Wold: Closer Look at MI and Parking

 

Screenshot Dorothy Hamill Skating Rink (greenwichct.gov)

Submitted by David C. Wold, Greenwich Resident and Veteran

Looking at the application and the fact that DPW is cutting the MI drawing short behind the current rink, brings up a major issue that will affect all park users and that is, DPW wants to reduce parking in the park from 137 to 107 as the new rink building will need to take equal 30 parking lots in its expansion of "greenspace". DPW has already given the RTM and public the assurance in their funding from 1991/2 that due to the rink, there will be no more green space taken in the dedicated park area.

They are trying to get around their promise by actually forcing less people the chance to attend a rink event, totally ignoring other activities in the dedicated open space.

That is not all. This plan eliminates any safe upgraded regulations for distance and access to the current overflow parking for all, but most of all users from RTM districts 3 and 4 who walk to the park.

What is this overflow parking lot mentioned in 1970s rink building plan, 1990s MI for parking and KG+D report from 2019 (same report that made it essential to have an enclosed non-regulation skating rink up and running these 5+ years instead of expanding current rink back in 2019 and added onto the building)?

I also recall a "location" near GHS that had major issues in getting an MI some years back. I believe due to the current and expected future events OVERALL, after its rink facility improvements, and their overflow parking and access issues was then addressed by Planning and Zoning.

As for overflow parking, it is all BOE property (who originally donated the land for rink only, across the street from WMS) has Parks and Recreation management lost that access? Is current MI at WMS eliminating this option??

If so, was all or any of it revoked prior to Rink User Committee that started with the First Selectman task and had all the resources DPW could provide? (I see in SLAMs original drawing they address the access issue, but later, after contract signing and no addendum, it got dropped).

If this MI is not addressing the parking as it will remain unchanged, then what happens to the issue of lack of ADA compliance walkway, and walkway in general for members from RTM districts 3 and 4?

If the new plans for WMS has resulted in that we have lost access to the same for the 50-200 parking spaces at WMS, and this MI is reducing in-park parking spaces, then we are bringing back the problems and then the arguments for the MI from 1991/2 to expand the parking lot.

Is DPW planning to address this again once they have moved the rink and built it (would that require the woodland and give access to Housing Authority’s need for more shared parking for their 40,000sq ft expansion??).

 We are looking at DPW application to reverse an "MI" application from 1991/2, that will exclude or complicate participation for healthy and ADA population of Greenwich at same time that DPW is working with First Selectman to include more of the same population on Greenwich Ave.

So, please, prior to the meeting next week, can Planning and Zoning, or Rink User Committee members/RTM members tell the public what we have,  and what DPW is ignoring, despite the  recommendations from KG+D, during these 7 years and going from 17 to maybe 25 million dollar MI.

Is it not really just an MI application for the Rink, as the heading reads, to move the rink to a more "prime real estate."