To the Editor:
The discussion of the plan for a new building to house Neighbor to Neighbor on the Tomes Higgins property has been most interesting. Having volunteered often in the basement of the Christ Church building in which they currently operate to serve a large and growing population of those in need in our and neighboring communities, I think it is critical for them to modernize their facilities to become more efficient. Hiding N2N in a rabbit warren of a cellar won’t mitigate the needs it serves, nor that our community is helping those in need. They will continue to operate 26 hours per week to serve the 650 Greenwich families that qualify to receive free food from the N2N Client Choice Pantry, as well as those served by the Clothing Room.
I understand the neighbors’ desire to maintain their beautiful view over the Tomes Higgins property. One could argue that looking the other way over the fence on historic Putnam Hill isn’t as pleasant, because of woefully deficient setbacks, screening, and drainage. Putnam Park clearly doesn’t provide their residents the 100 ft. setback that N2N will. I’m impressed with what N2N has done to modify the building design to reflect the historical context of the Tomes Higgins property, as requested by the Historic District Commission, as well as their plans to add extensive landscaping on the rear property line to provide lush screening. Those adjustments to the original plans should mitigate the neighbors’ concerns.
It seems strange that the concerns of four Putnam Park residents on a property that was ill-designed, wish to penalize those in need. The people at Christ Church and N2N who have helped serve our community for the past 40 years deserve praise and support of their plans to become more efficient while maintaining the character of historic Putnam Hill. The needs of the clients, volunteers, donors, staff and neighbors were considered when developing those plans. Let’s move on with gaining approval of these revised plans, and start construction. Our community deserves it.
Many thanks in advance for publishing this letter.
Richard G. Schulze
Greenwich
