Residents urge Lewisboro officials to address Ridgefield Avenue speeding

SOUTH SALEM, N.Y. - Methods to deter speeders throughout Lewisboro in general – and on Ridgefield Avenue in particular – dominated the May 11 meeting of the Lewisboro Town Board.

Town Supervisor Tony Gonçalves noted that people throughout town have urged the construction of speed “humps” for speed mitigation, particularly along Ridgefield Avenue and other thoroughfares that often serve as commuter shortcuts. Safety experts describe speed humps as longer, gentler and less jarring than the also-common speed bumps – which can be tall and lead to driver complaints.

The board discussed formulating guidelines for where the humps might be installed and how Lewisboro residents might request them for their streets.

“So, in the agenda packet, I included the guidelines for Bedford,” Gonçalves said. “The consensus from the highway department and…board members is that we should at least start with guidelines in place that we can publish on the [town] website.”

Gonçalves noted that the town conducted a study of traffic conditions along Ridgefield Avenue and proposed installing four to five speed humps along that street. However, other studies have suggested speed humps wouldn’t solve the problem.

“We have to determine the cost, which we haven't done yet for Ridgefield Avenue,” he said.

Several neighborhood residents spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting, urging action by the town. Ridgefield Avenue resident Gail Hiller-Lee said she has been in constant contact with the town about dangerous speed levels along Ridgefield Avenue.

“I almost got hit again today with cars going I would say between 50 and 60,” said Hiller-Lee, who said speeding has been a pressing issue ever since she moved to the area in 2021. “Recently we sent postcards to every single person on the road where we asked for a response - and every single one was positive. Please, we've been asking… someone's going to get killed.”

Hiller-Lee said a test of speed humps along Ridgefield Avenue was discussed last year, but no action has been taken thus far. “The town was going to install temporary speed humps for study, and allocated $11,000 for it,” she said. “I don't see that tune being played out anymore…I'm really hoping that we do the right thing this time.”

Bob Gorman, another Ridgefield Avenue resident, echoed her sentiments. “The petition that we have from the residents of Richfield A has been in place now for a year,” Gorman said, “and as you know, we've been seeking it [solutions] for far more than that.”

Gorman also said any proposed guidelines for speed humps along Ridgefield Avenue should not be applicable because the residents there have requested them for such a long time. Moreover, he said that should a horrible accident take place, nobody should want to be in the position of saying that no speed humps were present because they didn’t fit guidelines.

“It seems to us as the residents that the speed humps are the logical conclusion,” Gorman said. Others called for speed-alert signs as well as increased surveillance by Lewisboro Police along and near Ridgefield Avenue.

The board next turned its attention to hiring KG+D Architects, at a cost of $7,500, for design work at 892 Route 35 in Cross River – the newly purchased building that will house town offices. This part of the work will involve designing the court facilities on the first floor of the building and a 160-foot extension to its front, in response to concerns expressed by the state’s Office of Court Administration (OCA) about the size of the proposed lobby.

“That [extension] would resolve the issue of not having enough space for stacking – in other words, when people show up to court,” said Gonçalves. “It also moves the transaction window…OCA would prefer that the transaction window be away from where most of the activity is inside the building.”

The proposed design would provide more floor space in the lobby to address those concerns, and the entrance to the building would be moved in the process. Later, in the construction phase, the work would include framing the building extension, siding it, and installing windows as needed. An existing exterior window would then become the court’s transaction window.

The board ultimately approved the expenditure – but not before an involved discussion about whether the result would merit OCA approval. “Could this be shared with OCA to see if it will this meet concerns for safety and otherwise?” asked Councilman Rich Sklarin. “Part of the reason we are here is because OCA wasn’t brought into the process [earlier].”

Gonçalves pointed out that OCA has multiple requirements for courts, including the size and location of a jury box, for seating, and for the judge's chambers. “We took all that into consideration, but their major complaint was the lack of flow into the lobby,” he said.

“I'm trying to avoid issues that happened in the past by bringing whoever we have to into the process before we make a decision,” noted Sklarin. “What I want to do is early in this part of the process address all the things we know that we're going to have to address…we should get some clarity on what we are supposed to do.”

“In an ideal world, we can get a quick look [by OCA] before we pay for the full drawings and design,” noted Councilwoman Julia Haddock. This avoids the prospect of the OCA coming back and deeming any results inadequate, but obtaining a quick answer from the OCA appears to present a challenge, she added.

The board also approved the following measures:

• An agreement with East Coast Elite Baseball for use of Fox Valley Park lower baseball field;

• AMG Refuse’s license for collection and disposal of refuse and recyclables;

• The 2025 Tritown Nutrition Agreement, authorizing the town supervisor to sign it;

• Hiring Jayna Sutherland as interim dog control officer.