• Classifieds
• Archives
• About Us
• Contact Us

News

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

P&Z Makes Site Visit to Mahackeno

About 30 persons attended the Westport Planning and Zoning Committee field trip tour this morning of the Mahackeno site for the proposed relocation of the Westport Weston Family Y.  Peter Romano with Land Tech Consultants Inc. served as the guide. A P&Z hearing on the proposed relocation to Mahackeno begins Thursday, March 13. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com

Comments:     Comment Policy

I went on the tour. What a nice day to stroll through this beautiful property along the river. The melting snow made the brook babble so peacefully.

Hopefully the P&Z;commissioners can now grasp the magnitude of this project and the impact it will bring on the land, the local neighborhood and the greater Westport community.

The hearings begin next Thursday March 13 at 7pm and continue on the 18th, 27th and into April. All persons interested in this issue should attend, listen and speak up during the public comment sessions. This is a Special Permit application that does not have to be granted.

For more information visit http://www.Ydowntown.com. Much of the P&Z;file has been scanned by this concerned group and posted there.

I also went on the tour this morning.  It is indeed a beautiful site, and it will remain so as most of the acreage will be untouched. 

I hope the open minded members of P&Z;noted that the Y has gone to great lengths to design a green facility that will be the pride of Westport for decades to come.  I hope they also note that the acreage that must be devoted to a septic system would not be necessary if Mr Mandell and his colleagues would support a sewer hookup. 

And finally, on their way out, I hope they saw Amy Ancel replacing one of the misleading Y-Downtown signs that had fallen over.  It was still illegally located on state property, where it was placed to ensure that the P&Z;commissioners couldn’t miss it on their way to the site visit.  These rules don’t appear to bother Y-Downtown, which will apparently produce such visual pollution for the duration.

For a running rebuttal of the scare tactics propagated by Y-Downtown, please go to http://mahackeno.info/

Hmmm, lawn signs for a couple of months, or a traffic nightmare for as long as I own my house. 

I pick lawn signs!

Keep the pressure on Amy and Matthew.

All I ask is that you actually read the source material on traffic and other issues, or summaries from additional sources, rather than taking the words of Mr Mandell and Ms Ancel at face value.  I believe you will find their concerns to be consistently overstated as they promote their own agendas. 

For example, Ms Ancel’s recent assertion that residents will spend 10 more minutes a day in traffic is not a fact, and is intended to worry people who will not take the time to investigate further.  I can see that it is working. People tend to trust their elected officials, and most take this responsibility seriously.  When presented with evidence of ongoing distortion, however, I suggest one consider the source.

If you want a sign in your yard, more power to you. I have one in mine.  However, do you really think that Y-Downtown supporters like Ms Ancel should be allowed to violate local, state and federal regulations to further their cause?

Mr. Bowles.

I’m not familiar with Ms. Ancel’s or Mr. Mandell’s personal agendas. Nor am I familiar with the assertions made on the Ydowntown web site.  However, I am aware of their tenacious opposition to the ill conceived Mahackeno development plan, and I support their efforts. 

It is my observation that the traffic situation within a wide radius of Exit 41 is currently untenable.  It is incomprehensible to me that the Town of Westport would approve a special zoning permit for a commercial development that would significantly add to this burden.  I look forward to a healthy and informative public debate through the Planning and Zoning review process, and am hopeful that the special permit request will be evaluated on its merits… and denied.

MS

Dear Adrian Bowles,

If you really want to get into it, the Mahackeno signage, both pro and con, are in violation of the CGA regarding sign placement on state property. The “Make Mahackeno Happen” signs have been in violation in more places and a lot longer than those in opposition.

You are probably correct that Ms. Ancel’s assertion of the extra travel is not fact. I would guess it will be more like 15 or 20 minutes of aggravation. It will only redirect traffic to other thoroughfares.

Mr. Bowles,
I believe you and Ron Wimer learned from the town attorney’s office today that the Y Downtown signs are political statements and, as such, are protected by the First Amendment.  I also believe that you and Mr. Wimer have been told by the Assistant Town Attorney, Gail Kelly, that even as an RTM, I am within my rights to be involved in a political movement or grass roots group.  I also believe that Hadley Rose, RTM Moderator, advised Mr. Wimer of the same. 

That said, consider this my notice to you and Mr. Wimer to cease and desist libeling me in this website, the newspapers, the Water Rats Parents’ Club website “Mahackeno Now,” Politicus Machamux and any other publications you and Mr. Wimer author or have access to.  My next notice will come from my attorneys.

But let’s get down to the substance of your statements, shall we?

Yes!  I would love for the public to read the Y’s application “source material on traffic and other issues,” as you suggest, because in it they will learn that the Y’s move to Mahackeno will, among other traffic impacts, degrade the Level of Service at the Fort Apache intersection - Rt. 33 and Rt. 57 -to FAILURE during rush hours.  That’s a grade “F” in Connecticut DOT parlance. 

Or how about this choice nugget by the Y’s expert planner, who has the temerity to purport that building a giant, elite, members-only health club in the middle of a low density AAA- residential neighborhood in the outskirts of Westport is compliant with Smart Growth principles and the 2007 Town Plan, but the legally PERMITTED use of the Mahackeno lsite under our zoning regulations to build single family homes on 2 acre lots is not?  Come again?

Or maybe the Y’s expert real estate appraiser whose crackerjack analysis has yielded the brilliant conclusion that none of the homes in the Mahackeno area or across Lee’s Pond will be adversely impacted by the Y’s development, nor will they lose any value - INCLUDING the private home at # 8 Sunny Lane, on top of which the Y’s new 4-acre parking lot will be built? 

Yes, please everyone… read the Y’s application and “source materials” and judge for yourself.  Go to http://www.Ydowntown.com where you can read all the Y’s experts’ reports and the full application. 

As for that pesky “10-minutes additional driving time” statement that you keep insisting I invented, allow me to advise you of the actual author of that wisdom:  Iain Bruce, current President of the Y’s Board of Directors. 

Ya see, back in February 2004, Mr. Bruce, representing the Westport YMCA in an official capacity, attended a meeting of area residents to discuss the possibility of a new Y at Camp Mahackeno.  Part of the discussion concerned the increase in traffic that would be generated by the new Y.  When one neighbor asked how the Y would deal with the increased traffic, Mr. Bruce said, “Well, you’ll just have to leave home 10 minutes earlier.”

Mr. Bruce is no doubt correct.

As for the trust issue, I have been living this Mahackeno nightmare nonstop for almost 3 years straight, so if people trust me, it’s because I do my homework and know what I’m talking about. All I seek is the truth. Ditto for Matthew Mandell.

As for the trust issue and where the Y’s statements are concerned, let me leave you with this quote from an email I have in my possession from former Y Director, Win Baum, dated September 14, 2006 and addressed to all the Y’s Directors and Trustees before they voted to sell their downtown building without having secured any town approvals for Mahackeno:

“It is my very strong opinion that we, as a board, have no right to sell our property to anyone without having a completed replacement up and functioning so that the vision of the Bedford family may continue.... If we vote for a certain date to sell our primary asset, we will have given our membership the date in which the Y will be no more.  I heard from several at the last board meeting that the reasoning for this is to show the town of Westport that ‘we mean business.’ ‘Either we get what we want at Mahackeno, or we will close our doors until we do get what we want’ was the essential thought given to this tactic.’”

You’ll recall that Mr. Baum was frog-marched out the door by the board when he publicly opposed the Y’s plan to sell their downtown facility and, in essence, “burn their ship.” Mr. Baum, another truth seeker, asked the board the ultimate question, which, in all their “arrogant, pigheaded folly” (as one resident recently put it,) they have still failed to answer:  “If we do not serve our members, what are we doing?”

The truth, Mr. Bowles, will continue to be revealed in this process because, you see, there actually are people in Westport - Y Downtown included - who cherish the value of honesty and aren’t afraid to demand it.

.

Thank you, Mr. Stuttman, for your support of our efforts! 

I sincerely hope that you and everyone else in Westport who is opposed to the new Y at Mahackeno will come to the first Planning & Zoning public hearing on Thursday, March 13 at 7:00 pm, town hall auditorium.  It is during these hearings that everyone will be able to speak your minds to the seven people who matter in this decision - the P&Z;commissioners.

So be there or be square.  ; )

Ms Ancel,

If you can please point out anything I have said about you that is untrue, I will be happy to make a retraction and apologize.

We are probably not going to agree on the Mahackeno project, but I value truth and I value playing by the rules, so please give me a specific example.

I know that the YDowntown signs are protected speech, but they are not permitted on state property. I did ask Attorney Kelly about that today, and she confirmed that for me. Surely she mentioned that to you? I was there to ask about removing all such signs from state property.  If you spoke with her perhaps she also mentioned that I asked if I could remove them and return them to you for reuse - that was the context in which your name was mentioned.

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with you advocating for a cause you so obviously believe in, and I actually commend you for running for office to achieve your goals.  Please, speak freely in any public forum. 

My problem is with the process. Were you referring to my comment about you violating rules?  We’ve all seen the flyer - with your name on it - that was placed in mailboxes in violation of USPS codes.  If you are telling us that someone used your name without permission, then I would certainly apologize, but I believe you have already acknowledged this lapse in judgement to Mr Rose.

I honestly see nothing else that would cause such a reaction from you.  However, as I have said, if you can point out something that is factually incorrect, please allow me to apologize in the same forum where the error appeared. I would be happy to do so.

Dear Mr. Bowles,

I’m really much too busy preparing for the upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission hearings on the new Y to spend even a minute on your request. I’m also not looking for an apology.

I know you’re dying to engage me in this debate, and in this forum, but I simply don’t have the time to respond to your mean-spirited nonsense anymore.  As the old saying goes, I’ve got bigger fish to fry.

As for the signs on state property, I guess that would apply to the “Make Mahackeno Happen” signs that are currently posted on state property as well?

Ms Ancel,

Actually, I have no interest in engaging in a debate with you.  Surely, however, if my comments rose to the level of libel you would be able to give me a single example so that I could set the record straight.  I stand by my commitment to make a public statement if I have made a factual error.

If my facts are correct but my tone strikes you as mean-spirited, I am truly sorry. My friends will tell you that my dry sense of humor can be cutting, but I am not a mean-spirited person.  I do believe, however, that by running for office you open yourself to scrutiny regarding your behavior and public statements.  I don’t think it is mean-spirited to comment on that.  I have seen a pattern that I would describe as win-at-any cost from several people who support Y-Downtown, and I think it is important for the vast majority of Westport residents who haven’t followed this issue closely to know that there are credible alternative information resources.  I think that your flyer, for example, was designed to present speculation as fact and create enough fear about property values to raise money for your paid consultants.  Is that comment mean-spirited? You took a comment from Iain Bruce out of context and made it the centerpiece of your argument.  In fact, the latest estimate from the traffic experts indicate an average delay of under 40 seconds, so unless you are making more than 7 round trips in that area daily, you won’t see a 10 minute change in your day. Is it mean-spirited to call you on this distortion?

I also firmly believe that if the Y wins its case on the merits, as it has done at every stage of the proceedings so far, that the group you support will sue the Town of Westport.  Is it mean-spirited to point out that you are soliciting funds that may ultimately be used to sue our Town?

I will admit that my comments elsewhere, in which I noted that you may have been ignorant of the USPS rules, and that I don’t expect much from some RTM members based on my observations and interactions, may have been interpreted as mean.  My point was that sometimes it is hard to know whether a person is doing or saying something wrong out of malice, or if it was simply a case of ignorance.  I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt and go with ignorance.  There is very little humor left in this debate, and my intent was to be humorous. If that offended you, I am sorry.  In the future, I can just assume that you know what you are doing, which makes such behavior willful disregard of the rules. That’s what I assumed yesterday morning when I saw you with the sign on state property.

As I have said, I would like all signs removed from state property.  I’d be happy to see you remove any pro-Mahackeno signs while you’re out there removing just the Y-Downtown signs for which you are responsible.  Feel free to drop them off at my house. I cannot speak for the Y, but I would personally be happy to remove pro-Mahackeno signs from other locations on state property if you would give me permission to also remove the Y-Downtown signs and return them to someone in your organization. Although, I have to point out that this morning I found 10 Y-Downtown signs at the Merritt exits, and none for the Y.  At the I-95 exits, neither side currently has signs.

As neither of us wants to drag this out, I will close with this thought.  We all want what is best for Westport, and healthy discussion should give us that.  If we can agree to abide by the rules of law, and to acknowledge when we have transgressed, it will be easier to accord each other courtesy and respect.

Maybe you could just snag all the Dr. Grout and Effin Computer signs.  Thanks.

I was just thinking about Mr. Bowles’s comment that we all want what’s best for Westport. That’s a very interesting point. What is best for Westport? And who gets to define what that is?

If the Y were any other private entity—a Brooks Brothers mail-order facility, for example, or an office park, very few people would support its placement in a residential neighborhood. But because the Y provides services that many people in this town want, those people feel it is reasonable to ask their town to bend the rules (zoning, blue line...). How a town best responds to such a request is an important question.

I don’t live near Mahackeno and I am not presently a member of the Y (although I was at one point). A new Y there won’t affect my day one way or the other. But as a citizen, I have to believe we need to have a meaningful discussion about why we’re considering making an exception for the Y. Should there be a “percentage test” applied in circumstances like this—if 25%, or 50%, or more people in Westport use the Y, is that reason enough to move ahead? What if 50% of our townspeople wanted a mega-church there?

Then, how do we balance the needs of Y users against those who live near Mahackeno, or use Route 33 at busy times of day?

This issue is not just about the Y, but about how we as a town see ourselves. Do we accede the wishes of a substantial and vocal minority? Or am I wrong in thinking it is a minority? Maybe most Westporters really do want the Y at Mahackeno.

This whole process would be easier if we knew what Westporters (any of them willing to vote in a referendum, or fill out a widely advertised online survey) wanted. Then we’d actually be closer to figuring out what was best for Westport.

I have avoided joining the fray in comments on the web regarding the Y’s move to Mahackeno until now. While I take issue with many points made by opponents of the Y, I’d like to focus on one comment at this time.  I think it is a terrible mistake to say that the new Y will be a members-only elite health club.  The Y is a wonderful organization that provides services to people of all walks of life.  As a friend of my very succinctly stated, when you walk into the Y you see diversity, the elderly who like to commingle with community members of all ages, and children from different backgrounds having access to daycare services, babysitting, after school care, and activities no other institution in town provides.  The new Y would continue to provide these kinds of services in a much needed up-to-date setting and I hope that it can do so at its new facility at Mahackeno.

You need to Register and be logged in to post comments. If you are already registered but are not logged in, you can Login here.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:

Please note by clicking on "Submit" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Inappropriate posts may be removed.

<< Back to main

Register / Log in

Registration is required to post comments.
Register  •  Login

SPONSORS

We all need help facing difficult
life issues.

Ann Abram, PhD
Certified Psychoanalyst

Individuals, Couples,
Groups Psychotherapy

203-299-0478
www.drannabram.com

Top Driver,
the nation's premier driving school, is now in Westport at
830 Post Road East

To enroll, call
1-800-374-8373
or go to
topdriver.com