By Gretchen Webster
WESTPORT–The Planning and Zoning Commission spent two hours on Wednesday discussing whether talks with Roan Ventures, the developers of the Hamlet project, should be held in public or in private “executive” sessions – an issue that had already been disputed for several hours last week. But the commission didn’t vote on an actual resolution during yesterday’s meeting either.
Instead, they pushed the vote on the makeup of the negotiating sessions to the next P&Z meeting on Monday, Sept. 8. The commission did approve an informal sense of the meeting resolution, however, favoring executive sessions in a 3-2 vote.
Third meeting about meeting
The Hamlet application by developer Roan Ventures to build the riverfront project was rejected by the P&Z on July 28. Roan then filed a lawsuit against the town on Aug. 6. Since then, the P&Z has met twice to determine whether the public should be present during negotiations over the litigation with Roan. Tempers flared among commission members at a P&Z meeting last week that a state official said may have been in violation of Freedom of Information laws.
In an effort to put the question of executive sessions versus public sessions to rest, a vote is planned on a resolution proposed by Town Attorney Ira Bloom for the next P&Z meeting, Monday at 6 p.m. Bloom’s resolution outlines the steps the commission would take during an executive session with Roan. They include:
- Taking all votes in public session.
- Inviting other people chosen by the commission to present testimony related to the litigation in executive session.
- If a settlement is proposed, holding a public meeting to allow public comment before the P&Z votes on the settlement, and posting the settlement on the town’s website three days before the meeting.
- If the commission approves a settlement, an approval hearing will be held by the Superior Court, with notice of the hearing posted in advance.
P&Z Commission member John Bolton, who is an attorney, will also be adding some additional points to the resolution..
Affordable application
One of the topics under discussion at Wednesday’s meeting was the possibility that Roan is preparing three applications to build affordable housing projects under the state 8-30g law. The law allows developers to override some zoning laws if certain requirements to build affordable housing units are met. “I am convinced that they are preparing 8-30g applications,” P&Z Commission Chair Paul Lebowitz said. But he doesn’t think that the P&Z’s actions should be decided by the threat of an 8-30g project. “They may file an 8-30g application no matter what” happens with the Hamlet application, he said.
Lebowitz said he believed that all members of the P&Z Commission should be involved in executive sessions to negotiate a settlement, not a small negotiating group as had been discussed at last week’s meeting. P&Z Commissioner Patrizia Zucaro agreed. She also said she was worried that during negotiations over the litigation, a new application could surface. “I’m a little concerned about that,” she said, because all applications should be carefully considered. “The burden of proof will shift. It will impact our position in this litigation.”
Bloom agreed. If a new plan or major modifications to the proposed project are discussed in the executive sessions, that would constitute a new application that must go through the regular application process, he said.
Pre-app
P&Z Commissioner John Bolton suggested that asking for “a pre-app” – a meeting between a developer and the commission on proposed plans before an application is officially filed – would be an option that would keep the Hamlet discussion in front of the public. Other commission members agreed.
Before the commission voted on the sense of the meeting resolution to meet with Roan representatives in executive session, Lebowitz said that an executive session is not meant to replace the public, “or supplant the public’s right or go around any part of the application process.” Holding talks in executive session “gives [the commission] and Roan the right to say what they like and what they don’t like and then take it to the public,” he said. Negotiating a new plan could also avoid costly litigation “and craft a better outcome for the Saugatuck area,” he said.
Open hearing necessary
P&Z Commissioner Michael Calise disagreed. “I remain committed to the concept of open hearings,” he said. “Roan had a wonderful opportunity to redevelop a portion of the town. Frankly, they blew it. They had every opportunity to adhere to the regulations. They blatantly disregarded our regulations. They’re not our saviors – they’re an applicant, no different than any applicant,” he said.
Speaking during the public comment portion of the meeting was attorney Joel Green, representing the Westport Alliance for Saugatuck. “At the end of the day, Roan submitted an application that did not comply with the zoning regulations. This commission voted unanimously to deny this application … Roan should go back to the drawing board,” Green said.
P&Z Commissioner Amy Wistreich, summing up the opinion of several of the P&Z members about holding an executive session with Roan representatives called a chance to mediate “an opportunity … I think we would be remiss not to go into executive session and give it a try,” she said, “not to do anything secretive, but to see if there is a common-sense solution for Saugatuck, not leaving it to a judge, but leaving it to members of our community.”
Informal resolution passes 3-2
Bolton voted against the informal resolution to hold executive sessions with the developers, along with Calise. Voting in favor of holding the negotiations privately were Michael Cammeyer, Wistreich, and Lebowitz. Zucaro left before the vote.
Bloom cautioned the commission about any method of negotiation with the developer. “Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t work and we go back to the litigation,” he said. “We’re so far from knowing right now how this is going to work out.”
Gretchen Webster
Gretchen Webster, a Fairfield County journalist for many years, has reported for the daily Greenwich Time and Norwalk Hour, the weekly Westport News, Fairfield Citizen and Weston Forum. She was editor of the Fairfield Minuteman for ten years. She has won numerous journalism awards over the years, and taught journalism at New York University and Southern Connecticut State University.
I am curious about Mr. Bolton’s status. Having recused himself from voting on the Hamlet application, how is it that he is now able to participate in the ongoing deliberations? It may be perfectly proper but it strikes me as curious. If he had legitimate reasons for recusing himself from the vote, do not those reasons continue to prevent his participation?
Bolton’s opposition to executive sessions underscores his commitment to open government. By advocating for a “pre-app” meeting, a public discussion before any formal application is filed. He reinforces the idea that development decisions should be made in full view of the community, not behind closed doors. This aligns with the spirit of Connecticut’s Freedom of Information laws and builds public trust in the commission’s process.
Bolton brings a legal lens to the commission’s actions. His insistence on adding points to the resolution reflects a desire to ensure that any negotiations with Roan Ventures are procedurally sound and legally defensible. This is especially critical given the litigation at hand and the potential for new applications to emerge mid-negotiation.
His approach helps safeguard the town from inadvertently accepting terms or processes that could weaken its legal position or set problematic precedents.
His vote against executive sessions can be seen as a stand against allowing developers to circumvent zoning regulations through informal backroom deals. The Hamlet application was unanimously rejected for noncompliance, and Bolton’s resistance to private negotiations signals that he believes developers should meet the town’s standards, not negotiate their way around them.
So, the question is-why are you concerned for Mr. Bolton’s status? Is it because you want a non-transparent process that shuts out the voices of many of the towns registered voters that elect commissioners like this to keep our interests and ONLY OUR interests at heart?
I certainly don’t speak for Mr Weisman and don’t even have a specific opinion on this particular issue. But if someone feels as if they should recuse themself from a vote (because of a conflict of interest), they should absolutely recuse themself from the discussion. The obvious reason is that they can otherwise influence the discussion toward a result they personally want, sit out the vote, and claim that they recused themselves while actually pushing the debate in a certain direction. This is pretty straightforward ethics.