View of Central Middle School fields from Stanwich Road. Photo: Leslie Yager

Thursday’s Board of Education meeting is available to view online in its five-hour entirety.

Divided BOE Votes on Combo of Engineered Natural Grass and Artificial Turf at Central Middle School

There was passionate testimony from both sides over artificial turf vs real grass fields at Central Middle School, which was a decision item on the agenda.

Currently no public middle school in Greenwich has a turf field.

Western Middle School’s fields have been out of use since contamination was discovered in 2016. Photo: Leslie Yager

The meeting was held at Western Middle School, an irony that was not lost on Gordon Beinstein, principal at the school that has not had access to its playing fields since contamination was discovered in 2016.

“I want to remind all of you that your debate is a luxury we at Western do not enjoy,” Beinstein said. “At the glacial place with which this is moving through the system I fear our fields will never open and will be Memorial Fields. …. Enough. Our kids deserve better.”

Central Middle School PE teacher Nancy Tarantino said she had transferred from Eastern Middle School despite warnings about the fields constantly being wet.

“I believed it couldn’t be that bad,” she recalled, adding, “Any time there is any precipitation on the field it becomes unusable.”

She said teachers modify lessons and the inconsistent of delivery of curriculum is unfair to students.

“We use the tennis courts to accommodate 580+ students,” she said.

Three young children testified in favor of natural grass. Dominick Casamassima said artificial turf contains elements that harm students, and that turf would have a negative effect on the climate and change levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

“The loss of plants would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed,” he said.  “In addition it would deprive many animals of their homes, and put dangerous metals such as lead, cadmium and chromium into the environment.”

Phil Tarantino testifies in favor of synthetic turf at the Feb 20 Board of Education meeting. Feb 20, 2020

Western PE Teacher Phil Tarantino, who is a former GHS baseball coach, pointed out that middle school students already play on artificial turf off campus.

“There’s turf fields everywhere in Greenwich including GHS, Brunswick, GCDS, Sacred Heart, Cos Cob Park, and the Greenwich Boys & Girls Club,” he said, adding that the field in Cos Cob Park has become the de facto home field for Western, where they play Central, and that Central teams play against private schools on their turf fields.

Hillside Rd resident Elizabeth Dempsey pointed out that turf fields require regular disinfecting. “Kids slide, especially on turf. They get bloody,” she said.

CMS principal Tom Healy who is also a coach and parent of an athlete at CMS, said middle schoolers tend to play organized sports, which increases the demand for fields, but that the community is divided.

“I know it’s a community field, and is rented the most out of any field. We’re happy to host with the appropriate surface to withstand all of that,” Healy said.

RTM member Carl Higbie whose district includes Central Middle School, said his own children will attend the Central and would debunk neighbors who oppose turf on health grounds.

“You don’t care about the kids, that’s not what you’re doing,” he said. “When you tell me it’s not environmental not friendly and you’re worried about the risk and health benefits to our children. That’s hogwash.”

Higbie went on to list the authors of an op ed opposing turf by name and question their motives.

“You all live within a 9 iron distance to the field. You don’t care about the kids. You want to lose your personal back yard. That’s disingenuous. It’s sad, dishonest and disgusting,” he said to loud applause.

Still there was loud applause for speakers defending natural grass.

Warren Silver, who was one of the neighbors Higbie described as disingenuous, said he suspected that the BOE planned to have GHS teams use a turf field at CMS.

He also noted that the petition in favor of turf had fewer than 700 signatures, and didn’t require people to be from residents of at least 18, whereas a petition against turf had  a combined online and offlie total of 2,400 signatures.

“Artificial turf has carcinogens and is bad for the kids. Period,” he said.

Laura Kostin, a CMS parent, said the existing grass field might look better if outside, for-profit groups did not rent them so often, and the town should prioritize users.

“Carmel Academy is closing and they have fields,” she said. “We have space in this town, I suggest we use it.”

Patricia Taylor, outreach director at Environment and Human Health Inc, was one of several experts who testified against artificial turf.

“By installing artificial fields you will be exposing your children and adolescent athletes daily to multiple chemicals of concern, including carcinogens, Endocrine disruptors and PFAs,” Taylor said.

Neuroscientist Sarah Evans PhD, an assistant professor of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at Mt Sinai, spoke on behalf of a collective of physicians and independent research scientists, who concluded that studies do not adequately demonstrate the safety of these products.

Former State Rep Mike Bocchino said there are no studies proving turf harms children.

“This is like a reunion with these PhDs and doctors. We had this debate in Hartford. …Not one doctor or scientist could tell us of one case that was tied, without a doubt, that cancer was caused because of a particular athletic field,” Bocchino said. “It never happened, but we go with the theater of, ‘God we’re going to get cancer from this artificial turf.'” – Mike Bocchino, former State Rep

Jeff Cordulak, former Audubon Greenwich director, said he has trained 400 landscapers to care for real grass lawns and fields organically.

“Have you all heard about drug resistant diseases that can be found and thrive on fake turf fields?” he asked. “Have you assessed and set standards about when to stop summer time play above 80° where second and third degree burns send kids to emergency rooms? Have you hired an organic specialist to bid on a natural field? Make sure you get multiple bids on grass fields.”

Cordulak argued that with some effort, the wet fields would be in better condition.

“Have you thought, ‘My gosh, these terrible fields that have no drainage have already been putting up with 50 hours of use?’ he asked. “Imagine if you get them a little treatment. Give the some drainage, give them a little food and the people to take care of them, to have pride in them.”

Around midnight the BOE voted, but not for any of the three options most residents were familiar with.

Instead they voted on a Option 4, which is similar to the hybrid Option 3 but provides a full size engineered grass baseball field as well as an artificial turf multipurpose field.

Both fields will have proper drainage. The projected cost, with escalations, is $2,265,000. (Options 1-3 did not include escalations.)

A motion to approve Option 4 was made by BOE member Joe Kelly, former longtime rugby coach at GHS, who said that while discussion from opponents of turf focused on the health of children, turf enabled kids to “get out and run around.”

“With turf the kids get a full workout,” he said. “One the ruby program I ran, we didn’t just take the top athletes, we took the kids who were not athletes. These kids would otherwise be playing Grand Theft Auto or a video game that would stop them from getting out there and running around.”

Peter Sherr balked at option 4. “I don’t know what Option 4 is. Some of you have been cooking this up,” he said.

BOE chair Peter Bernstein disagreed. “The superintendent sent it to us last week. It’s been posted.”

Mr. Sherr asked what infill would be used with Pption 4, and Mr. Bernstein replied it would be Envirofill, which is coated sand.

Project manager from Milone & MacBroom Kevin Fuselier said option 4 came about after his company’s last presentation, and that Option 3 – the hybrid option – eliminated the baseball diamond, which was unacceptable.

“We went back to the drawing board,” he said, explaining that Option 4 costs a bit more because it is bigger.

“Option 4 pushes really pushes the synthetic portion as far as we could to the west and incorporates enough size to accommodate a softball diamond.

It would have a backstop and full regulation softball field, and then accommodates a full natural grass baseball field, with a slightly truncated right field so left handed hitters will enjoy this.”

– Kevin Fuselier, Milone & MacBroom

Fuselier said Option 4 also includes 120,000 sq ft of natural grass. “It’ll be an engineered natural grass system with under drainage and amendments to the soil because we know drainage is a problem here. By lifting we will improve it and, as everyone said, it’s a compromise on surface materials.”

Sherr noted the difference between Option 1 (engineered grass with a cost of $1.1 million) and Option 4 (combination of turf and natural grass at $2.3 million).

He said he was concerned the turf might have to be ripped out if the district rebuilds Central Middle School. “Once we lay it down, we can’t reuse the carpet.”

Citing the master plan, Mr. Sherr said, “We were told the worst building in the district is Central Middle School. It needs to be replaced. It shouldn’t be renovated….the real problem is with Parks & Rec, not with the Board of Education.”

Superintendent Dr. Jones said staff works well with Parks & Rec, and that the all natural grass option would not provide enough play hours to enough to meet need.

“Going with all grass – even with a grounds keeper full time – if we go over 25 hours, which just the school alone will do – we’re going to invest a million dollars and we’ll be telling the community, ‘Oh by the way you can’t use it.’

The reality is keeping people off of it will be a challenge. You’re going to have a million dollars you invested that will probably be a mess by the end of the year.” – Dr. Toni Jones, Greenwich Schools superintendent

Mr. Sherr said Option 4 represented an additional $1.3 million over the $1million in the First Selectman’s proposed budget.

First Selectman Fred Camillo said he favored natural grass for on the grounds that children at that age don’t have a choice.

“We want to see if actually drainage on the (engineered) grass field is going to work. If we commit to it and at the end of the year it didn’t work, we’re right back to where we were. Basically with a field of mud.” – Peter Bernstein, BOE chair

Mr. Bernstein said Option 4 because provides the most flexibility.

“When we tear the building down, it still gives the ability to move the building around,” he said. “I do not want to put up a gate around this (grass) field and tell people, ‘It’s resting right now.'”

Bernstein said the Board spent time last year talking to Parks & Rec about their level of service, which he said had diminished in the 20 years that department has been responsible for school fields.

“I worry about Parks & Rec’s ability to actually do the work that was sent to them,” Bernstein said adding that last year, then superintendent Ralph Mayo tried encourage Parks & Rec to increase levels of service.

“We basically got stonewalled at the end of the year because they knew the clock was running out. It went nowhere,” Bernstein added. “Out of the 22 positions send over to Parks & Rec, two are left. Every year they basically cut the positions that serve the fields.”

He said the best fields maintained by Parks & Rec are the ones that department rents out. He said that for example, at Julian Curtiss School the baseball field that is rented out is pristine, and the one for students has a weed infield.

Meghan Olsson said she understood both sides and Option 4 was the best option.

Christina Downey said, “Our job is about the schools, not the other organizations, and the school personnel have repeatedly said we need a playable outside area.”

Karen Hirsch said she was torn but the best option was the 50-50 afforded by Option 4. She said if CMS were to be rebuilt in 10 years, that would roughly coincide with the time the turf would need to be replaced anyway.

Karen Kowalski said she the engineered real grass with proper drainage field should be given a chance to work.

After Mr. Kelly madethe motion to approve Option4, it was seconded by Kathleen Stowe.

The vote was six in favor, one opposed (Karen Kowalski), and one abstention (Peter Sherr.)

On Monday Warren Silver and Carl Higbie shared their thoughts after having the weekend to reflect.

“Money is a powerful motivator,” Mr. Silver said in an email. “It was clear that the primary proponents in favor of artificial turf were sports organizations that benefit financially due to the good graces of the town. The negative impact of artificial turf on young children’s health or the environment was not a consideration.”

In his follow up quote, Higbie said in an email, “My children will attend central middle school in the not to distant future and I want them to have a field to play on. It is quite pathetic that the opponents of turf are using false claims of negative health effects to hide behind their true intention which is to keep CMS’s field as unused as possible to benefit their personal enjoyment as their taxpayer funded back yard. To date they have spoken in broad generalities, and no one has been able to provide a single specific case of someone being harmed by modern turf.”

Photo: Greenwich Police Dept Facebook

Greenwich Police are seeking assistance from the public in identifying a woman who  entered two separate branches of the same local bank on Wednesday, Feb 12 and tried to obtain information from an account that was not hers by using a fraudulent government identification.

Police say that after being thwarted by the bank employees in each incident, the woman left the bank and fled east on East Putnam Ave before entering the passenger side of a black Jeep with an unknown temporary registration plate parked on Strickland Rd.

If you know the identity of this woman, please contact the Greenwich Police Department at 203-622-8004.

Or email at TIPS@greenwichct.org. Reference GPD Case 20-004493.

Photo: Greenwich Police Dept Facebook

Letter to the editor from Carl Higbie

The debate about whether the town that just banned plastic bags, should now mandate you to buy “special” plastic bags, wages on.

In an effort to bridge the gap on this issue and seek a reasonable solution, both economically and environmentally, I have spent a fair amount of time meeting with people on both sides. It is universally agreed that we should be thoughtful of our environment and try to reduce waste; FULL STOP.

Let me be clear, opponents of “Pay as You Throw” (PAYT) are not anti-environment and the attempt to portray us as such is what polarizes the argument and pushes the sides farther apart.

I recently met with a Greenwich based group that is advocating for composting and leans toward PAYT as the solution to reducing waste.

While it was a very good conversation, I realized that the two sides, while desirous of the same result, have diametrically opposed views on how to achieve that goal.

As with everything, you can achieve a change in behavior (in this case reducing waste) one of two ways; you can force people, or you can persuade people.

Make no mistake, the PAYT program is force, supported by the progressive left view that waste reduction is morally correct and therefore must be mandated by government to tax us poor rubes into compliance.

It is a government mandate that under penalty of law, forces you to purchase a product/service, which in practical effect penalizes you for producing waste. The proponents of PAYT say the ends justify the means. I strongly disagree.

It becomes a slippery slope when you attempt to govern in such a way, specifically imposing your moral view on others through force. By doing so you undermine the fundamental principal that we as Americans enjoy; the right to Liberty. Moreover, what is the limiting principle here? Today’s trash bag is tomorrow’s [insert any contested thing/behavior here].

Remove emotion for a minute and imagine if the government was forcing you to purchase something you didn’t agree with for “the greater good.” “The government shouldn’t force me to do something I’m are not comfortable with!” and you are right. What if it mandated you buy a different car, or forced you to purchase solar panels for your house? On the other side, what if they forced you to buy a firearm? Where does it end? This type of policy is just the tip of the progressive iceberg.

Reducing waste is an important public issue. However, beyond my conceptual objections, PAYT is a regressive tax that places an undue burden on Greenwich citizens while lining the pockets of trash haulers.

It should raise red flags for every resident that there is only one town in all of Connecticut that uses PAYT, while every other simply uses a tipping fee.

The economic rationale against PAYT is crystal clear for most residents and using the alternative tipping fee also reduces the obvious conflict of interest optics in town hall.

Here is my offer to those in favor of PAYT. Rather than force, let’s use persuasion. Our environment is an important shared resource. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you in an advocacy initiative to the educate people on waste reduction. I will support your composting
effort (at the dump, not in urban areas) and will work to get people on “my side” to produce less waste.

But I will never agree to another tax on my constituents to force an outcome, nor will I support any group that does. I certainly will never think giving as much as 30% of said tax to a private company to sell me a stupid bag is a good idea. And it’s not “just one little thing” (as I have been told by many). This is the creeping gradualism of government expansion and as a member of the RTM I will fight it.

For advocates of this program, I can be a formidable opponent or an effective ally with a massive base of support, if this is about the environment as you say you should choose to work with me rather than against.

Finally to the original problem of revenue needed to offset the cost of trash? The number of bureaucrats involved in this PAYT debacle have salaries totaling far greater than our trash disposal bills, perhaps we can start there…or go with Tipping fees like almost EVERY other town in our area.

On Sunday Fernando Arenas, 65, of Davis Ave in Greenwich turned himself in to Greenwich Police on an outstanding warrant for Unlawful Restraint 2 and Disorderly Conduct.

Police say the warrant was issued on Feb 18 and stemmed back to an incident on Jan 30, 2020 when police investigated a complaint of disorderly conduct in central Greenwich.

The victim reported having taken a taxi from the train station to a residence where there was a dispute about the fare.

The driver, Mr. Arenas, allegedly locked the taxi doors and transported the victim back to central Greenwich.

Mr. Arenas’ bond was set at $300, which he was able to post.

He has a date in Stamford Superior Court on March 9, 2020.

Lee E. Leonard, passed away suddenly on February 24, 2020 at age 63. He was born November 9, 1956, in Port Chester to Leon and Rose Leonard.

Lee worked for many years as a maintenance technician for the Town of Greenwich. A man of incredible physical strength, Lee enjoyed fitness and working out. He loved to ride his 3-wheel moped and also his trips to Grass Island.

He was an avid fan of the St. Louis Cardinals. Lee is the beloved husband of Barbara Leonard, the cherished father of Mary-Leigh Weidmann (Frank), and devoted grandfather of “Finn” Weidmann. He is the loving brother of, Gaye Simon (Mike)and Valerie Salito (Dave) and brother in law of Thomas and Jean DeGrippo and Thomas and Nancy Troy.

To honor Lee’s life, family and friends will gather on Friday, Feb 28, 2020 from 4:00-8:00pm at Coxe & Graziano Funeral Home, 134 Hamilton Ave Greenwich, CT.

Funeral Mass Saturday 10:00am at St Roch’s Church, 10 St Roch Ave, followed by entombment at St. Mary’s Cemetery.

For more information or to place an online condolence, www.coxeandgraziano.com

Letter to the editor from Janet Stone McGuigan, Old Greenwich

To those of us who care about economic fairness and efficiency, the best approach to life is to connect the costs of a behavior with the behavior itself and allow people to make educated choices with perfect information.   The current debate about “Pay As You Throw” (PAYT) illustrates that this is often easier said than done.  The issue behind PAYT is that we generate too much waste, the cost of disposing this waste is increasing, and short of simply producing less waste, the options to reduce this waste – recycling and composting – are also expensive.  Complicating this conversation is the fact that Greenwich does not offer municipal curbside pickup services and there are several types of waste generators.

It has been pointed out that Greenwich does not charge private trash haulers tipping fees.  It has also been pointed out that if tipping fees are introduced, these haulers will pass these costs on to their customers, assuming they cannot avoid these costs by going to cheaper transfer stations (which do not exist).

Greenwich should impose tipping fees, and the trash haulers will pass at least some of these costs on, but it is still the right thing to do because it connects revenue with expenditure in the Town budget.

But tipping fees are unlikely to reduce waste and the associated cost of its disposal, unless trash haulers are willing to invest the time and effort to measure reductions in the amount of waste generated and reward customers accordingly.

Putting a price tag on trash disposal by way of specially marked garbage bags does create an incentive to reduce waste.  This is a user fee, not a tax, but whatever we call it, it is an expense that is new to Greenwich residents, and the current suggestion of $2 per bag will be a noticeable increase to household expenses.

There is the hope that households will recycle a greater portion of their waste, but there is also a risk that more trash will find its way into recycling, which will only compound our waste disposal problems.  In a parallel effort we need to clean up our recycling stream and create new markets for recyclables.

The answer then, is to introduce tipping fees AND bags for purchase (though at a cost less than what is currently being suggested), in order to generate needed revenue AND change behavior.

While individual households can always do more to eliminate and reduce waste, the greatest change will probably be seen in our public institutions and local businesses.

Case in point, for as long as I have been a Greenwich school parent, our PTAs have been working hard to encourage recycling in our schools.  When successful, this has reduced the waste stream by as much as 60 percent.  But school recycling programs have their challenges.  We already ask a lot of our teachers, they should not be expected to oversee recycling programs.  Many of our schools do not have enough parent volunteers to run a successful program.  Janitors are expensive, but if we price waste disposal correctly, these labor costs can demonstrate their worth.

Lastly, concern has been voiced that imposing new charges for waste disposal will be a burden to residents on fixed incomes.  That is true, this is a regressive scheme in that sense.  A fair way to address this concern would be to provide every household and business a “reasonable” waste allowance of free bags.  That will add an administrative cost to the PAYT program, albeit one that may be deemed fair.

Taking out the garbage is no fun, but rather than an onerous chore, Greenwich should see this as a collective game.  We are capable of sorting this out.  Ready, set, go!

Janet Stone McGuigan, Old Greenwich

This report was written by David Gurliacci and was originally published on sister site Darienite.com

When a 57-year-old Greenwich man refused to pay his bill at a downtown Darien restaurant Friday night, Darien Police said the dispute eventually led to the man kicking a police officer in the groin, getting arrested and returning to the restaurant to get his lost wallet — resulting in another argument, violence, call to police and charges.

All within three hours.

Darien police described what happened with this account, including accusations not proven in court. All quotes are from the police announcement on Tuesday:

Feb. 21, 2020 arrest photo of Andrew Herz, 57, of Flower Lane, Greenwich. Photo: Darien Police

Andrew Herz of Flower Lane in Greenwich ate  with another person at The Goose restaurant, 972 Post Rd and refused to pay his bill.

The police announcement did not say what reason Herz gave, if any, but Herz didn’t immediately leave the restaurant after talking to the restaurant manager, who tried to make arrangements for eventual payment.

Herz made “threatening remarks” to the manager, who told Herz that he’d be calling police about the situation. Herz then became “increasingly verbally abusive.” Police were called at 9:04 pm.

Police then tried to make arrangements with Herz to pay his bill, “but Herz continued to be unreasonable and verbally abusive.” Police then told him they were going to arrest him.

He resisted being handcuffed, and that caused a commotion in the restaurant. As officers struggled with Herz, he struck one in the groin, but the officer did not sustain an injury.

Eventually, police got Herz under control and took him to Police headquarters on charges of Larceny 6, Interfering with an Officer, Breach of Peace and Threatening. He was later released on a promise to appear in court.

Herz then went back to the restaurant to get his car keys and other personal belongings.

Restaurant employees told Herz that they did not have any of his possessions, which led to Herz become “verbally abusive” and spit on two of them.

He also threw rocks at the restaurant windows, according to the employees.

Police were called at 11:40 pm and Herz denied the employees’ version of what happened (the police announcement did not give particulars of his version). A restaurant patron confirmed the employee’s version.

Police told Herz that none of his belongings were in the restaurant, and he was issued a misdemeanor summons charging him with another count of Breach of Peace. He is scheduled to appear March 3 on all the charges.

Herz is known to Greenwich police. On January 6, 2020 Herz was charged with Breach of Peace  and Criminal Mischief 2 after allegedly throwing rocks at a Lyft driver’s car and breaking its windshield after the driver declined to give him a ride.

8 Hickory Drive.

8 Hickory Drive and 0 Hickory Drive.

Land behind 8 Hickory Drive and 0 Hickory Drive slopes down to Caroline Place.

On Monday night about 20 residents of Pemberwick and Glenville, in the area of Hickory Drive, attended a Wetlands meeting to express concerns over an application from Sound View Engineers & Land Surveyors for Yury Sofman.

The applicant seeks to demolish an existing house at 8 Hickory Drive and construct new one with a driveway, deck and drainage. The adjacent vacant lot, referred to as “0 Hickory,” would also get a house, driveway, deck and drainage.

The applicant also seeks to relocated a watercourse at 8 Hickory which has fringing wetlands.

Robert Clausi, the Senior Wetland Analyst, said Wetlands Agency members had conducted a site visit last Friday.

The application does not propose a subdivision because the lots were already separate.

Clausi said the application requirements have been addressed, with the exception of there being only one alternative, and it does not show an alternative location for the proposed house.

“Perhaps a variance could be obtained from ZBA to allow the house be shifted closer to the road,” he suggested.

He said another alternative might to preserve all or some of the watercourse the applicant proposes to eliminate.

Clausi described the proposed elimination and creation of the watercourse as a very significant activity.

He said the applicant has an obligation to show there is no prudent and feasible alternative.

The applicant proposes to remove two dozen large trees from the upland review area, across the two parcels, to accommodate construction and grading, and to change the plantings from a large tree canopy to a low shrub situation with scattered trees.

“The change in cover type has not been justified by the applicant,” Clausi said.

Also, he said the applicant’s proposal to mitigate for the 1,009 sq ft of wetland watercourse proposed for elimination is to create 1,190 sq ft of new watercourse channel and emergent wetland.

“We need more information regarding the configuration of the watercourse channel. This channel is shown going down at a 15% slope. There are a lot of rock outcroppings on the slope.

“The slope is  uniform, so if the channel fails to contain the flows, there could be sedimentation to the eastern portion of the pond side watercourse,  impairment to drainage structures connecting the property to the Byram River, or adverse impacts to abutting properties down slope.” – Robert Clausi, Senior Wetland Analyst

Clausi said the existing watercourse channel near the house has eroded banks.

“I recommend this agency delay this application, but note that failure to bring alternatives in a timely manner may lead to the denial of application as incomplete,” he said.

Licensed professional engineer with Sound View Engineers, Bryan Muller

Licensed professional engineer with Sound View Engineers, Bryan Muller, representing the applicant, Yury Sofman, said, “We are going to be working diligently over the next month to bring in an additional alternative.”

“The existing stream channel’s placement is terrible and creates scouring and erosion and needs to be reworked. An alternative would also be to do nothing. We’ll take the delay and come back next month to answer your questions,” Muller continued, adding, “We’re making the new watercourse better than existing. We will analyze the whole watershed.”

During public comment, Cindy Lyall, whose home is behind and below the proposed houses, said she feared an adverse impact.

“The change in grading and elimination of watercourse are troubling,” she said. “My property and neighbors are in an incredibly vulnerable position.”

John Sayers of Caroline Place agreed and said any changes to the stream would be troubling.

“It’s a steep slope, and a lot of water comes down that slope,” Sayers said. “It’s a lovely little stream….Knocking down trees that have been there for 5o years is troubling to me. The water is coming right at us.”

Elana Gershon, whose property on Hickory Drive borders the proposed new houses said she trees would be irreplaceable.

“They are beautiful old trees. An amazing amount of wildlife lives in the trees,” she said, adding that there are night owls nesting in them. “I don’t understand how you can squeeze two properties in there without disruption.”

Scott James, also a resident of Hickory Drive, noted 20 neighbors were present at the meeting because the proposal represented a significant change for the neighborhood.

“We’re not experts on plans, but we know there are significant changes and repercussions, including removal of trees and large rhododendron bushes,” Mr. James added. “The stream runs 24/7 and there is a lot of water above…The previous owner was over there unblocking it all the time and was meticulous.”

“You’re testifying that the stream is not intermittent?” vice chair Elliot Benton asked.

“It flows 24/7,” Mr. James replied. “I guess there are springs further up because the people on the other side of Hickory also have issues.”

Mark Heminway said considering the Byram River is filling up, he was concerned about any waterway. “Please make sure anything they disturb doesn’t roll down into the river,” he said.

Bill Elam of Caroline Place said he had to rebuild a stone wall twice because of changes that had been made to an upstream property. “Even after a little rain storm, you can hear the water rushing,” he said.

John Kowalski of 1 Hickory Drive said more water comes from over the state line in Port Chester, and that one neighbor who made changes to his house created significant impact to the neighborhood.

After public comments, a motion to delay was seconded and the application will be continued, likely to March 23.

This year Neighbor to Neighbor will celebrate its 45th anniversary at their Spring Benefit Luncheon featuring two Celebrity chef speakers.

Award winning New York Times food columnist and cookbook author Dorie Greenspan, and New York Times Magazine food editor and food columnist Sam Sifton will engage in conversation and take questions from the audience.

The event will take place on Wednesday, April 1, 2020, 11:30 am to 2:00 pm at Greenwich Country Club.

Tickets are available to purchase on the Neighbor to Neighbor website www.ntngreenwich.org

Sifton’s new cookbook, See You on Sunday, launched this past week and will be given to every ticket holder, compliments of Neighbor to Neighbor.

In addition, Dorie Greenspan’s most recent cookbook, Everyday Dorie, will be given to Patron level ticket holders, and it will be available for purchase.

Greenspan has written 13 cookbooks, including her latest, Everyday Dorie and Dorie’s Cookies. A best-selling author, she was inducted into the Who’s Who of Food & Beverage in America and has won five James Beard Awards and two Cookbook of the Year Awards from the International Association of Culinary Professionals. She is a columnist for the New York Times Magazine and lives in New York City, Westbrook, CT and Paris. You can find her at @doriegreenspan

Sam Sifton is the food editor of The New York Times, a food columnist for the New York Times Magazine, and the founding editor of NYT Cooking, The Times’ award-winning digital recipe service. Formerly the newspaper’s restaurant critic, national news editor, and culture editor, his “What to Cook” newsletter for The New York Times has an audience of more than 2 million people. You can find him @samsifton.

Neighbor to Neighbor is an independent 501c3 non-profit organization that helps to improve the lives of financially challenged Greenwich residents with access to nutritious food, clothing and basic living essentials in an atmosphere of kindness and respect. They offer an ongoing selection of fresh meat, eggs, canned goods, produce, whole grains and milk.

Additionally, they can provide new or gently used clothing. Individual clients have been recommended by social services or another organization and come to Neighbor to Neighbor by appointment.

Hunger and food insecurity impacts many people in town. 20% of residents lack the income needed to cover basic necessities. 28% of Greenwich Public School students qualify for free or subsidized lunches. Experiencing food insecurity at a young age can have lasting effects on children’s development, health and well-being, especially if families have to choose between food and medical care. Providing proper nutrition benefits our community in so many ways. When individuals thrive, an entire community can thrive.

Neighbor to Neighbor provides for families and individuals through donations from individuals as well as food and clothing donation drop-offs. They accept canned goods and groceries as well as gently used clothing, bedsheets, diapers and small household items. Donation Tax receipts are available at time of visit. Local businesses and non-profits partner with the organization to sponsor off-campus drives for food, winter coats, diapers, new toys at the holidays, gently used prom dresses, and backpacks filled with school supplies.

Greenwich Country Club is located at 19 Doubling Rd in Greenwich.

Norman Roth, President and CEO at Greenwich Hospital/ Executive Vice President of Yale New Haven Health System, testified before the Greenwich Planning & Zoning commission at a pre-application meeting on the proposed Smilow Cancer Center. Feb 25, 2020

Greenwich Hospital, which happens to be the biggest employer in the Town of Greenwich, participated in a non-binding “pre-application” meeting with Greenwich Planning and Zoning commission on Tuesday night.

The possible project, the Greenwich Hospital Smilow Cancer Center, would be at the corner of Lafayette and Lake Avenue.

The concept of pre-application, referred to as “pre-preliminary,” is new, and the commission joked that the hospital would be guinea pigs for the process, which has the worthy intention of avoiding getting into minutia early in the application process.

The new cancer center would be 80,000 square feet and three stories high, and replace a parking lot and a row of buildings along Lake Ave.

Parking would be for 195 cars in garage and 55 surface spaces. They would seek a rezoning from RMF to H-2, just as is across the street. Permitted Floor Area Ratio would be amended from .6 to .9FAR. There would be amendments to increase both height and lot coverage.

It was noted that the proposal would work toward POCD objective 6.4, which is to meet the long term health care needs of the Greenwich community.

The property currently comprises separate parcels in the area of the traffic circle, where Perryridge, Lake Ave, Lafayette and William Street meet, that would be combined into one.

The Hospital’s attorney for the pre-application is Tom Heagney, who said the idea of pre-application is to seek guidance, thoughts, suggestions and concerns from the commission before the formal process begins.

“The applicant has the advantage of not developing plans only to find out they’re moving in the wrong direction,” Heagney said.

Norman Roth gave a bit of history of Greenwich Hospital, which when founded in 1903 was originally on Milbank Avenue, where it operated until 1917. After a new Greenwich Hospital was built on Perryridge Road, renovations occurred in the 40s 50s and 60s. In the 90s there was a new zoning amendment that created the H1 and H2 zones, which led to the renovation and new construction of today’s Greenwich Hospital. The Helmsley Pavilion opened in 1999. The Watson building opened in 2006. Since 2015 the hospital has focused on improving services within the organization.

Hospital CEO Norman Roth said by the end of 2020 the hospital hopes to have 200 of their 206 beds in private rooms.

He said moving physical therapy out of the hospital has meant about 140 cars came out of the hospital’s garages.

Mr. Roth said that 30 years ago there were 5,200 independent hospitals in the US, and 100% of the 36 hospitals in Connecticut were independent.

Today there are only 4 independent hospitals out of 25 that continue to operate in Connecticut.

Greenwich Hospital is part of the Yale New Haven Health System, but still operates as a local hospital with the mission of serving the residents of Greenwich.

Roth said 53% of the 12,750 in-patients treated each year reside in Westchester County, remaining 47% are overwhelmingly from the Town of Greenwich.

Roth said the hospital is failing to fulfill the hospital’s mission of serving health care needs of Greenwich by having inadequate and incomplete Oncology services.

Fifty percent of Greenwich cancer patients are going elsewhere for treatment. There is one  exception, which is the treatment of breast cancer patients.

“The majority are remaining here for treatment because of the outstanding reputation of Barbara Ward and Alyssa Gillego, the two surgeons who are treating them,” he said. “And they are primarily in classifications 1 and 2, the lowest levels of aggressive cancer.”

Concept sketch of new Greenwich Hospital Smilow Cancer Center included in pre-application discussed with P&Z. The new facility would be for outpatient treatment and testing. No inpatient hospital space would be provided. It would allow for increased radiation oncology, medical oncology treatment and clinic and breast imaging.

The potential new building would have breast a cancer center on the third level. The second level would house medical oncology and medical treatment.

P&Z chair Margarita Alban said the commission was reluctant to see a regional facility, but rather would prefer one that offers something for Greenwich residents.

Mr. Roth explained that there are 63,000 Greenwich residents and nearly 40% of them take their health care outside of Greenwich.

“If we only provided care to Greenwich residents we would be a 60-bed hospital, not a 206-bed hospital,” he said, adding that at that size they would not be viable.

Roth said the main attraction for non-residents to Greenwich Hospital is Obstetrics.

Roth said 65% of the 2,700 births at the hospital are for people from Westchester, Rockland County, New Jersey and Brooklyn. Also, he said Orthopedic services draw from out of town.  “We do about 1,000 total joints per year,” he said.

“Greenwich is regarded nationally one of the top hospitals in the country for patient experience and satisfaction,” he said.

“We’re trying make the transition from being regarded as a wonderful place to have a baby to a place where you can get expert, academic faculty level services that better meet the health care needs of our residents.”

– Norman Roth, President and CEO at Greenwich Hospital, Executive Vice President of Yale New Haven Health System

“Each year 1,000 Greenwich residents are picked up by GEMS and deemed trauma and brought to another hospital 6.6 miles away,” he said, referring to Stamford Hospital’s Level II trauma center. “To me that is our failure to provide the services necessary to meet the basic healthcare needs of Greenwich residents.”

Roth said there is $435 million of annual revenue at Greenwich Hospital and $5.2 billion at Yale New Haven.

“We are all non-profit, so all the operating margin we generate gets reinvested in the organization to further improve health care services,” Roth said. “Being non-profit you’d think we are entirely exempt, but the state of Connecticut has a gross receipts tax, in which Greenwich Hospital pays $30 million to Connecticut a year. From there, there is a minor distribution for under-compensated care and we get $2 million back.”

He said that leaves $28 million the hospital has to make back each year.

At the end of the discussion, which focused on the issue of regionalization, the commission asked the applicant to return with a summary of data and list of priorities.

Commissioner Peter Lowe said a 80,000 sq ft building would be “an elephant.”

“I encourage you to determine what your priorities are. If the commission said 80,000 sq ft is too much, or 60,000 sq ft is too much,” he said.

Attorney Heagney said the applicant would return with answers to questions and comments and continue the non binding pre-application process, tentatively next month.

Letter to the Editor on  from the BET Democrats, Leslie Moriarty, Laura Erickson, Miriam Kreuzer, Beth Krumeich, Jeff Ramer and David Weisbrod

We strongly favor keeping the “Green” in Greenwich and smart environmental programs
that enhance our sustainability efforts.

We cannot, however, support the Pay As You Throw (PAYT) program – as it is being pushed through – because it imposes a significant new cost on our residents and businesses without adequate public input, metrics to evaluate the stated environmental benefits, and basic details about its implementation plan.

The plan is a rushed attempt designed mainly to address budgetary gaps, rather than a thoughtful environmental approach that has community buy-in and support.

• First Selectman Camillo and his staff does not have basic data on current volumes on commercial vs. residential trash and recycling, cannot answer questions about how the
program will impact commercial entities or non-profits.

These communities behave very differently and require separate waste reduction solutions. There are no developed metrics to identify success. Without understanding our baseline and the level (and type) of reduction desired, we would not be able to evaluate the program’s success.

• The Town’s consultant and chief advocate for PAYT, WasteZero, would also be the sole vendor, earning $658,000 in the first year. This raises concerns of a conflict of interest.

• The WasteZero assessment of a 44% reduction in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) appears highly optimistic, is based on broad data samples rather than Greenwich specific data.

Greenwich has a recycling rate of about 40%, among the highest rates in Connecticut. Realistically how much additional reduction in MSW can be achieved when we start from such a high base? Food scraps and other organic waste are said to represent 25% of MSW, but an approach to invest in a townwide food scraps waste diversion plan is lacking. Such an option could play a significant role in redirecting waste as would a multiple stream recycling program which would generate higher quality recyclables which are easier to market.

• Virtually every Connecticut municipality, aside from Greenwich charges trash haulers a tipping fee to cover waste removal cost. Adopting such fee structure would provide an alternative revenue source to the Town, allow Greenwich time to establish genuine waste- reduction and public outreach strategies, and to determine baseline metrics and targets, that will inspire greater citizen confidence and result in a more successful program.

Greenwich residents deserve to know that all revenue will be used to address ongoing environmental needs and not just serve as an alternative to the property tax.

BET Democrats:
Leslie Moriarty
Laura Erickson
Miriam Kreuzer
Beth Krumeich
Jeff Ramer
David Weisbrod

My family has a problematic sock situation. Does yours? It’s been going on since my firstborn. Now that we have four young kids, the socks have multiplied by the hundreds in every color, shape, and size. It makes my time spent in the laundry room that much more daunting, if that’s even possible.

I’ve tried multiple ways to tackle this problem! Getting the kids involved and having a “whoever matches the most socks wins” contest. I’ve attempted to toss some of them. I’ve tried buying the same socks for each person; I always buy those black ankle socks from Costco. No matter what I try, it seems that there are always socks missing and still a ton of leftovers when I’m through matching.

There are the newborn socks, which I’m convinced will one day turn up, and I’ll file them into a cute little memory box that I’ll savor for years to come.

There are my husband’s work socks, one half missing for years, but are too fancy, essential, and soft to just give up on now.

There are the trampoline park socks (you know what I’m talking about!). The ones that you are always charged for, that you usually forget when you go anyway, but the ones that you can’t possibly toss out in case the other ones show up.

Then there are the ski socks, half socks, slip-proof socks, gifted and free socks, playdate socks (aka socks leftover from unidentified little friends), and small mittens that somehow get mixed in with socks.

And don’t get me started on black socks. They all look the same; they’re like a big black hole that I can’t climb out of.

For the time being, and until I can get a better grasp on some sort of resolution to this, all socks go into one large laundry basket, if you need socks and are lucky enough to find a match it’s a good day!

One thing is sure, though: spring and summer are coming, which means fewer socks (hurray!) and more time for matching in my free time.

So if you see my kids wearing mismatched socks as mittens, or wearing their mom’s socks during gym class one day, now you know why. So don’t judge, we must all be in this sock crisis together!

Rock ’em sock ’em,

Email questions to Lauren and Jessie at Momtourage Media: lauren@momtouragemedia.com or jessie@momtouragemedia.com or both!
Follow us on Instagram: @momtouragemedia
Follow us on Pinterest: Momtourage Media

Create Lifelong Summer Camp Memories with Sandpipers and More! OGRCC’s camp registration is now OPEN!

OGRCC is thrilled to announce lots of exciting camp options for all ages and interests! Our camp experiences help children discover talents and interests, build self-esteem and confidence, and, most of all, the opportunity to create memories and foster friendships. We offer camps from June 22 through August 28 in tennis, rugby, soccer, art, and science. We also offer our popular Sandpipers’ Beach Camp at Tod’s Point. Camps are open to all.

Sandpipers Beach Camp
Sandpipers Beach Camp is not just a summer camp. It is a summer family. For children ages 3 – 12, no other camp provides an authentic beach camp experience at an affordable price. Young campers gather from all over to enjoy the serene setting of beautiful land and beach. In their bright yellow shirts with the Sandpiper bird logo, you will find groups of children swimming, playing in the sand, exploring, climbing, playing outdoor games, crafting, and more! This outdoor adventure offers four exciting bi-weekly themes between June 22 – August 13 from 9:00 – 3:00 pm.

“This year, we have four new themes and special crafts and activities planned for each session. We keep the cost affordable at $375 per two-week session. We will also continue the traditions of Sandpipers with field trips to Island Beach, BBQ at the beach, and classic games and fun,” said Yuki Ikeda, Program Director of the OGRCC and Co-Director of Sandpipers.”

● Party in the USA: June 22 – July 2
● Fun in the Sun: July 6 – July 16
● Tropical Paradise: July 20 – July 30
● Come Sail Away: August 3 – August 13

“We encourage kids not just to follow a schedule but to help push them to find creative ways to entertain themselves unplugged during free time,” said Jenna Pelazza, Co-Director of Sandpipers.

Art & Science Camps
Relax in the afternoon with either summer painting and/or science. Unleash your creativity with weekly themed art sessions from beaches, flowers, pets, and more. Or perhaps learn about NASA or Fizzy Sticky Boom experiments with our NEW Mad Science camp. Join us all summer for two-hour afternoon camp sessions 4:00 – 6:00 pm.

Sports Camps
Calling all sports enthusiasts! We offer sports specific camps in tennis, rugby, and soccer. Jon Bott and his dynamic team lead the tennis camp with new skills and drills and lots of games and fun. Love rugby and want to hone your skills – beginner and advanced rugby options available with our partner, The Rugby Advantage. Get ready for fall soccer with one week Pro Soccer Camps run by Mickey Kydes Soccer. This camp focuses on skills, imagination, style, and flair of the individual player.

Camp sign-ups have started. If you are interested in learning more, please visit myogrcc.org or call our office at 203-637- 3659.

Don’t forget to register soon as there are limited spots, and sessions are filling up quickly. The OGRCC offers a variety of camps from beach camp, soccer, art, tennis, and rugby to excite and occupy the kiddos this summer. Residency not required to attend camp sessions.

Visit myogrcc.org/camps to learn more.

The Old Greenwich-Riverside Community Center promotes a sense of community by providing recreational athletic, educational and social programs. Celebrating over 75 years of providing programs and events to the Greenwich community, the OGRCC has increased its membership from 30 in 1943 to nearly 1,800 today and expanded its programming from the original programs to a wide variety of social, educational and athletic programs – thanks to strong leadership and an engaged Board of Directors.

Community volunteers and financial support continue to be an essential component to the growth of the OGRCC! More information may be found on the web at myogrcc.org or by calling (203) 637-3659.

On Saturday around 6:45pm several Greenwich Police officers responded to a residence in central Greenwich on a report of a man assaulting a victim.

While on scene, police determined that Bradford Stroble, 42, of Edgewood Ave was heavily intoxicated, caused a disturbance and struck the victim.

Stroble was arrested and charged with Assault 3 and Disorderly Conduct.

His bond was set at $1,000 which he was unable to post. He has a date in Stamford Superior Court on March 9, 2020.

Letter to the editor from Jude Braunstein, Susan Rudolph, Warren Silver, Liane Tel and Arthur Yee MD

Congratulations to the Board of Education and Chairman Peter Bernstein for hosting what has to have been the most outrageous display of disrespect, incivility and intimidation at a BoE meeting ever.

We believed we live in a democracy where everyone’s opinions and points of view should be shared and considered without fear of repercussion or intimidation. Thursday night’s BoE meeting was a disgraceful display of anger and mean spiritedness that was allowed to run rampant by Peter Bernstein and other members of the BoE.

For more than three years, a small group of us have been lobbying and educating the community on the inherent dangers of artificial turf. We have spoken at more than a dozen public meetings, have written articles and have gathered the support of more than 2,500 Greenwich residents who do not support the use of artificial turf on our middle school fields. And we have done this with respect.

We have never made this debate personal, have never intimidated anyone and a have maintained a level of respect for the democratic process. This cannot be said for the proponents of artificial turf who attended the meeting last night and made this debate very personal and very combative.

These Johnny-come-latelies to the debate arrived at the BoE meeting ready for a fight, armed with inaccuracies and lies as they attempted to make their point by shouting down our experts, independent scientist and medical professionals from Mount Sinai ICAHN School of Medicine and Environment and Human Health, Inc. and heckling us whilst we presented our facts and findings.

But that was not the worst, they came armed with our names and addresses, our political affiliations, values of our homes and the cars we drove presumably to make a point that our argument was a selfish case of NIMBY (not in my backyard). This feeble attempt to intimidate and discredit us, failed spectacularly on all counts.
@ Carl Higbie, check your facts. For the record, we all don’t drive V8 trucks, we never said there was an NFL or professional sports team who brought a case about AT, the health risks to our children are not “hog wash” they are in fact, very real, and have been verified by independent agencies and public health professionals. We are not a small few that oppose artificial turf. There are another 2,500 Greenwich residents who also oppose its use. “Sad, disgusting and pathetic” are hardly words to characterize who we are but given how uniformed you are about everything else, we are not surprised by your characterization.

Where did the notion of extending out backyards come from? This is not only a false assertion, it’s a ridiculous one. We do not need to extend our backyards or to use CMS as a de facto dog run. What we need and what we want are safe playing fields for our children and shame on all of you for not wanting the same.

We can only suppose that when the evidence is irrefutable, the only alternative is to discredit the messenger.

Proponents of artificial turf repeatedly highlighted that the infill used was no longer crumb rubber and a new “healthier” infill was now being used. How very naïve and ill-informed to think that alternative infills are safe and that they are our sole objection.

The 400,000 pounds of infill is only part of the problem, the 40,000 pounds of plastic used to create the blades and backing, the carcinogenic chemicals, the endocrine disruptors and the PFAs (a polymer chemical compound) are our concerns. And frankly, they should be yours. We are very much concerned about the impact leaching chemicals will have on our water table and ultimately the impact on the environment.

Assuming the 25-30 hours of playing time on real grass is correct, Milone and MacBroom’s Option 1 proposed a 170,000 square foot natural grass field. According to the National Federation of State High School Association rules, a US high school soccer field is 55,000 square feet. Therefore, Central Middle School’s field is large enough to accommodate three regulation-size soccer fields. This will enable Parks and Recreation sufficient time to rest one field whilst using the other fields, thereby providing 75 hours of weekly playing time or nearly 11 hours of playing time PER DAY.

In an attempt to sway the Board of Education’s decision, artificial turf proponents presented inaccuracies designed to confuse facts and attempted to discredit those in opposition, but their efforts were unnecessary. It was undeniably clear that the Board of Education came to this meeting as close-minded as ever, unmoved by the facts and unwavering in their decision to turf
our middle school fields.

The question still remains why?

Jude Braunstein
Susan Rudolph
Warren Silver
Liane Tel
Arthur Yee MD

Inside the trash facility at Holly Hill municipal solid waste is pushed into trucks. Contributed photo

On March 4 the Greenwich Conservation Commission, Waste Free Greenwich, GRAB, and CT DEEP will hold a lecture at Central Middle School titled, “Is Greenwich top of the garbage pile in global waste crisis: Pay-As-You-Throw Program Explained.”

The event runs from 7:00 – 8:30 pm.

Speakers will include Kristen Brown, of WasteZero Inc, a consultant for the CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, and Julie DesChamps of GRAB & Waste Free Greenwich.

Ms. Brown of Waste Zero will present the details and expected outcomes of the PAYT program.

The Conservation Commission says garbage collection and disposal should be considered a utility, and that the March 4 lecture will provide residents with an outlook on the trash future and how the Town and its partners seek opportunities to lessen the burden.

“Pay As You Throw is a trash program to help motivate people’s actions through the use of special garbage bags, which, like a utility, one only pays for what one uses,” the Conservation Commission said in a release. “The small, upfront cost of the bags has proven highly successful in reducing trash by 40-60% among the 550 northeast communities that use this system.”

If approved, the PAYT program would begin on Oct 1, 2020.

The price of the bags – $2.00 for 33 gallon and $1.25 for 13 gallons – is based on the tip fees the town pays to bring Municipal Solid Waste from Holly Hill to an incinerator.

Both recycling and MSW disposal costs are rising steeply, though there is still some market for recycling. It costs $65 a ton to remove recycling, versus $93 a ton for trash removal.

If approved, PAYT would have a grace period for fines from Oct 1 to Jan 1, 2021. After Jan 1, 2021 fines would be $100 for first violation, $250 for second, and $1,000 thereafter.

Central Middle School is located at 9 Indian Rock Lane.

See also:

Diving Into Pay As You Throw Proposal for Municipal Solid Waste in Greenwich

The GHS Varsity girls basketball team will play Round 1 of States at home on Monday, March 2 at 6:00 pm on the recently repaired Greenwich High School gym floor.

The team is on fire coming off of their strongest FCIAC performance in several years.

With a record of 14-6, they enter the State tournament as the 13th seed in the LL division.

Come cheer them on as they play against Enfield.

If they are successful Monday, they continue to round 2 on Thursday.

The Dance Team is scheduled to perform at half time.

After months of meetings and public comment, on Tuesday night the Planning and Zoning commission voted on two applications from Second Congregational Church that involved interesting discussion of what is a commercial use on a church property and what is not.

First, the application to rezone 48 Maple Ave to Historic Overlay and allow the church to rent offices on the second floor to for-profit businesses was approved in a vote of 4-1 with the commission chair Margarita Alban voting against.

The second approval was unanimous in favor of a final site plan and special permit that included use of the first floor for Abilis coffee shop, “Coffee for Good,” which will provide vocational training for adults with disabilities.

While Alban had objected to the commercial use being introduced on the second floor for offices under the HO, she said in the site plan/special permit application, the coffee shop was not considered a commercial use but rather a religious use that was an extension of the church mission.

The Historic Overlay approval does mean the building will be preserved in perpetuity.

For months the commission’s reluctance in granting the the Historic Overlay was that it would allow more potential FAR for future development on site.

On Tuesday, Dennis Yeskey noted the Historic District Commission had endorsed the preservation of the building and suggested the commission could request that preservation not be limited to the Mead House, which dates back to 1858, but to the entire site.

Yeskey said the HO would, under section 6-109(d)5, grant the commercial use of the property even though it is in a residential zone, and is within 1,000 ft of another zone.

“It’s a beautiful property….It’s at one of the highest points in downtown Greenwich and the church is a navigational point off the Sound,” he said.

“So I think we’d like to include in the motion the notion that it’s not just a building, but it’s the entire spatial relationship around the building,” he continued, adding that there would be a “close and stringent review of any potential future development on the site.”

“If we grant this HO they’ll have to preserve this building,” Yeskey said. “We would like to move ahead at this point.”

“I disagree,” Alban said, referring to the approval of the commercial use for offices on the second floor.

“My sense is that this is a tipping point. And if we want to protect a residential neighborhood, when they already have commercial uses, I don’t want to increase the level of commercial use.” – Margarita Alban, P&Z chair

Alban pointed out the Abilis coffee shop was not a commercial use, but rather a use protected under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law passed in 2000.

“The ability to add rental space for offices crosses a line that I believe should not be crossed,” she added. “I have very strong feelings about this.”

Certainly the adjacent neighbors have disagreed too. At a previous meeting, Doreen Pearson asked, “Is there no limit to the commercialization of a non profit? The church becomes subordinate for all these activities.”

But, other than Ms. Alban the commissioners favored the commercial use.

Nick Macri said, “On that portion of the street there is a mix of commercial and residential. …I don’t think we’ll be changing it drastically.”

“A good example is up the street where a building was saved and you’d never know a difference,” Macri added, referring to 96 Maple where Greenwich Academy received an HO and now operates the Cowan Center, which is the school’s daycare center.

Mr. Levy agreed with Mr. Levy and Mr. Yeskey. “The status is changing from not-for-profit to being able to have a profit making business on site…To my point of view, I don’t mind the idea. It takes some burden off the membership.”

Ms. Goss also agreed.  “I think it would relieve some burden off the church to have office use here.”

Ms. Alban detailed her objections to the commercial use.

“In regard to us easing the burden to the church, I believe that is not within our scope and we should not have considered that matter,” she said. “We are not here to help churches survive.”

“We are not here any more than if a store on Greenwich Ave told us they couldn’t survive unless we did (granted) a zoning incentive. That’s not our job and should not be part of our consideration.

“I recognized there are mixed uses including institutional uses, but there is a strong distinction between non-profit and for-profit and it is our role to protect residential neighborhoods.” – Margarita Alban, P&Z chair  

Mr. Yeskey moved to approved the HO, and change the zone from R20 to R20-HO. The vote was 4-1 with Ms Alban opposed, and Macri, Yeskey, Goss and Levy in favor.

Next, Mr. Yeskey made a motion to approve the Site Plan and Special Permit application to change the space previously occupied by Act II consignment shop to the Abilis “Coffee for Good,” for vocational training of adults with disabilities.

Ms. Alban said she was strongly in favor of the application.

“The Coffee for Good – I admire the purpose,” she said. “From a zoning purpose it’s an extension of the church mission.”

The vote was 5-0 with Alban, Yeskey, Levy, Goss and Macri voting in favor.

And while the vote was unanimous, the commission placed many conditions on the approval, including a required soft opening with no outdoor seating and 23 seats instead of the requested 46 seats, because of concerns about traffic and parking, and proximity to the busy intersection of Maple and Putnam Ave.

The applicant was asked to return to P&Z in three to six months with an update on traffic and parking, at which time the commission will reconsider the operation expanding to 46 seats.

Subscribe to the GFP newsletter here.

Another condition was the church significantly beef up the landscaping on the north and west to protect neighbors.

The applicant must provide sufficient parking for Coffee for Good during hours of operation 8:00am to 6:00pm Monday through Friday, and for staff from 7:30am to 7:30pm.

Also, new external lighting to the rear have to meet regulations.

The applicant was also asked to minimize parking in front of the building.

See also:

P&Z Watch: Pre-Application Begins on Potential 80,000 sq ft Greenwich Hospital Smilow Cancer Center

Mark S Wnek.Feb 27, 2020 Photo courtesy Greenwich Police Dept

On Monday Greenwich Police Dept Warrants and Extraditions Unit traveled to Queens County Criminal Court building in New York and took Mark S Wnek, 53, of 94 Business Park Drive in Armonk, NY into custody for extradition back to Connecticut.

94 Business Park Drive in Armonk is the address associated with La Quinta Inn & Suites.

Greenwich Police say back in October 2019 Mr. Wnek stayed at a local hotel, accepted their hospitality and services, and then departed without paying the bill. The subsequent investigation determined that Mr. Wnek had no intention of paying the bill at the time he checked in.

Greenwich Police obtained an arrest warrant for Mr. Wnek and on Feb 20 he was stopped at JFK airport as he was attempting to leave the country. He was charged as a fugitive at that time by New York authorities, based upon the active arrest warrant.

Mr. Wnek was charged with Larceny 3. His bond was set at $20,000. He has a date in Stamford Superior Court on March 9, 2020.

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave
Greenwich, CT 06830

OPEN HOUSE:
Sunday, March 1, 2020
1:00pm to 4:00 pm

Two Units: priced at $2,925,000 and 2,995,000 respectively

Bedrooms: 4
Baths: 4 full, 1 Half
Sq Ft: 4,500
MLS: #104699

Listed by: Denise Rosato
The Rosato Group
Division of Coldwell Banker
66 Field Point Rd
Greenwich, CT 06830-6473
Email: denise.rosato@cbmoves.com
Mobile: (203) 829-7441
Office: (203) 622-4000

Upscale and Chic in Downtown Greenwich!

Brand New Construction ”Classical Modern” Luxury on Milbank. Two very distinctive 3-4 Bedroom, 4-1/2 Bath Town homes that will satisfy the most discerning tastes.

The Design Team Lead by Nicola Arpaia Architects and finished by Lynn Cone Interior Architectural Design. Each Town home has a uniquely styled detail that is unmatched.

Open floor plans that Invite each guest to a quality of luxury not seen in downtown Greenwich before. Gourmet kitchens with Italian Quartz Center Island with Gaggenau appliances, Linear Gas Fireplaces, custom french doors that lead to an enchanting garden oasis with custom stonework and spa, a translucent glass stairway leads you to oversized luxurious Master Suites with Trey Ceilings, Spa-Like Master Bathroom with heated floors & free standing tubs.

Finished lower level provide endless possibilities, with full Media Room, wine cellar, and optional 4th bedroom/Au pair suite. Each unit has attached two-car heated garages, stunning rooftop deck with sweeping views, fire pit, built in outdoor kitchen and grill, and spa tub. Hand carved stone tiered walls surround each townhouse that will welcome you to this truly one-of-a-kind home that is steps away from everything Greenwich has to offer!

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830

141 Milbank Ave, Greenwich, CT 06830Denise Rosato

Denise Rosato
The Rosato Group
Division of Coldwell Banker
66 Field Point Rd
Greenwich, CT 06830-6473
Email: denise.rosato@cbmoves.com
Mobile: (203) 829-7441
Office: (203) 622-4000

To inquire about running a House of the Week feature on Greenwich Free Press, email Leslie.Yager@gmail.com