To the editor:
The Long Lots School Building Committee does not have the authority to act in respect of a playing field on property adjacent to the existing school site.
1. In June 2022, the Westport Board of Education (hereinafter BOE) voted to replace the Long Lots Elementary School with new construction to include the Stepping Stones Preschool Program.
2. In April 2023, the BOE issued a document entitled “Elementary Educational Specifications for Long Lots Elementary School and Stepping Stones Preschool” (hereinafter the specifications).
3. Section C21-2 of the Westport Town Charter provides inter alia: “Unless otherwise expressly designated by the RTM with the concurrence of the First Selectman, the Public Site and Building Commission shall be designated as the school building committee as that term is defined by the General Statutes.”
4. In disregard of that provision of the charter, the first selectwoman, without explanation and without a prior express designation by the RTM, established a Long Lots School Building Committee “to evaluate the existing conditions of the Long Lots School building envelope;”“provide feasibility studies for both a new build and renovate as new options inclusive of cost and schedule;” “provide a recommendation to the first selectwoman regarding a course of action for either a new build or renovate as new (“the project”),” and “execute the project as approved by the town boards.”
5. Nowhere in the specifications or the appointment of the building committee is there any mention of or authorization to include in the scope of its work a playing field or an encroachment upon unrelated property adjacent to “the Long Lots School building envelope.”
6. The Long Lots School Building Committee exceeded its authority by including in its recommendations the construction of a playing field on an adjacent town-owned property not within the jurisdiction or control of the BOE and not within “the Long Lots School building envelope.”
Lawrence Weisman
Westport
Thought so. Thank you Mr. Weisman.
As usual, Mr. Weisman is a wise man speaking the voice of reason using good old-fashioned common sense. But can anyone explain to me when we voted on building a new Long Lots ? Where are the estimates from 3 independent contractors estimating the cost of renovating the existing structure? And if we concede on allowing the demolishment of Long Lots are we not opening the floodgates of unparalled spending on a new Kings Highway, a new Coleytown El and CMS?
Trust me friends we will rue the day we failed to just say NO to building a new school.
A building committee approach has been used by the town for the prior schools as well. This is not anything new. Committee was approved by first selectwoman and RTM. All the land is town property and that portion that currently houses the community gardens was purchased for additional parking. All agreements with the gardens clearly say the land can be used for any needs of the town.
Excuse me. Note the last sentence of the note here from Town Atty just 18 months ago. I would argue best use of that parcel is the existing one. It is town land, yes, but very distinct from school use. Committee is established to deal with school property. Keep trying. You may get your way but you will never be right.
PRIOR PZC DETERMINATIONS
A Town Attorney’s memo dated April 26, 2022, summarized the various PZC history of permits and §8-24 applications related to uses of what is now called Terrace 1. Included was the following: On February 11, 2010, “…the P&Z issued a Special Permit/Site Plan at the request of Parks and Recreation Department for the expansion of the community gardens, stating that “The Commission finds that the use of this site for the Community Garden, instead of the previously proposed use for athletic fields, remains in keeping with the 2007 POCD.”
And “The Westport Community Garden was opened in 2006, but the playing fields were never officially proposed to the P&Z, and when the Westport Community Garden was expanded in 2010, the P&Z’s finding implied that approval of the expansion precluded the use of the remaining portion of the 4.3 acres for ball fields, whether for education of community purposes.”
Opened 2006, but somehow celebrating 20 years old…
Not sure P&Z implied anything, but that would be for them to state. Seems like they reviewed the land use request at the time, as they are once again being asked to do. They will review the project for approval just as all relevant bodies in the town are doing.
Reminder, the property was bought to expand the school parking lot, so it would seem to be directly related to the school and not a separate piece of land as suggested here.
Srikanth Puttagunta,
You’re pretty far off base
This is not about the history of legal wording and the harmful steps that created this controversy. This is very much about the heart, soul… and spirit of our Westport community.
Understand that and you understand all that the Community Gardens represents.
I don’t disagree that community gardens are something to cherish for the town. I am a home gardener myself. However, the school is the priority. To maintain the existing school, while building a new school, in a timely and economically responsible way, all land on 13 Hyde is needed for the construction project. A new gardens can be put back on the property after two years of construction, but that means losing two growing seasons. If I am thinking about what is best for the town people near term and long term, it would be to find an alternative location for gardens so they can thrive for the next 50 years and beyond without missing any growing seasons. But in my opinion, that should not be on any town property that has schools, to avoid potential conflicts in the future.
In the end, the town bodies will need to make the decisions that they believe are in the best interest of the town for this project.