By John H. Palmer
The Journal staff stands behind its editorial decision to print Tuesday morning that the Planning and Zoning Commission “abruptly rescheduled” a planned public hearing Monday night.
After reading our coverage of Monday night’s hearing, Chairman Paul Lebowitz reached out in a public comment telling us we need to “try harder,” and suggesting that we “read it again,” referring to the published March 25th meeting agenda.
A “public” notice, but is public really considered?
The editorial staff at the Westport Journal have a combined 50-75 years of editorial experience, and that includes sifting through perhaps thousands of often vaguely written legal notices that don’t usually provide clarity. Though it’s not likely we will ever change the way legal notices are written, it certainly is our job and obligation to translate them into language that you, the reader, can understand so that you know what your elected officials are up to.
Which brings us to Monday evening, when I, as well as anyone else who showed up to the 6 p.m. meeting expecting a public hearing about the proposed Hamlet development in Saugatuck, were taken by surprise when Lebowitz announced that the hearing had been cancelled and that anyone there for the public hearing should “come back on Monday [April 7].”
I reached out by email to Lebowitz at 8:27 p.m. Monday evening, mere minutes after the P&Z meeting had adjourned, asking for clarification about what transpired as well as requesting to be directed to a document or public announcement indicating a canceled public hearing.
His emailed response, which you can read as he posted it as a public comment to my article, was received at 8:28 a.m. Tuesday morning, a full 12 hours after the gavel dropped and after our normal 7 a.m. publishing time.
The exact language of the agenda posted to the town website stated that the public hearing was “to be further continued on 3/31/25 without testimony to 4/7/25.”
My response to him was that this is the problem with legal notices, unfortunately, and I have read quite my share during my 30-year career as a reporter in New England. To the layman, this language does not, in any way, clearly state “Hey public, don’t show up.” Instead, it says “The public hearing will take place on 3/31, but it will also continue if needed on 4/7.”
Regardless of whether the public hearing was cancelled, it could be reasonably expected that there may have been some discussion among the planners about the Hamlet proposal.
Lebowitz, to his credit, sent me a cordial email later in the day Tuesday, explaining that his “comment about ‘trying harder’ was not meant to be dismissive but rather to emphasize the importance of direct communication in avoiding confusion.”
“As for the legal notice, while I understand your interpretation, the phrasing was in line with standard public meeting notices,” he added. “I agree that these notices can sometimes be less than clear to the general public, but they do follow legal and procedural norms.”
Fair enough, and I appreciate the clarification. Context is not always apparent when reading emails, so I appreciated the followup.
Legal fine print does not serve the public well
This public hearing was highly anticipated, as it regards perhaps the largest development project in much of Westport’s history, and planners no doubt expect a high turnout of speakers on both sides. That’s why they scheduled two nights for public hearings – so that overflow could be accommodated should the March 31 date, if it had happened, went late.
The planned April 7 public hearing date has been published already, we submit. But town officials need to understand that to me, and to members of the public awaiting the public hearing, there was nothing written ahead of the meeting that clearly stated that it was being rescheduled. If it had, I happily would have published that. Our platform allows us to make immediate announcements when necessary.
Going forward, we certainly do not seek an acrimonious relationship with town officials, and we highly encourage and welcome open dialogue and communication so that we each can do our jobs without resorting to a public argument. Chairman Lebowitz and I have exchanged personal phone numbers so that we can remain in contact when necessary, and I truly appreciate the effort to open lines of communication. These days, there simply isn’t enough of that cooperation between the media and elected officials.
It’s not our job as journalists to know how to do the frankly thankless jobs that the public entrusts of elected town officials, but it is our job to record them doing it, and make sure they do the job transparently. You, the citizens and our readers, deserve no less.
John Palmer is editor of the Westport Journal, and has covered community news in Fairfield County and Massachusetts for over 30 years. He can be contacted at jpalmer@westportjournal.com.
It was stated clearly at the previous meeting by Paul that this phase of hamlet application might not make the following weeks agenda, even if on the schedule. Seemed smart to park it until the peer review was finalized by Redniss.
Although delaying the hamlet app can be problematic. Others have applications in P and Z as well as this one. Good job Paul!
You are correct Robbie, for those who happened to be on that call they would have heard the chairman say so.
Parking it a week, when, amongst other outstanding issues like their inability to avail of either removing railroad parking to suit their design aesthetic and /or confirmation that they cannot rent or lease or sequester railroad parking specifically for themselves is a far far more pressing issue for all concerned to understand.
No sense in building something without its own stand alone parking when the state contract with Westport expires in 2031, and the parking at the railroad is for commuters, and NOT greedy developers with plenty land to build their own. Any renewal of same contract in 2031, will stipulate same or possibly get tighter… certainly won’t be favoring greedy contractors and greedy investors.
Let’s remember Westport has made 2million a year from this contract.
If you read the entire contract with the state, there is zero allowance to farm off or sequester any of the lots whether town or state owned for a developers use.
And let’s face it Westports railroad parking town/state owned falls under the same umbrella.
It’s for commuters to use the train station to commute.
The fact that is just happens to be not packed today bears no reflection on what it may be a year or two or five from now.
It is also used by alllll surrounding towns. Not limited to Fairfield, Norwalk, Weston and Wilton taxpayers…
While I’m not in favour of any narrowing of roads, I think if we narrowed them to have a bike lane on both sides of the road, that would feel less tunnel like..
nobody wants narrowed town roads for wider pavements when as commissioner Calise so appropriately pointed out they have plenty land themselves to not get a SINGLE freebie from tax payers ( most of whom do not want this)
I don’t think anyone is trying to delay the hamlet application. I’m sure that was not PZ goal.
We are all looking forward to the truth and nothing but the truth.
Many of us look forward to a GAULT style development.
With standalone parking. Several floors smaller.. better water views, more open space and not just for patio seating at their restaurants. After all that would not be open space.
The state might after all renew its contract in 2031 subject to a TOD, and that is their right.
Time to reign in this madness and avarice.
It’s only suiting a handful and hurting the rest of us.
It should be noted that hearing the chairman of P&Z mention that an application “might not make” an agenda is not the same as a legally-required public notice. He can say anything he wants; that doesn’t mean it’s legally binding as a legal public notice. There are laws that are very specific about what must be posted and when.
That comment, “try harder,” was very rude.
Also, arrogant.
And out of line / un called for.
I think we can discern where the problem is.
A lot of shady biz happening here folks, i can see all the flags.
Now aside from arguing about the scheduling process, which is valid, I like to concentrate on the project itself.
Lets look at use cases:
What we are dealing with is a train station.
The greatest use case is for local residents to get to and from new york…thats it , thats all.
The marina has been for sale for at least 20 years, from my personal knowlage.
Commuters like to get a drink, egg sandwich.
Indeed my father took the train everyday for decades.
To figure out develpment strategies we need to talk to commuters and people who live in Westport and work in New York City, they are whome the station is for, they pay the bills and raise chillins.
We can already assume that this project is not happening, judging by the rude behavior of the pnz chair.
So what next? If I was the first select person I would make a list of use cases that support train activity, just like they taught me to do at cornell systems.
And then go from there. You need parking– the most important. You need to fix the traffic, as it is insane. You need to be able to drop of clothes at the cleaners and get a couple shots of whiskey after a hard days work.
Just the name Hamlet is so cheezy.
It is possible to move the train station out of Saugatuck, we have been tossing that one around, we would put it up greens farms where the pelican was located.
The project as is is doa, as they cant even hold a public hearing on it, totally incompetent behavior.