The RTM met on a bitter cold night at Central Middle School where the main item was the Municipal Improvement status for a new Hamill Rink in Morlot Park in Byram featuring the so-called “flip,” a reference to building a new rink on adjacent Strazza ball field, keeping the existing rink operating during construction, and lastly creating a new ball field where the rink is today.
The MI was approved by the P&Z commission in December, though the project would still require their final site plan approval.
After about 40 speakers addressed the 230-member body, the motion failed in a vote: 52 Yes, 136 No and 6 Abstentions.
What happens next is not in the RTM’s purview.
In a debrief of the meeting Wednesday on WGCH 1490 am, RTM moderator Alexis Voulgaris described the process as democracy in action. She said the item failed “overwhelmingly,” and it was likely the First Selectman would “hear the feedback,” including the suggestion to form a new committee akin to a school building committee to replace the rink users committee he had appointed previously.
First to speak on Tuesday was First Selectman Fred Camillo, who talked about the positive aspects of “the flip.”
“If you rebuild in this spot it is currently located, it will cost a lot more money because of the ledge rock and to make it ADA compliant. The flip will be less expensive. It will be ADA complaint and inclusive,” he said, adding that there was private money coming from foundations and individuals for both the rink and new baseball field.
“That will get us the first showcase baseball field in Greenwich history,” he said. “What did we hear when 5 years ago I put this committee together? They had 27 public meetings and met with leaders in the community and neighbors… We heard from the neighbors on Sherman Ave, ‘Please don’t blast in our back yards.’ The flip takes care of that…We heard from the hockey and skating groups that if you shut it down for two years by renovating in place you’re going to lose some of these programs for good.”
He said the flip would add green space, and enhance both the playground and memorial grove of trees.
He said all the McKinney Terrace (housing for elderly and disabled) residents he spoke to had favored the flip, and that the proposed ADA track/sidewalk proposed to go around the perimeter with the flip plan, would give them the ability to exercise.
As for the McKinney Terrace residents wanting to watch baseball games, he said, “No one has spent more time on that baseball field than myself. Since 1974, as a coach, player and later as an umpire for 35 years, there has never been more than three or four people up there – in most games there was none…This flip will actually get the sun out of their eyes.”
The Byram property owners who initiated the referral of the MI teach had a turn at the mic.
Lucy von Brachel said the rink was urgently needed and her group supported preserving ice time during construction.
“What we object to is the flip,” she said. “And the rink user committee’s unwillingness to respond to consistent feedback from a number of stakeholders.”
She said they would prefer building on the current location if possible, and erecting a temporary rink during construction.
“The scale of this project is huge and completely changes this park. When you drive into the park today you see a green field, stately trees and the historic Byram School building. With the flip, the rink becomes the focal point, and it is out of scale, dwarfing everything around it,” von Brachel said.
“A no vote tonight sends the message that the RTM wants feedback addressed now. It says we hold this project to the same standards we apply to any other major capital project. It says we want more buy-in from all stakeholders, a more transparent and inclusive process, and the information and estimates needed to support funding down the line.”
Al Shehadi said Byram opposition was not limited to the “gang of four,” and emphasized that none of them opposed a new rink.
He said it was another myth that they were “NIMBYs.”
“We are not fine with having our park carved up to meet the needs of just one rink stakeholder.”
Further, he said it was a myth that his group was unqualified to comment on the process.
“Each of my three colleagues have attended multiple committee meetings. Collectively they have attended almost all of the committee meetings.”
Unfortunately, he said the rink user committee was dominated by one stakeholder and did not hold any public hearings or evening meetings, holding public comment to the end of meetings after votes were taken.
He also questioned the rink survey, saying it was neither scientific nor objective. He said questions were phrased in ways that were not neutral and that individuals could answer more than once.
Liz Eckert, District 4 member and chair of the Byram Neighborhood Association, explained that while she voted in favor of moving the application to Planning & Zoning she had done so “with the hope of getting it to a wider audience before spending more time and taxpayer money on what I feel is a flawed plan.”
“The current committee is overly represented by rink users. There are good people on this committee, but their goal of a new rink at any cost was vastly different from my goal of a new rink while maintaining compliance with the POCD, respecting the home of disabled and senior residents of McKinney Terrace and honoring our fallen veterans of war, by not blocking the memorial tree grove’s view with a 40,000 square foot 35 foot high industrial sized ice rink,” she said, adding that the memorial grove had special meaning to her as her brother-in-law Donnie Repaci who lost his life in Vietnam is honored there with a tree.
“The Byram community has lived in harmony with the rink in its current
location for over 50 years,” Eckert continued. “It was built in this location for a reason. It is tucked in a corner keeping this as open parkland in a community where we very limited open space.”
Joe Kantorski, the fourth member of the group who referred the MI to the RTM, said recently talk about item 18 had gone from fact to fiction.
“Last Friday a local newspaper’s front page had a rendering of a rink design concept that the town rejected in 2020,” he said. “No mention in that story about that, so readers thought that was the current design.”
He said the advisor committee, dubbed “rink user design committee,” had redesigned the entire 13-acre park by flipping the rink with the baseball field.
“The flip has become the talk of the town, but when you come down to it, flipping the rink and ball field is not really what it’s all about. The POCD guiding principles say that it’s about preserving our community character and sense of place. The proposal redesigns the entire park, destroying that sense of place.”
“The POCD says its about sustaining and improving our the natural environment and landscape. The proposal will adversely affect the natural landscape. The POCD says it’s about encouraging the use of existing footprints in redevelopment or reuse. The BNA has always supported rebuilding the rink in its existing location.”
Bill Drake, the chair of the rink user committee, disagreed. He said the P&Z commission had approved the MI in a 4-1 vote, saying it conformed to POCD guiding principles 1, 4 and 6.
“You’re not voting on the budget tonight. It’s not tonight’s decision, so there are no budget numbers in the P&Z decision letter, in the referral, in the Call or in the Explanos. It’s not the topic,” Drake said. “There’s a lot of work yet to be done on the detailed design, costs, competitive analysis, availability of ice elsewhere, cost and feasibility of a temporary rink, and other topics.”
“Your support for a new rink seems to be about 100%. Also it’s the same with your constituents,” he added.
Coach Jack Duffy said between GHS, Greenwich Skating Club and Jr Cardinals, upwards of 600-700 hours of ice were used and more could be used if it were available.
“There is a thought that finding ice at one of the many rinks in our area is an ‘inconvenience,’ for rink users that supercedes the needs of all other stakeholders,” he said. “There’s been anecdotal stories bandied about claiming that certain schools or rinks will fill in or help accommodate.”
“You cannot run our programs with a piecemeal approach to ice times. It takes ice contracts that are well planned and robust. This kind of ice is simply not available in our area,” he said. “This is not an inconvenience for the skating community. It is a need. If this rink is taken offline our programs will not be set back for two or three years. They will be at risk for their survival.”
He said the GHS boys program might take five years to regain its footing and the girls program might not recover at all.
“The Jr Cardinals will probably cease to exist,” he added.
He added that having four locker rooms was “over the top,” but rather the bare minimum needed to efficiently and effectively run a skating program.
Tracy Freedman of the Parks & Rec board and Parks & Rec Committee, said she’d been following the process closely and supported the MI. “The plan is the result of years of careful study, input and compromises. Neighbors concerns were heard and addressed. The plan respects the memorial tree grove, removes the (previously proposed) access road, reduces the building footprint and preserves green space,” she said. “The flip makes sense. It keeps our skating programs running and results in an improved park and ballfield.”
“A no vote should not be cast likely,” she said. “A no vote will also add costly delays and escalating expenses. Of course the Byram neighbors have had a great and specific interest in this project, and their voices should be certainly heard, but they should not have veto power over a park and a public rink that is owned by the town and meant to benefit everyone.”
Jane Weisbecker from District 9 said, “You may recall that in 2021 the RTM adopted a charter change requiring the seating of a building committee for school projects that need MI. District 9 requested that change and we don’t see any reason why a town project as complex and expensive as the rink should be treated any differently.”
She said District 9 requests that the Selectmen nominate a building committee for the rink project subject to the general guidelines in the town code for school projects: comprised of 7-9 voting members including a member of the BET.
“Five to seven of those members are nominated by the Selectmen and appointed by the RTM. There are also ex officio non-voting members including a Selectperson, P&Z commissioner, DPW employee and RTM member,” she added.
She said that way a rink committee would be held to established rules governing public meetings, fiscal oversight and continuity.
“These rules ensure the project’s transparency and smooth process from start to finish. Importantly the rink committee should also have to abide by FOIA and report to back to the RTM on a quarterly basis.”
Dan Quigley from D1 who is chair of the Land Use Committee, said the cost of the project was “unknown” and needed to be more than an estimate.
“If we decide to approve this MI without first being presented with a defined cost analysis or something more substantial than an estimate, it would not only be fiscally irresponsible, but it would set a bad precedent which could lead to undisciplined spending on future capital projects.”
Quigley described the vote as “a test of the conscience of the RTM,” and listed past projects in various neighborhoods where neighbors had wanted their voices to be heard, including possible demolition of Old Greenwich School, proposed access road to GHS across from Mallard or Overlook, oversize 8-30g’s in downtown, and a dog park in Glenville.
“Byram is unique in this respect,” Quigley continued. “Historically it has been subjected to treatment that other neighborhoods have not: a dump, a large affordable housing development, an incinerator, and a beach whose waters are plagued by high bacteria counts,” he said. “Approving this MI would be an extension of that poor track record.”
Cheryl Moss, member of D8 and chair of Public Works Committee spoke as an individual, saying she grew up skating at the rink, listed her reasons for opposing the MI.
“Lack of community engagement – there were no public forums during the evening hours for community comments like those held for the North Street bridge project, and the proposed and rejected traffic circle in front of the Perrot Library,” she said. “There is a lack of professional estimate for the rink, and no estimate whatsoever for the ball field, ADA and walking path and the parking lot. A back-of-the-envelope estimate is not acceptable.”
“At our D8 meeting, when asked why there was no consideration of finding a location for a temporary rink, Mr. Drake stated, ‘No community wants to give up their fields.’ So why are we imposing this on Byram?”
Bucky Putnam said a no vote on the MI would cause serious damage. He said in 2005 he and Mr. Loh started a discussion about the rink the town and Parks & Rec.
“We came up with a plan that kept the rink in the same place, with one proviso – we had to have a temporary site for the down time – the one or two years of construction,” he recalled.
“We looked at seven sites: Roger Sherman Baldwin, Island Beach parking lot, Binney Park , Byram Park, GHS tennis courts, Cos Cob power plant, a site on King St, and a site in Banksville.
He said a temporary site had to satisfy 5 requirements: power, parking, lighting, sewer service and an accepting neighborhood.
“Every site we looked at failed. I challenge everyone who says, ‘Let’s just find a temporary site. In the town of Greenwich it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible.”
Joe Rothenberg said the project was in its infancy yet was interrupted by a small group.
“They’ve brought everyone here for a special vote to revoke MI status that was approved by the P&Z commission. My calling the opposition group small may make you feel some cognitive dissonance. But make no mistake, it may not feel like that in this room, but they are the minority, and by all indications they are a very small minority.”
“Every time surveys have been done on this project, the responses overwhelmingly support the project, including the flip,” Rothenberg added. “Listen to your constituents.”
“I happen to be in-house counsel at the largest commercial mortgage firm in the country. I’ve been working commercial real estate for 20 years and I’ll tell you that if every project was held to these hurdles these people want this project to clear, we’d be living in a wasteland because nothing would ever get built. Don’t let the minority move the goalposts on this project.”
James Waters, who chairs the Budget Overview Committee and chairs the Old Greenwich School building committee, said having led that school building committee through town approvals in just 18 months gave him perspective.
“We have a bad plan, with bad numbers, from a bad process that would set a terrible precedent,” he said. “I don’t believe this will actually build us a rink, much less get us final funding and zoning approvals…I’m irritated it’s taken four years to deliver a proposal that is less than half-baked.”
He suggested three fixes to get the project back on track.
“By voting no, we do three things that won’t happen otherwise. First, we establish that the First Selectman must form a building committee to show the town’s commitment to getting this done right and done quickly.”
“Second, we show the importance of setting a clear vision aligned with the POCD, examining siting options, creating concept designs for the chosen site, incorporating input, and producing a real cost estimate. This can be done in months at a fraction of the cost to date.”
“Third, we set this project for more streamlined approvals – not one where it flounders for another four years or more,” he said. “This will have a better result if we vote no. Tomorrow I will send the Board of Selectmen a clear roadmap to do it.”
Rick Loh, a member of the board of Parks & Rec and rink user committee, said he’d served on various committees for 20 years.
“To hear the litany of accusations and allegations that have been read tonight when we’re here to decide on the site is beyond,” he said.
“We’re only here because there is a challenge. We’re not here asking for any money tonight. We are here to discuss the location of a new rink and little else. The cost should not a factor in our discussions, other than maybe how it relates to the location. The cost has not been studied in great detail or send out to bid but it has been analyzed by DPW in relation to this location versus others.”
Several people spoke in favor of the MI including Thomas Feda, who described the need for a new rink was urgent.
“As someone who grew up here, played hockey at GHS, and now coaches there, I’ve seen firsthand the challenges our athletes face due to the substandard facilities,” he said. “Nearly every other high school in ct provides athletes with proper locker rooms and facilities. Do we want to risk canceling high school hockey altogether? That would be devastating for athletes and the community.”
“A modern facility with more than 4 locker rooms and proper stands for fans would allow Greenwich to host FCIAC championships and state games, enhancing the town’s reputation. I urge you to stop playing politics,” he added.
Byram resident of district 4 Marie Bocchino said there were more than four people opposed to the current plans.
“Maybe by voting against this proposal one more time, Mr. Camillo will disband the current committee, form a new, and more diverse committee to take over – not to start from scratch, but really to consider all options in keeping the property and neighborhood in the forefront of the discussions –not only the needs of the hockey community.”
“Besides the elderly and disabled residents of McKinney Terrace, who basically share the property, we must also consider the people who live in the neighborhood at large. I would like to remind you that the residents of Byram are your workforce: they are your teachers, nurses, police and fire persons, the DPW workers, the secretaries and administrative staff. They deserve your respect and consideration while making plans that will increase the already impossible traffic flow…and taking up already limited parking in the neighborhood when the rink lot is full.”
Jennifer Andrews from District 6 remarked that there were members on the RTM who had never previously voted on the same side of an issue.
“To my amazement, these members are coming together talking about this flip, saying it’s not the right choice, and the fact that these polar opposites are coming together is important. I think it means we need to do better.”
See also:
RTM Committees Balk at Flaws in Rink Process; All Vote to Reject the MI
Jan 14, 2025
