At Wednesday night’s Greenwich Parks & Rec board meeting via Zoom there was a discussion and public comment about Greenwich Dept of Public Works’s proposed rapid flashing flashing beacons in Old Greenwich at the crosswalk where Wesskum Rd bisects Binney Park. (DPW photos here).
Even though Wesskum Wood is a public road, the Parks & Rec board members said they wished they had been contacted by DPW for input on the flashing beacons since the crosswalk bisects Binney Park.
Since a .6 mile scenic loop around Binney park was approved in 2020 for the roadway around Binney Park, the Dept of Public Works was required to go before Planning & Zoning prior to adding the flashing beacons since the impact the scenic road.
Greenwich residents are passionate about their parks, and in Old Greenwich some of the support for the scenic loop stemmed from memories of an unpopular DPW proposal in 2018 for 100-ft traffic circle outside the Perrot Library.
Similarly in 2020 residents were very unhappy when a new green pedestrian bridge in Bruce Park took them by surprise. At the time DPW deputy commissioner James Michel explained his department was aware of the plans but the state Siting Council had given its approval, and therefore the bridge was not required to meet local regulations or have a public hearing.
Pedestrians cross Wesskum Wood Rd on Wednesday, May 28, 2025 Photo: Leslie Yager
When DPW went before P&Z at a lengthy May 20 meeting, residents questioned the proposed flashing beacons.
At that meeting, P&Z chair Margarita Alban asked DPW to explore best practices in other towns with that have scenic roads.
DPW was also required to hold a public hearing, which they did, but it was on a Monday, in June at 2:00pm, an inconvenient time for many.
At Parks & Rec Wednesday night, board member Tracy Freedman recalled a DPW public hearing was continued regarding the North Street Bridge after an outcry.
“There is precedent for that and it’s a good idea,” she said.
Nancy Chapin asked, “It’s nice there is a precedent for this, so, it sounds like the process wasn’t followed as best as it could have…and not enough public input,” Chapin said. “I support them having to go and do another public meeting.”
Public comment was kicked off by Catherine Tapsall who said flashing beacons at Wesskum Wood amounted to “overkill.”
Barbara O’Neill from RTM district 6 said the June 9 hearing at 2:00pm had not been well publicized and only about 5 or 6 members residents attended.
“I asked what was the impetus for the project, and what was the cost, and what was the source for the funds. The commissioner told me he wasn’t answering questions; he was just listening,” O’Neill said. “So through an FOI request I found out there were two complaints – that was the impetus for this project.”
“It’s this lack of transparency and letting people have an input that is my concern for this,” she added. “Even P&Z said to them, look at other towns with scenic roads and see how they blend aesthetics with safety. I think any suggestion that was made was pretty much ignored.”
O’Neill said her suggestion was for another DPW public hearing in September when people are available to attend.
Candace Garthwaite agreed the June 9 hearing had been poorly communicated.
“The communication, the process and the transparency was very poor,” she added.
Susie Baker agreed.
“The fact that people have crossed safely there forever should be an indicator that maybe nothing major is needed,” she said.
“It should not be permitted to go forward as is. It’s just not in keeping with the procedure we usually would be following,” Baker continued. “And it’s not in keeping with the scenic road.”
Evan Walker from Wesskum Wood Rd said the project should be completely revisited.
“I’m disappointed that we had a substantial project, and lots of consultants spending a lot of money, and nobody thought of sight lines and crosswalks when they did the bridge, and here we are with a band aid,” Mr. Walker said.
Carolyn Petersen of the Old Greenwich Association said she wished her group had been contacted by DPW.
“We were disappointed in the lack of communication because it is our responsibility to communicate out opportunities for the public to engage in our Old Greenwich community so they can say what they do and do not want, and have that voice.”
Candace Garthwaite said stakeholders should have been contacted by DPW including Riverside Association, Old Greenwich Association and RTM districts 4 and 6.
“That’s how you spread the word. That’s why the hearing in my opinion is so important. We need to spread the word,” she said.
“This is why people were so upset over Bruce Park,” Garthwaite added. “There was just no opportunity to weigh in.”
All the Parks & Rec board members agreed another DPW public hearing was a good idea.
“People want an opportunity to go back and forth and give DPW some idea what the concerns are,” Parks & Rec board chair Scott Johnson said. “The concerns I heard are accident reports, sight lines, alternatives, and why is there is a need? Are there any other traffic calming mechanisms?”
The Parks & Rec board approved a SOMR requesting another hearing with DPW and to submit to DPW a summary of the board’s concerns. Ms O’Neill agreed to write up the summary.
See also:
May 31, 2025