Tell me more about the Representative Town Meeting (RTM)!

The RTM is the legislative body of Greenwich, with its powers vested by the Town Charter.  The RTM has 230 members allocated across 12 voting districts in Greenwich.  It has the authority to:

  • Initiate and pass ordinances;

  • Approve all expenditures by the town over $5,000;

  • Approve, reduce, and eliminate appropriations;

  • Decide whether the town shall accept federal or state funds for town projects;

  • Act as the final planning authority on municipal improvements;

  • Approve or reject nominations to town bodies as made by the selectmen;

  • Create special committees to deal with particular subjects such as labor contracts, claims, and redistricting; and

  • Pass "sense of the meeting" resolutions urging that other branches of government initiate desired legislation, or expressing disapproval of actions that have been taken.

Regular RTM meetings are held at Central Middle School in:

  • January:    Tuesday after MLK Day

  • March:       Second Monday

  • April:          Second Monday

  • May:           Second Monday

  • June:          Second Monday

  • September: Third Monday

  • October:       Fourth Monday

  • December:   Second Monday

RTM meetings are recorded by Greenwich Community Television and can be viewed live on Channel 79 (Cablevision). Recordings of meetings can be found here:

District Delegations
Delegations meet separately prior to the monthly meetings listed above to discuss information on the call (i.e., agenda).

  • District 5 meets in the media center of Riverside School (18 members as of 11/2017)

  • District 12 meeting in the media center of North Mianus School (21 members as of 11/2017)

Each district has one delegate (and one or more alternates) to the following standing RTM committees:

  • Appointments

  • Budget Overview

  • Claims

  • Community Development Advisory

  • Education

  • Finance

  • Health and Human Services

  • Labor Contracts

  • Land Use

  • Legislative and Rules

  • Parks and Recreation

  • Public Works

  • Technology Advisory

  • Town Services

  • Transportation

To learn more, see the RTM website or open the attached pdf.


RTM Candidates in District 12

21 seats are allocated to District 12 from the total 230 seats on the Representative Town Meeting.  Below is an alphabetical list of the 20 candidates vying for those 21 seats.

I Abaroa Daniel A.
I Agresta Thomas
I Alvarez Francia
I Amundson Craig W.
I-p Bancroft Thomas E.
I Canner Glen A.
I de Milhau David
I Hindman Barbara Galton
P Keller Mary A.
I Leonar Aaron J.
I Manganiello Edward M.
I May Robert T.
I Mennin Miriam
I Murdock Ellen
I Perelli-Minetti Carl R. "Rob"
I Telerico Samuel T.
I Whyko Donald T.
P Winston Andrew S.
I Wissmann John
I Young Holly E.D.

"I"  = Incumbents who met attendance requirements and submitted written notice to the Town Clerk of their intention as candidates for re-election.

"I-p" = Incumbents who did not attend at least 2/3 of all RTM meetings and 2/3 of all district meetings were required to petition onto the ballot by collecting 25 signatures within their district.

"P" = Candidates who petitioned on to the ballot are noted with a "P" in the left hand column.

Candidates for RTM in District 5

18 Seats are allocated to District 5 from the total 230 seats on the Representative Town Meeting.  Below is an alphabetical list of the 30 people vying for those 18 seats. 

I-p Auerbach Jason
P Baird Jennifer L.
I Bardos Jeffrey S.
P Basham Michael E.
I Benoit, Jr. Joseph H.
I Brady Robert K.
I-p Broadhurst, III Edward T.
I Cohen Ella D.
P Cooper Nancy E.
P D'Alton Barrett Stephanie L.
P Downey Christina S.
I Eberhardt Delbert G.
P Hardman Edwin D. Jr.
P Jaffe Susan M.
I Krasnor Lucy B.
I Krasnor Martin Robert
I McDonnell Shawn J.
P Monteiro Anna M.
I Olmsted Paul A.
P Oram Andrew A.
I Ozizmir Danyal
I Oztemel Karen S.
I Peldunas Brian P.
I Petersen, Jr. Thomas G.
I Roberts Patricia H.
I-p Sahrbeck Jeffrey B.
P Smith Ashley M.B.
P Thakor Joan B.
P Van Duyne Peter B.
P Walker Kathryn L.

"I"  = Incumbents who met attendance requirements and submitted written notice to the Town Clerk of their intention as candidates for re-election.

"I-p" = Incumbents who did not attend at least 2/3 of all RTM meetings and 2/3 of all district meetings were required to petition onto the ballot by collecting 25 signatures within their district.

"P" = Candidates who petitioned on to the ballot are noted with a "P" in the left hand column.

The Riverside Association statement to P&Z Commission on 8/1/2017

Thank you for leaving this application open until tonight.

In the interest of time and your packed agenda, I’ll make my remarks as brief as possible. 

The Sheephill Rd/Putnam Ave intersection is a busy gateway into the Riverside neighborhood both north and south of Route 1.  The buildings on the parcels at the Sheephill corner are tired and beyond their useful lives.   Riverside residents would love to see the property improved but nearly 500 of them have expressed concern – via an electronic petition – that this project is too large and creates major safety concerns at the intersection.  We made those concerns part of the public record in June.

The intersection comes with significant challenges.  It’s already busy.  The Sheephill approach is narrow.  Cars on Sheephill stack up, waiting first for the light and then waiting to make the left turn against traffic coming from Lockwood Lane.   Students who can’t ride a bus to middle school because they live too close cross Putnam here.  Route 1 itself is an extremely busy corridor and gets busier when traffic on I-95 comes to a standstill.  Traffic counts – even those conducted in a wintry February -- and the D grade level of service confirm residents’ perception of this poor performing, busy intersection.

Mr. Maitland posed an important question at the end of the last hearing [that I don’t believe the applicant has answered before/tonight]:  What would this project’s impact be if the owner simply built what was allowed as of right – without the housing component?  I would like to try to answer his question.

This 46,000 sq ft parcel in the LB zone allows an owner to build a 2 ½ story, 35 feet tall, 23,000 sq ft. building.  An as of right building be like the proposed project without its 3rd and 4th floors.  Parking needs would be determined by the types of businesses and offices in the building.  The applicant believes about 120 spaces must be provided.  (I subtracted the 17spaces that would have been set aside for apartment residents.) To get that much parking on the site, the applicant has planned for a two level underground parking garage as well as grade level parking.  Vehicles would enter and exit the site from Putnam Avenue only.

The 120 car parking capacity demonstrates a lot of commercial activity will take place at the site.  Understanding traffic volume during peak periods or traffic flows into and out of the development is impossible for us or the P&Z Commission to assess without knowing what kinds of businesses will operate in the building.  

But let’s take a look at the effect of a 120 space parking lot and underground garage on traffic along Putnam. 

o   Cars coming from McDonalds will make a right turn into the site.  They could get stuck behind others waiting to get in, depending on how the parking lot flows.  I hope there’s a good plan.

o   Cars coming from the direction of St. Catherine’s come through the intersection in the left lane after waiting for left turners at Sheephill, or they come through the intersection in the right lane and quickly shift to the left to make the turn into the site.

o   I could go on with examples but we know that the applicant has planned for many vehicles on site and their entrance and exit to the property will create additional congestion along Putnam Avenue.

o   Concurrent pedestrian phasing at the signal -- coming to this intersection soon according to DPW plans -- will put pedestrians out in the middle of traffic, using a crosswalk that’s no longer protected.

In sum, an as of right building – without the residential component – will have a substantial impact on this segment of Putnam Avenue.

Adding the residential component to the project adds the bulk and height to the building that Riverside residents and nearby neighbors in particular find very off-putting.  It’s out of character with anything else around.  The moderate income housing, which allows the applicant the possibility of an exit from the site on Sheephill Road – if the commission approves it.  -- shifts some of the burden of increased traffic on to a residential street near the intersection that already functions poorly.   This special approval driveway generates the huge safety concerns for cars and people at this corner that you heard about from Riverside residents in June.

The real solution here is for the Town to improve the intersection as was done at the St. Catherine’s intersection about 15 years ago.  In a perfect world, the upgrade would be in the works today because the intersection is a problem already.  Yes, there are impediments like the utility pole at the corner that needs to be moved and negotiations with property owners that need to take place.  But the applicant’s project itself creates a huge impediment or possibly a permanent barrier to the upgrade of this intersection.  No one has discussed in public that the foundation walls of the two-level garage are built right up to the property line along Sheephill Road.  I believe – unless you can tell me otherwise – those underground garage walls will severely limit the options to improve the intersection in the future.  In other words, the possibility of improving Sheephill with a dedicated left turn lane may be small to none.   Has anyone at the DPW considered this?

Where does this leave us?  We’re left hoping it all works.  We’re hoping the town can improve the intersection despite that underground garage wall.  An underground wall that they should have considered when the project  was first proposed.

We’re hoping the Band-Aid solution the applicant has proposed and offered to pay for --  the work on the traffic signal which will allow the advance green light for Sheephill Road and concurrent pedestrian phasing – won’t end with fatal consequences in that crosswalk.

We’re hoping a little girl riding her bike on the sidewalk is seen by the FedEx driver before he pulls out of the Sheephill driveway.

We’re hoping the Board of Education chair was overstating his position that the changes to this intersection are unacceptable to the Board of Ed.

We’re going to hope that the Band-Aid like improvements to the intersection are enough to encourage customers leaving via the Sheephill driveway to turn left, if they can get out into the road, rather than winding their way through residential streets to find another way out of the area.

And we’re hoping the mix of businesses and offices doesn’t generate so much vehicular traffic that this intersection is crippled to the point of functioning at level F.

Simply put:  The Riverside Association’s concerns brought before you at the June 27th hearing are not allayed.   We trust that planning decisions made in Greenwich rest on sound policy rather than hope.

The Riverside Association also knows its community, this intersection and how it operates.  Every good planner looks at both quantitative and qualitative data in making an informed decision on how to proceed.  The Association has provided that qualitative data in spades and you ignore it at your own peril.  The as of right project puts an intense use building on this corner.  The proposed project puts a very tall, intense use building on this corner.  Please vote “no” to this project as proposed.

Review of project docs on Sheephill Rd./ E. Putnam Avenue; no additional traffic counts to be completed

Documents on file at the Planning Department in Town Hall show no changes to the project as it was presented to the P&Z Commission on June 27.

There is a letter (dated July 19) in the file indicating that the traffic engineer does not believe there is a need to conduct additional traffic counts.  See screenshot below to read page 1 of this letter.

Remember, the Saturday traffic count conduct on February 6, 2016 was the first day of winter break for the Greenwich Public Schools.  The Riverside Association stands by its assertion that this date is not representative of normal Saturday traffic at this intersection.  Greenwich is very quiet following the close of school on the Friday before winter break.  Many families across Greenwich vacation during winter break -- and have left town early Saturday morning, if not Friday evening.  In addition, there are no sporting activities at any school fields or EGCC generating traffic. 

Screen shot 2017-07-26 at 11.31.08 AM.png

P&Z Commission to hear plans for new residential building at 143 Sound Beach Avenue

143 Sound Beach Avenue Associates will appear before the P&Z Commission on August 1, 2017 to seek approval for a 60 unit multi-residential building with parking for 47 vehicles.  This property is adjacent to the Old Greenwich Tennis Academy, just north of the Metro North railroad tracks on Sound Beach Avenue.  The residential building, proposed for the Local Business Retail-2 (LBR-2) Zone, will set aside 30% of its units for affordable housing as defined by the State of Connecticut.

The public hearing for this project immediately follows that for the proposed multi-use building at the corner of East Putnam Avenue and Sheephill Road which will begin at 7:15 pm in the Town Hall Meeting Room.

A pdf with the revised plans to be presented on 8/1/2017 can be found below.  Please take a look and be informed!

May2017 plans for 143 Sound Beach Ave.pdf

Proposed development at E. Putnam/Sheephill goes to P&Z June 27

The Planning & Zoning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, June 27 at 7:15 pm in the Town Hall Meeting Room (1st floor of Town Hall) to hear and decide:

... for a final site plan and special permit, PLPZ 2017 00195 and PLPZ 2017 00196 to merge 1137 East Putnam Avenue and 5 Sheephill Road; remove the existing structures; and construct a new four-story, 40,931 sq. ft. mixed use building with moderate income housing units per Sections 6-13 through 6-15, 6-17, 6-100, 6-101, 6-104, 6-110, 6-137 and 6-205 per the Town of Greenwich Building Zone Regulations on properties located at 5 Sheephill Road and 1137 East Putnam Avenue in the LB Zone.

Greenwich Free Press covered this story in December 2016 when the project was still in the preliminary planning phase.  Read that article at the URL below.  It includes photographs of the buildings on the two parcels that are being combined for the planned building.
If you are interested in viewing the December 8, 2016 P&Z Commission meeting when preliminary plans for this project were approved, please take a look at GCTV's recording of the proceedings at the following links by cutting and pasting the URLs into your browser:

J&J Greenwich LLC's Attorney, Mr. Thomas Heagney, presents the plans

Public Comment regarding the proposed project

Please download and read the documents attached here to learn more about the project's specifics.

P&ZLetter 2016Dec22.pdf SitePlans 2017April24.pdf TrafficStudy 2017June02.pdf