Wold: Sal Strazza Athletic Field Concerns

 

Screenshot (Public Domain)

Submitted by David C. Wold, Greenwich Resident and Veteran (Originally submitted to Ken Borsuk, Greenwich Town Administrator)

Once more, in a lack of a Rink User Committee meeting and/or public viewing of your (new) plans from those submitted to the Rink User Committee, Board of Selectmen, Board of Park and Recreation and the general public via the website, and received in general full support, I would like to express a few concerns:

I hereby ask you to answer a few questions with focus on the Sal Strazza Athletic Field (yes, it is an athletic field that you are doing a 'Municipal Improvement' on) and the highly announced ADA compliance that was 'essential/'necessary' and addressed for the replacing of the Dorothy Hamill ARENA (after all the current 'Arena' that has been built and maintained by taxpayers money, is an 'arena' while the proposed (hopefully paid for by private money) is a sole Skating Rink purpose building.

We know that a committee appointed by DPW seven years ago liked the idea of moving the rink onto this new property, but let’s get the facts straights on what this would mean, before we ask BET and RTM for more money.

We know that the current Arena was found to NOT covering the ADA requirements, and we know the last few years that we have people who are willing to file grievances to have same rectified and potentially file lawsuits to get it done. So let’s make sure this 'Municipal Improvements' related to the moving of the rink is also in ADA compliance. We just had BET turning down one DPW plan Let’s not make it two in a row. 

I would not take it for granted that the same considerations have been taken by Town Hall/DPW and First Selectman handpicked the Rink Committee, which was so concerned about 'public parkland,' a part of Eugene Morlot Memorial Park, as not one has same been addressed at the meetings. After all, it is a 'Municipal Improvement' of a 13.4 acre park, that you are applying for, so let’s get it right. So this time, just the Baseball/Athletic Field part of about 2.4 acres.

Q: With the baseball field now placed in the area of the previous skating rink, would this baseball and the athletic field, (walkway, playground Memorial Park etc.) be allowed use from 6AM to 11PM? (I noticed a new light pole will be installed over at the fenced in playground and it will have ADA access via 6ft wide pathway, while the whole Memorial Park and the rest of the 11.6 acres open parkland has neither).

The presented drawings show Home Base in the far most corner of the parkland (with no lights),  and as far as possible away from EMM Park parking lot that you can get within Sal Strazza Athletic Field/Eugene Morlot Memorial Park. I know it is going in last, but let’s get it 'right' before we ask BET and RTM for money.

Q: In the 1969 drawings and up to today (so more or less the whole life span of Sal Strazza's involvement with the field), you find distance from parking space to bleachers being 100-350 feet, but in this 'Municipal Improvement,' you have increased that as much as 200 percent. How is that a 'Municipal Improvement’?

Has it even been endorsed or approved by First Selectman’s ADA Committee? Again, I do not want to face any grievances by 'improvements'. It seems like distance from bleachers to parking at WMS is about the same as the distance to most EMM Parking spaces, maybe shorter.

Q: is it DPW/SLAM's intention that Sal Strazza Athletic Field users are going to use the parking lot at WMS? After all, you are applying to reduce the parking spaces in the park. If so, why has SLAM not addressed the issues that KG+D made clear that the pathway must be addressed?

A 'sky bridge' across Western Jr Highway would secure a safer crossing to and from WMS, like you find in other areas of Greenwich. In the presentation you have 'doubled' the 'portable player’s bench but reduced the bleachers capacity. In this 'Municipal improvement,' you are reducing it from 2 x 5 rows plus 1 x 5 rows, to 2 x 3 rows of seats.

Q: Are you aware with the 'Municipal Improved' Babe Ruth baseball field that has taken back the 20ft currently occupied by ice machine, the number of spectators would be reduced by 75%? Are they going to watch it online? Again, is this a recommendation by the First Selectman’s ADA Committee?

In the "Municipal Improved' Baseball and Athletic field. I find 'none' of the recommendations online (www.baberuthleague.org .

Q: How would you address ADA access to seating, ADA access to restrooms and 'ample' ADA parking?

In the current configuration, pedestrians, dog walkers etc. would be walking 50-100 feet behind the dugout/bleachers. In the 'Municipal Improvement' plan you have place, the walkway is around the dugout and bleachers. Again, is this the confirmed configuration by the First Selectman’s ADA Committee?

Having visited most of our town baseball fields and Googled the major league fields, I find few or 'none' that today have this 'intimate' arrangement of interaction between dog walkers with players and spectators.

Q: Would this new pathway by 'dog friendly'? Is this a new recommendation by Town Hall's professional field consultants and decade old friends who play baseball?

I see on the south side and west side of the baseball field, the walkway is only 4 feet, 9 inches. In the earlier DPW plans for the Byram area of Greenwich, you find sidewalks of minimum of 5 feet and up to 8 feet wide and from the parking lot to the playground and Skating Rink, you have 6 feet.

Q: Is this 4 feet, 9 inches an 'ADA required width' for paths to and from athletic fields? You need 6 feet and 8 feet wide 'ramps/path' to meet ADA compliance in relation to the parking lot and access to fenced in playgrounds? In the current configuration, we clearly have maintained the 100- year old 'athletic field' that can be used for practice of track, soccer, lacrosse etc.  In the 'Municipal Improvement' of same, there seems to be no improvement for these activities and maybe even configuration eliminates the same. The baseball field has 'safety nets' while the Athletic area has none.

Q: Do they not need the same towards pathway and parking lot? Why are there no bleachers for these activities?

Is the intention that this public athletic activity would be eliminated in your management of the 'Athletic Field' and instead just be an extended outfield for baseball?

Other issues related to the Baseball/Athletic Field:

Currently, the baseball players have 2 x 20 x 8x8 feet container (not a very dry location compared with ice hockey equipment) storage in the north/west corner (beyond the new Skating Arena).

Q: Where do these two containers of equipment get placed in this 'municipal improvement' plan?

 From my understanding, great baseball 'fans,’ baseball 'officials' and Town officials have spoken too. We all understand that the 100 year old configuration is 'wrong' for our youth to enjoy the game and reach full potential as players and it would have to be 'turned' and to re-install the 20ft taken along the one baseline.

Q: As most of west side Greenwich baseball fields are configured the same way, is it DPW’s plan to 'Municipal Improve' all fields to face the same direction to avoid Byram field having an advantage?

I see that we have introduced an 'enclosed dumpster' for the rink. Would there be similar ones available at other locations in the park?

As a member of the municipal administration of Greenwich, I hope you can answer these questions in lieu of me having to issue a FOIA for likely exchanges between you and SLAM and the various Departments at Town Hall to see, then, if above has been considered and answered.

We can hardly expect Planning and Zoning to allow or even consider 'history' leading up to this $22 + million dollar 'Municipal Improvement', that less and less of us understand.

You also know how much time it would take under a FOIA to see if these issues have been addressed between DPW/SLAM and DPW/ADA committee etc., so please let me just get the 'thinking behind' this MI.