Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the East Avenue Cemetery Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables $90,000 design amendment for East Avenue/Cemetery Street until residents can see designs
Summary
The Public Works Committee voted to table a proposed ninth amendment to the East Avenue engineering contract that would add up to $90,000 for design work around Cemetery Street; committee members and public speakers asked for visuals and clarified this work ties to the state Walkbridge program and a nearby private development.
The Norwalk Public Works Committee on May 20 voted unanimously to table consideration of a proposed ninth amendment to the city’s professional engineering contract with Caesar Associates that would add up to $90,000 for additional design work around East Avenue, Gregory Boulevard and Cemetery Street.
The amendment would fund additional sidewalk and streetscape design tied to the state’s Walkbridge program and recent development at 1 Cemetery Street. Jim Meehan and Wilbur Goran, city engineers, said the additional design would allow the city and the state to integrate the Walkbridge work with site improvements prompted by the new development.
A resident who logged on for public participation said she wanted a plain-English explanation of why the $90,000 amendment is needed. “I was hoping that either Miss Valadares or one of the engineers might be able to explain in layman’s terms what is being proposed at Cemetery Street and why … this extensive scope of work for another $90,000,” the resident said.
Staff described the scope in general terms: adding sidewalks along Cemetery Street, possibly converting two lanes to one with new curb bump-outs, adding street parking (staff said intent was public metered parking but said they would confirm), modifying two existing islands at East Avenue/Cemetery Street and Gregory Boulevard/Cemetery Street, installing brick pavers in an amenity zone and improving pedestrian crossings and ADA features to align with the city’s Complete Streets approach. City staff and committee members stressed the design area had expanded from the original plan and that conceptual drawings exist but detailed engineering designs would follow if the amendment were approved.
Committee members and public commenters pressed for visuals, a clearer statement of what residents would get for the $90,000, a breakdown of priorities (including why additional on‑street parking was proposed in a transit-oriented area), and clarity on when the public could comment on final designs. Staff said conceptual sketches exist and that detailed designs would be developed by the consultant if the amendment were approved. Several members said they were reluctant to approve the design funds without seeing sketches and asked staff to provide maps and conceptual drawings. A motion to table the amendment passed unanimously.
