By John Schwing
WESTPORT — As plans to redesign downtown parking lots continue to spark controversy, a citizens’ petition was launched online Thursday to bring the issue before the Representative Town Meeting.
Lawrence Weisman, in a petition posted on change.org, is looking for at least 25 voter signatures in support of the following: “As provided in section C5-6 C of the Town Charter, the undersigned electors hereby request that the Moderator place on the agenda of the Representative Town Meeting the matter of how best to supplement and improve downtown parking.”
The petitioning effort comes in the wake of a split decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission on Monday to approve an 8-24 application and Coastal Area Management site plan to redesign the Parker Harding Plaza and Jesup Green parking lots.
As approved, the plan is the first phase of what administration officials say will be a multi-faceted plan to eventually revamp all of downtown’s parking facilities.
But the plan currently under review addresses only the Parker Harding and Jesup lots.
The plan would redesign Parker Harding to comply with current safety and Americans with Disabilities Act standards, as well as add greenery, with the loss of 40-plus parking spaces. That parking would be replaced by carving out a new lot on upper Jesup Green near the Westport Library.
Future phases — which have been discussed, but not approved — envision restoring green space on lower Jesup Green where parking now is located. If future phases move forward, they would likely not occur for years and rely on uncertain factors like a suggestion to move Police Department headquarters.
Weisman’s petition is the latest development in the controversy that has dogged plans to redesign downtown parking for more than a year. First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker and her officials, facing push-back from merchants and the public, have been forced to revise, pause and relaunch the proposal several times before securing the P&Z’s narrow approval Monday.
The following day, however, a request to allot $630,000 in American Rescue Plan Act funds to design and secure permits for redevelopment of the Jesup Green and Imperial parking lots was set aside for more study by the Representative Town Meeting.
Enough signatures, but does that matter?
Whether Weisman’s petition, which shortly after 2 p.m. Thursday hit its original target of 25 signatures, will be reviewed by the full RTM, is an open question.
A similar citizen petition asking for an RTM review of an earlier version of downtown parking plans, signed by more that 50 voters, was denied a hearing by Moderator Jeff Weiser.
Critics said that action contravened a long-standing RTM tradition, as detailed in the Town Charter, that gives any petition signed by at least 20 electors the right to be debated by the full legislative body.
But Weiser, citing an interpretation of the charter from the Town Attorney’s Office, said his refusal to add the petition to the RTM’s agenda was justified because the moderator is empowered to use his or her judgment to disallow consideration of frivolous issues and those not directly within the RTM’s purview.
Another petition seeking to clarify petitioners’ right to have an RTM hearing, which did make it onto the full body’s October agenda, was voted down.
But debate over the public’s right to petition the RTM, and the moderator’s authority to reject petitions, has not ended.
The issue arose again at December’s meeting of the RTM Rules Committee, and is likely to be aired again Thursday (tonight) when the committee convenes again to continue its discussion “… regarding public participation in, and access to, RTM meetings.”
The online meeting is set for 7:30 p.m. Thursday; click here to access the meeting via Zoom.
John Schwing, the Westport Journal consulting editor, has held senior editorial and writing posts at southwestern Connecticut media outlets for four decades. Learn more about us here.
I know the moderator and those members who supported him in refusing to consider petitions to add agenda Items to RTM’s proceedings acted in good faith and relied upon a legal opinion by the town’s attorneys. I believe that legal opinion and RTM’s actions depending on it are deeply flawed on public policy grounds and in violation of Westport’s Town Code.
Our Founders established a government that turned persons who were previously subjects of a ruling elite into citizens. A legitimate government derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed”. We must guard these rights, even in local government proceedings.
That right to be heard by our elected representatives was enshrined in the Town Code provision that the “Moderator…shall place on the agenda of the Representative Town Meeting such matters as…20 electors of the Town may request by written notice….”
The Connecticut General Statutes state that “words and phrases shall be construed according to the commonly approved usage of the language”. Westport’s Planning and Zoning regulations built on this concept by stating “Words not specifically defined herein shall be used as defined in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary no more than 5 years old. The most recent Webster’s (1999) states the word “shall” when used in laws, regulations or directives is mandatory. Section 1-2 of the general provisions governing the Westport Code of Ordinances states in part: “The term ‘shall’ is to be construed as being mandatory.”
Given the foregoing, there can be no basis to support town counsel’s advice that the moderator has discretion to deny the clearly defined rights of 20 electors to cause a matter to be placed on RTM’s meeting agenda. RTM must consider petitions brought before it by concerned Westport electors.