By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Planning and Zoning Commission on Monday closed the public hearing on initial aspects of a plan to add 10 residential structures to the Glendinning Place corporate campus.
But it delayed its vote on a text amendment to zoning regulations, and a general development plan and special permit. That has been scheduled for a work session March 18.
The plan by Glendinning Westport LLC calls for eight detached market rate single-family homes on a northern portion of the property. Two other buildings would contain three efficiency studios in each to house five special needs individuals, plus a support staff person.
Those six units would help the town obtain a new moratorium from the state’s 8-30g legislation.
The public can’t speak at work sessions like the one set in two weeks, but the commission heard plenty from neighbors Monday, as well as from Gloria Gouveia, a consultant neighbors hired. Many of the issues discussed had been aired previously.
While the plan appears to have plenty of support from the commission, a process question was raised in a recent email by neighbor Jennifer DeLeonardo — why didn’t neighbors within 500 feet receive official notification of the text amendment?
Planning and Zoning Director Mary Young said there was no notification, “because none was required.” She said the Town Attorney’s Office confirmed that.
Rick Redniss, a consultant for the applicant, concurred that in towns with zoning regulations like Westport’s, notification is required for some zoning changes, but not for text amendments.
DeLeonardo gave a long explanation of why she disagreed.
The question made commission member John Bolton uneasy.
“I’m struggling with the legal notice, and the 500 feet notice requirement,” he said. “I don’t necessarily agree with the town attorney’s opinion on this, and I’m not saying I’m the smartest guy in the room and that I’m 100 percent right …”
He said he wanted to talk to the town attorney himself.
The applicants agreed to several language changes to their text amendment suggested by Planning and Zoning Department staff, but had a bone to pick with a staff report that recommended the driveway be 26 feet wide.
“This private driveway has served that property for decades when there were as many as 400 people working there,” Redniss said. “So, we think it is a disservice, unnecessary, to require that driveway to be anything more than the fire marshal wants or needs for fire protection.”
“So, we, discussing it with staff, are not accepting that,” he said. “We’re happy to continue that discussion. But widening that roadway would require a new bridge, taking down more trees, building shoulders, more impervious surface, more drainage.”
“We think it is overkill,” Redniss said.
Neighbors again expressed concerns about water quality, the fragile ecosystem of the area, and their belief that the original zoning from the 1960s for the corporate offices left the area where the housing is planned untouchable. They questioned how today’s commission could justify changing that.
“You’re allowed to disagree with our opinions, but only we get to vote,” P&Z Chairman Paul Lebowitz said. “I want to remind you that no one’s here trying to give something away, or something that’s not necessary or a benefit to the town. Every one of my commissioners I’m quite proud of, they take their job very seriously.”
He defended the professionalism of the P&Z department staff and the expertise of the town attorney.
“I’m terribly sorry if you feel like you’re being, I don’t know, you and the staff are being abused in some way,” Gouveia said.
“I did not say abused,” Lebowitz said. “No matter what anyone says, we listen. And that’s the hallmark of this commission.”
“You’re not listening right now,” Zoom participant Kevin Huelster broke in.
“Kevin, if you’d like to raise your hand, you may,” Lebowitz said. “I do recall the last time you cut in. I don’t do that to you.”
Lebowitz asked Gouveia, who delved into the zoning history of the property, to submit her comments in writing for the record.
“Gloria, I do want to redress one thing,” Lebowitz said. “I do want to ask you to please include in your materials those neighbors that you do in fact represent so that we have a full accounting.”
“And why is that Mr. Chairman? I’ve never been asked to do that before,” Gouveia replied.
“Just so that we know who we’re dealing with,” Lebowitz said, saying that whenever other land-use lawyers or consultants appear, they mention who hired them. “We like to know where people’s minds are.”
“The neighbors that I am representing hired me so that they wouldn’t be, they wouldn’t be called out, they wouldn’t be accused of being NIMBYs,” Gouveia said, using an acronym for Not In My Back Yard. “And I’m very sensitive to that.”
“We don’t apply a NIMBY standard here,” Lebowitz replied. “We listen to every important conversation.”
“I don’t think it’s any of your business,” Becky Ruthven, a neighbor, told Lebowitz.
Redniss weighed in on the issue as well.
“We have no problem if Gloria does not want to disclose who she’s representing,” he said.
“We understand that land use gets people a little crazy,” Redniss said. “And people look at things and dig and find out information and act on certain aspects of information, not having the full picture. We understand we’re talking about very sensitive issues when you’re talking about special needs housing.”
“No one wants to seem like they’re against it,” he said. “We have no objection not knowing who she represents.”
David Waldman, one of the project’s principals, was asked about the timeline of the project.
Waldman, who was involved in the development of Bedford Square and the Bankside Condos, said the applicants would like to have shovels in the ground this fall, and completion by spring 2026.
Commission members were split when informally polled by Lebowitz on whether the public hearing should be closed and a vote taken, or some variation. They ultimately agreed to close the hearing and hold a vote March 18.
Thane Grauel grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond for 36 years. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.
Another interesting discussion on a subject that is vitally important to Westport’s character and future development.
Another situation where neighbors are upset about lack of notification- dismissed by the Town representatives as being perfectly legal according to their Town Attorney.
Another assault upon Westport’s limited dedicated open space.
Another “broken promise” that residents relied upon when purchasing their home and presumed to be enviolate.
Another Commission assertion that because “times have changed” they will breach prior promises relied upon, original intentions and historical traditions.
Another assertion that because our Town Attorneys are also hired by a variety of Town Halls their legal opinions trump all other legal opinions with an expressed implication of their infallibility. One might otherwise conclude that their vsrious employment is more likely predicated upon their opined allegiance to their employers.
Regarding this last point, it is important to remember that our Town Attorney has recently provided an opinion that was described by a prominent attorney as being “a tortured legal analysis” when absurdly advising that violating First Amendment rights and Town Charter provisions was perfectly fine, and on another occassion proclaiming that the discovery that legal documents were intentionally falsified by certain Town officials was “irrelevant”. AND that our Town Attorney office has been frequently accused of obstructing FOIA requests, refuses to answer resident inquiries, and is responsible only to Town officials rather than the residents whose taxes pay for their services.
I do not mention this latter point to disparage the intelligence or competence of the Town Attorneys. On the contrary – their intelligence and competence has served the interests of their Town employers well for decades. It’s just that their interests are not focused upon the resident’s interests.
With this, my final point:
Neighbors of this project (including an attorney) raised important concerns and perspectives – some of which contrasted with the Town Attorney.
Gloria Gouveia provided an excellent, thoughtful and comprehensive presentation which deserved further dialog.
(Incidentally Chairman Lebowitz’s request that Mrs. Gouveia identify the names of her clients was out-of-line particularly as the P&Z refused to support resident requests that the McHamlet at Saugatuck investors be identified so that “We can know who we are dealing with”.)
Three P&Z Commissioners wanted to keep this hearing open, thereby allowing for further dialogue with residents. By ultimately closing the hearing, the P&Z has in effect prohibited any further resident debate of the forthcoming Town Attorney perspectives and opinions which will be sought.
Gloria Gouveia’s concerns and perspectives will be submitted for Town Attorney review- however Mrs. Gouveia has been denied the right and ability to counter that forthcoming Attorney opinion. THAT is not right. THAT imposes as if the Town Attorney is infallible and not open to being questioned. THAT prevents the residents and Ms. Gouveia from making an informed closing argument.
I am not a direct party to this application. However as Westport residents we are all impacted not only by the ultimate P&Z decision, but by how the processes continue to be adjudicated.
THIS particular project may or may not be the correct, ethical, appropriate project. However in my opinion, prohibiting further dialogue with impacted residents after the Town Attorney renders a “Town oriented opinion” was unfairly premature.
Dr J
Well said Dr. J….
Public hearings should be in person at Westport Town Hall and also available on Zoom
Thank you to the three P&Z Commissioners who voted to keep the hearing open. It was unfortunate that the Chairman moved to close the hearing even after a key map documenting the open space was shown by Ms Gouveia. If nothing else, it is completely puzzling why the current P&Z didn’t seem to know about the open space map.
Given the lack of prior proper notice on the proposed zoning change, the proposed destruction of previously protected open space, and the completely isolated location of the proposed affordable units for people with special needs, the P&Z Commission should deny this application on March 18th.
And yes Ms. Kamen is 100% correct – “Public hearings should be in-person at Westport Town Hall”. In-person meetings are more respectful to the public directly impacted by the P&Z Commission rulings.