A Place for Women to Build a Stronger Center
Private
Training
and Classes
REGISTER NOW
Classes begin September 13th
VOTED BEST
OF WESTPORT
Painting Company
For all of your painting and wallpapering needs.
Call George now for a free estimate:
203-241-8922
Mention WestportNow and get 10% discount
Rex
Marine Center
Inflatables & Outboards!
Mobile Service Available
Visit our Marine Stores
144 Water Street
South Norwalk
203-831-5236
At Norwalk Cove Marina
50 Calf Pasture Beach Rd
East Norwalk
203-604-1295
Westport - Gorgeous OFFICE SUITES for lease by owner.
Single offices to larger
suites
(1,000- 6,500 s.f.)
203-226-6969
Live Better at the Same Address in a Better-Built Home
Learn how modular homes are built
on your property.
Call 203-858-7198
westportmodular.com
Tear Down Specialists!
News
Monday, June 11, 2007
Joseloff, RTM Face Off on Family Y Location
Westport First Selectman Gordon Joseloff faced off with RTM Long-Range Planning Committee members tonight over his desires to not locate the Westport Weston Family Y at Baron’s South or Winslow Park.
Joseloff and Dan Lawrence, project manager from Weston and Sampson Engineers, presented the results of an engineering study for Baron’s South and Jesup Green during the committee’s meeting tonight.
After questioning from the committee, Lawrence said there would be a way to fit the new facility for the Westport Weston Family Y at Baron’s South, and committee Chairman Jack Klinge said the group should tour Baron’s South.
Joseloff went to the podium during the discussions of a tour and said that he is only proposing municipal uses for Baron’s South and Winslow Park, which does not include a Family Y facility.
“I have no intentions to put a Y facility at Baron’s South or Winslow Park,” he said. “We bought the land for municipal uses.”
The parts of the engineering study that includes the Family Y were completed to show what would be required of the properties in order to fit a Y facility.
“You would eliminate the ability to put anything else there,” he said. “We would eliminate the chance to put housing at Baron’s South.”
It’s not his job to convince the Family Y’s officials to change the facility configuration so it could fit on municipal land, Joseloff said, and it’s not his job to make municipal land available when there are higher priorities.
Jonathan Steinberg, RTM District 8, said he was disappointed because he thought the study’s intention was to find a place for the Family Y.
Klinge said the committee needs to narrow the options for each piece of property, including the potential for the Family Y’s new facility.
Joseloff said the intention of the study was to show what town officials could do with each piece of property.
Lawrence showed several slides how the Family Y would fit on Baron’s South, Winslow Park or Jesup Green.
While it would fit at Winslow Park, the conceptual drawings show it would take significant excavation and tree cutting to fit at Baron’s South. Additionally, police headquarters and parking would need to be removed for it to fit at Jesup Green in a reduced size.
Instead, Lawrence said, town officials should develop Baron’s South for housing, especially senior housing, and town officials should maintain Winslow Park for future municipal needs with recreational enhancements.
If town officials use Winslow Park for police, fire and EMS headquarters, he said, there would still enough property left as a park.
With Jesup Green, town officials should consider moving police headquarters, he said, and create a riverfront park and expanded riverwalk that moves the parking away from the river.
There could be a mixed use in the area, he said, and the Imperial Avenue parking lot could be developed into housing.
Much of the comments expressed during the meeting focused on the Family Y’s facility and keeping it downtown.
Lawrence said the facility could fit at Jesup Green if Y officials elected to downsize, and Baron’s South would be decimated.
“You could do Winslow Park, but you should preserve it for future needs,” he said.
Amy Ancel, who opposes the Y’s plans, said it is ludicrous to take the current Y design and fit it on town property.
“You guys stayed in the box,” she said. “It could be designed different ways.”
Debbie McGinnley, of Y Downtown, said there are 2,000 people who want the Family Y to keep its facility downtown.
The report ignores keeping a facility downtown, she said.
“You are casually dismissing a large number of residents,” she said.
Comments: Comment Policy
Wait a second!!!
The study was approved by the Board of Finance and the RTM on behalf of the residents of this town. What the residents want is key. $50,000 was spent to see what could fit.
The study proved the Y and housing could fit on Barrons. It also showed housing could go on the Imperial lot. And almost anything on Winslow. Those are the raw facts.
Now what do we do with those facts? Its time to open up dialogue, not shut it down.
It’s time to seriously discuss what the residents want for their town. If we want a Y that is centrally located we can have one. If we want housing we can have it. If we want both we can have that too.
The study is in, now let’s work on our future.
Matthew Mandell
RTM District 1
There is a critical dialogue underway to determine the consensus of the town with regard to at least the Westport/Weston Family Y and its present/future placement in Westport.
That discussion is underway right now. We are readying our 2nd of 3 Town Hall meetings to discuss this issue this Friday, 15 June, at 6:30 PM.
All residents of Westport and all members of the Westport/Weston Family Y are welcomed to attend and help arrive at a consensus of public opinion to guide the political process.
WESTPORT/WESTON FAMILY Y RESCUE GROUP
SENIOR HOUSING ??? AFFORDABLE HOUSING ?? This is getting to the point where the end result is Killing the downtown (closing the Y) , creating a aging tax base (more senior housing) and ignoring the citizens of Westport who have paid for the study only to be told HANDS OFF. I am all for taking care of OUR OLDER RESIDENTS, but the senior and mature housing in this town is becoming a haven for out of town persons who want to live in this great location . Enough… To say hands off after spending tax money for a study and “promoting a dialog” This is the fodder of revolution, truly TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Happy 4th of July
Gordon didn’t need to spend $50,000 of taxpayers’ money to demonstrate what any idiot already knew - that the Y in its current, massive configuration could not fit on Baron’s South. The results of Gordon’s study are ridiculous and practically useless.
Gordon and his engineers have taken the most simplistic approach and arrived at the most simplistic conclusion: Build workforce and senior housing on Baron’s and pave the Imperial Lot to be… a parking lot! Just what we need, more cars. Add some “town-subsidized” shops to Jesup Green and the police/EMS get a garage.
Oh, and don’t forget to save Winslow Park for further development when Gordon decides what he wants to build there. A giant public safety complex? Or maybe a community center that mimics what the Y plans to build at Mahackeno? Why not build two Y’s while we’re at it?
As a reminder to the taxpayers’ in this town: In 2000, Diane spent $150,000 of our money for a 2001 Downtown Plan (performed by real town planners) and that’s gone nowhere. So we are now $200K in the hole, and still have nothing workable.
Gordon is off on his own toot to build new digs for his pals at police, EMS and fire - and to build workforce housing. He even lied to the RTM and BOF to further his singular mission.
But Gordon, YOUR singular mission is out of step with what the people of this town want. I think you need to start listening.
It is entirely possible to build housing on the Imperial Lot - where residents can have a gorgeous panoramic view of the river - as well as more housing at Baron’s South, plus the Y. No one even mentioned converting the mansion on Baron’s into condominums or apartments! Does the mansion just go to waste?
If you think outside the box for two seconds, there’s enough room for everything.
I think it is painfully obvious that Gordon Joseloff is a proponent of allowing the Westport Y to locate its 100,000 + sf facility on the Camp Mahackeno site along the banks of Lees Pond and the Saugatuck River, and his call for a feasibility study regarding a downtown location for the new Y facility was pure window dressing, as he had no intention of actually supporting a downtown proposal. He wants to move the “Blue Line” to assist the Y’s efforts to locate at Mahackeno, and he is trying to shut down consideration of truly viable locations downtown, such as on a portion Winslow Park as the engineering study from Weston and Sampson Engineers shows is perfectly feasible.
Aside from keeping the Y in a central, downtown location, addressing traffic concerns and permitting ready access to a sewer line (all highly legitimate positives), NOT locating the new Y facility at Mahackeno will avoid the serious and deleterious environmental impact on the fragile Lees Pond and Saugatuck River ecosystem, as well as the unquestioned intrusion into and disruption of what is unquestionably a low-density, residential area.
As for the specific details of a workable Y-at-Winslow proposal, I would recommend Ken Bernard’s reasoned article (which appeared in the Westport News, a copy of the piece can be found here: http://www.ydowntown.com/opinions-letter-bernhard01.html ).
While it’s sad that our First Selectman is seriously mishandling one of what will surely be among the most significant issues during his administration, Westport’s system of governance is set up to overcome such failings. I am pleased to see the RTM stepping up (at least most of them) and doing their best to represent the best interests of Westport’s citizens, rather than pandering the Y’s Board of Directors.
Finally a voice crying in the wilderness brings some sanity to our debate about open space in Westport. First Selectman Gordon Joseloff told the RTM Long-Range Committee on Monday, “I have no intention of putting the Westport Weston Family Y on Baron’s South or on Winslow Park.”
That is the same reaction the Y received from the previous town administration after it asked to do a public-private venture on Baron’s South. Westport ultimately put a senior center on the Baron’s property instead.
Why not use town land for a new YMCA? After all, Fairfield is considering doing just that. The answer is simple: The Westport Weston Family Y is the only private institution in town that can relocate to land that it already owns.
Moving the Westport Weston Family Y to Mahackeno has never been a planning issue. It has been a simple land-use issue, which has two parts: Will the Mahackeno project endanger the environment? The Connecticut Department of the Environment, the Westport Flood and Erosion Control Board and the Westport Conservation Commission all resoundingly said no.
Next, we must consider the neighbors of Mahackeno They won’t be endangered by a new facility at Mahackeno, but they may be so inconvenienced by the Y’s project that we should deny the Family Y a permit to build, even though we would be denying the vast majority of Westporters the benefit of a YMCA in town. This is a question for the Planning & Zoning Commission, the fourth and final step in most applications to build.
Last month, the Family Y was sideswiped on its way to the final step by a few vociferous critics, who – using a dubious town ordinance – demanded the RTM overturn the technical decisions of the Flood and Erosion Control Board and the Conservation Commission.
That is where we are now, nearly a decade after the Westport Weston Family Y was first told you don’t need town land; you have a lot of your own. (Pun intended.)
Some people in town view this summer’s RTM hearings as a chance to reconsider all aspects of the Family Y’s application to build at Mahackeno. They want a “retrial,” even though Town Attorney Ira Bloom told the members of the RTM they can’t have one.
Some of these same people keep saying they want to keep the Y downtown (whatever that means). They want the Family Y to either spend millions of dollars to do a site study of land it doesn’t own, or they want the Y to stay where it is. What? How can you force a nonprofit institution to remain in a building, or a neighborhood, when it tells you that it needs to move to a new facility to ensure its survival?
Would people behave this way with any other cherished nonprofit institution? If Save the Children – who has been in Westport since 1962 – announced that they needed more office space and were leaving Wilton Road, would we throw ourselves in front of the moving vans? No, we would say, “We’re sorry you have to go. We wish you well.”
Perhaps it’s too bad the Westport Weston Family Y can’t stay in its 84-year-old building on the Boston Post Road. Luckily, however, it can move a couple miles north and remain in Westport.
Dear Mr, Wimer,
Please declare yourself as Westport Y Water Rat Swim Team Parent and master of the “Save the Westport Y” website.
Were it not for the 50 meter pool that is DRIVING this runaway train and the Y Board’s obsession with turning the Y into a major aquatics center, there would probably be more options available to it. I think it’s hardly coincidental that so many of the Y Board of Directors are also Water Rat Parents.
You’re right - moving the Y to Mahackeno has never been a planning issue. But the Y screaming for a new facility downtown for the past 10 years HAS always been a planning issue, because they’ve demanded it be so. Now that they have no shame about raping their land at Mahackeno, they are telling the town and the people of Westport to lay off.
Yes, please, let’s do consider the neighbors of Mahackeno, because the Y clearly hasn’t. Not those who will “be so inconvenienced” by the Y’s project, but the Fiorenzas and the Lounsburys who are in danger of having a 4-acre asphalt parking lot built on top of their front yards! Or the Kanes on Rice’s Lane who will lose their privacy and all of the trees screening their backyard from the massive new Y and its acres of septic leaching fields. Or the owner of 11 Twin Falls Lane - another abutter to the Y’s parking lot - who’s property goes unsold. Let’s talk about those neighbors and their property rights, shall we?
It is not just a “few of us” who are opposed to the Y at Mahackeno and believe it should remain downtown. It is the MAJORITY of Westporters. And it is the majority (61%!) of the Y’s own members, if you took the time to read the Y’s own poll. Not the Water Rats’ survey, but the Y’s general membership survey.
It is the Y Board and the Water Rats who stand alone in the big push for the new Y at Mahackeno. It is, in fact, the “few of you.” The community and the members that the Y Board professes to serve matter not at all.
Perhaps that’s the real reason for the Y’s precipitous membership decline in recent years? Think about it.
Finally, how utterly presumptuous and arrogant of you to compare the Westport YMCA to Save The Children. The Westport Y is little more than a glorified health club, hiding behind its not-for-profit, tax free status to make a buck. Save the Children actually feeds the hungry, educates the poor, literally saves children’s lives and changes the world.
Save the Children is indeed a cherished nonprofit institution. The Y? Not so much.
Simple question....
Who was there first?
The Fiorenzas, Lounsburys, Kanes, Ancels, and everyone else close to Mahackeno - or the YMCA? Since I was a Camp Mahackeno camper in the early 1970’s when most if not all of you lived in other towns - my guess is the Y.
I fully support the Y doing what it wishes on land that it owns - provided they jump through all hoops the town will put in front of them. If you want them to move somewhere else - make them a better deal. But I wouldn’t expect them to have to sacrifice a thing - and personally as a WRAT alum I can’t wait to see them build a world class aquatic center that our kids deserve and need to so that the can compete on such a high level.
This anti-Mahackeno group reminds me of the people who live near our schools and block adding lights to the fields, basketball hoops to the parking lots, etc. Just because you live near something doesn’t mean you should spend all of your energy trying to keep it from evolving. If you’re not happy, move, but please don’t ruin it for the rest of us.
The Y in Westport is on the brink of being no more. Even if all approvals are granted for Mahackeno, there are serious lawsuits pending that may drag on for years afterwards. These must be dealt with before a shovel can pierce the ground.
On the other hand, if a concensus of town residents and Y members can be reached, where a majority of folks hold sway over the process, there is a possibility that Westport may save a cherished institution.
Come to the Town Hall Meeting on Friday, June 15th, at 6:30PM and let your voice be heard in civil discussion of the salient issues.
WESTPORT/WESTON FAMILY Y RESCUE GROUP
Dear Mr. Loffredo,
Does “Go!!! Helen!!! Go!!!” ring any bells? You are fighting a similar land use battle in your own neighborhood against a large affordable housing development and the impending traffic congestion. But we’re the NIMBYS?
Does this mean that if a developer wants to build a huge aquatics center in a residential neighborhood, that is zoned for AAA homes, that’s okay because you like to swim and are a WRAT alum? But a housing development at Indian Hill - in your neighborhood - is not okay? What if they built a pool for you? Would it then be okay?
Your comments really miss the point. It’s not a matter of “who got there first.” It’s a matter of lawful land uses - and the Y’s proposed building on Mahackeno is non-conforming and requires a special permit. Ergo, the hoops they have to jump through. And ergo, the opposition. Just like in your neighborhood.
All of the homeowners around Mahackeno are perfectly within their rights as holding and using properties that conform to the law. We are simply residential property owners in a residential ONLY zone.
But, to satisfy your question since you asked, yes -one of the abutters’ families has owned their property long before the Y was ever given Camp Mahackeno in a sweetheart deal.
The Y didn’t get Lee’s Pond until 1975 when it was given to them, so many of us lived here well before that. The waterways belong to all of the people of the state and the Y does not have the right to pollute them at will.
Winthrop -
What you’re proposing is akin to blackmail. Re-read your statements carefully - you’re part of the problem.
When the Y’s clock strikes 12 and they need to vacate their downtown location - it’ll be a damn shame if there’s no more Y because of a few angry residents with nothing better to do then hold up the process. But I’d rather have that happen then have the Y blackmailed into accepting some downtown compromise that doesn’t allow them to build the facility they desire.
Mrs. Ancel -
Please seek some other outlet for your barely controllable anger rather then trying to personally attack me.
The YMCA has owned the land at Mahackeno for at least 35 years - probably longer. Anyone who bought or built a house in or around it got the benefit of having a basically abandoned camp as their personal playground - except for a few weeks during the summer when it’s actually used.
It is a land use issue - but it’s their land and has been for far longer then you’ve lived nearby. I’ve seen their plans - I think your impact on Rices and River Lanes will be minimal.
The development across from my house isn’t something that benefits anyone other than a developer from Trumbull. He reads this board so I’m sure he’ll be happy to see he has your support. He’ll line his pockets and move on - at least the Y will provide something for someone other themselves.
And guess what? If/when I lose - I’ll get on with my life. I won’t file a bunch of lawsuits to slow down the inevitable - I’ll work with him to minimize my personal pain and try to make the best of it.
Why can’t you guys do that?
Mr. Baum;
I’ll risk dating myself and quote Roseanne Roseannadanna: “What’s all this I hear about serious lawsuits?”
Do you mean the “serious” lawsuit that a Westport resident filed against our town because the Conservation Commissioner had “a personal animosity” to the plaintiff?
Or perhaps you mean the allegation that the Town Executive held secret meetings to decide the fate of Mahackeno? Then again, maybe you mean the other lawsuit that alleges that because the Conservation Commission allowed the withdrawal and resubmission of the same application many times, it was confusing and unfair? Of course, the plaintiff must know that if the Westport Weston Family Y hadn’t withdrawn and resubmitted the application, the Conservation Commission would have been forced to render its decision back in January. That would have curtailed countless hours of questioning and interjection by the plaintiff.
But—to quote another TV star, and former Westport resident—“That might have been a good thing.”
Wow!
Mr. Loffredo’s approach would be to build whatever the majority of the town does NOT want? Is that because of a maligned sense of entitlement? You don’t think sharing ideas to gain public support is a good thing? Hmmmm....doesn’t sound very progressive to me. Nor very comforting.
The conversation that is taking place might have been better had (1-3-5) years ago, but it never did. Thankfully, it is taking place now. Would there be those who would wish to impede that sharing of common thoughts? Why? Because their ideas might not stand up under public scrutiny?
What if the Y’s plan is the RIGHT plan for Westport? Shouldn’t the Y have the rest of the town on board to that idea? The Y management has every right to present its ideas and convince the rest of the town that its plans are the right way to go. In fact, they are encouraged to do so.
There are no mysteries to life in Westport, Mr. Loffredo, at least none that would blind the town’s residents to the notion that the placement of the town’s community center should be withheld from the public’s input and suggestions.
“Sunlight is the best cleanser”: Let’s bring the sunshine in! Let’s make the best decision for Westport for the next 80-years and let it not be dictated to us but let all of us have a say in how to embrace something new and of service to all.
WESTPORT/WESTON FAMILY Y RESCUE GROUP
WestportNow policy states we do not allow personal attacks in our comments section. If there is, we are allowed to delete comments. Please refrain from personal comments otherwise we will have to delete comments and/or close the comments on a story.
Thank you,
Jennifer Connic
Editor
WestportNow
Next entry: Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Previous entry: Special Education Report Focuses on Improving Program
-->
talk
about balancing
their work
and motherhood.
Tune in every Monday, 12:30 pm.
Top
Driver,
the nation's premier driving school, is now in Westport at
830 Post Road East
Note: WestportNow Publisher Gordon F. Joseloff is also First Selectman of Westport
