’s South.
According to my reading of the regulations, the answer is “NO”.
Thanks Joe V. for your thoughtful analysis of potential other options for baseball fields. I agree that it sounds like there would potentially much better options.
FYI – in the Long Range Planning Committee meeting, I did clarify to the attendees that no decisions could be made in that committee – it was more of a brainstorming, listening session to hear thoughts about potential “long term” plans for this property that is designated as open space but is not fulfilling any purpose currently. So in case people were concerned that we had any expectation of a firm plan, we did not. Hopefully these conversations will conitnue throughout the rest of the LL building process and beyond.
And Toni, let’s face it, construction experts are being fed what the LLSBC want to feed them and they are most certainly going to favor an option which provides them a large staging area HOWEVER, it is not a requirement as anyone who has ever done a construction job on a tight site knows. They will just have to find an off site staging area.
Possibly one of the many options being so kindly suggested for the gardens will make a great staging area.