By Gretchen Webster
WESTPORT–The notice of Wednesday’s meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission referred to a discussion of the litigation between Roan Development and the P&Z commission, which turned down the developer’s application for the mixed-use Hamlet at Saugatuck project. The notice described the meeting as a “public meeting,” with “no items on the public agenda.” The announcement also stated that “It is anticipated that the Planning and Zoning Commission will IMMEDIATELY vote to go into an EXECUTIVE SESSION.”
That anticipation was not met.
Commissioners, the public and representatives of Roan Development had a discussion that lasted more than two hours without going into executive session.
That discussion was in violation of Freedom of Information (FOI) laws, according to Russell Blair, director of Education and Communication for the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission.
No items
Since the notice posted on the town’s Meeting Minutes website referred to “no items,” holding a public discussion at the meeting is in violation of FOI laws that require advance notice of a public meeting, Blair said. The P&Z’s violation, which may have kept interested people away, could be the basis of an FOI complaint, Blair said.
“You can’t put an agenda out and say you’re not going to do something, and then do it,” he said. “It looks like this is trying to deter people from going [to the meeting],” he said of the public notice posted by the P&Z. “There’s nothing to be talked about, but then there was talking about it in public. To me it’s kind of concerning – it seems like it’s deceitful,” he said.
Westport Town Clerk Jeffery Dunkerton confirmed on Wednesday that the public notice that was posted on the town website was all he received from the P&Z, and no other agenda.
Discussion was procedural
Directly following the meeting, Town Attorney Ira Bloom told Westport Journal that the two-hour discussion was about “whether we should go into executive session. It was all procedural.” The discussion included some P&Z members who said they wanted the meeting to be held in executive session, and others who wanted the discussion to be open to the public, he said.
Later, when he heard Blair’s comments about the meeting being in violation of FOI laws, Bloom disagreed. He said the word “anticipated,” in the public notice of the meeting, made a difference because the expectation was that the P&Z would go into executive session, but they never did.
“I anticipated that we would go into executive session. It was perfectly legal,” he said.
To be continued Sept. 3
As a result of concerns of both the public and some P&Z members, another P&Z meeting will be held virtually on Sept. 3 at 1 p.m. to discuss whether the commission will to go into executive session that day to discuss the Hamlet litigation, Planning and Zoning Director Michelle Perillie said late Wednesday afternoon.
“It will be a follow-up on the discussion today… a continuation of topics discussed today,” including the issue of whether the meeting should be put into executive session as well as discussion on Roan’s appeal of the P&Z decision, she said. The notice of the meeting will be posted on the town calendar by Friday, Perillie said.
Public attendees
There were a few members of the public who did attend Wednesday’s meeting, despite the indication that it would be held in executive or private session, because they felt that it should be an open meeting. They included RTM members Jennifer Johnson, and Sal Liccione, both from RTM District 9.
Attendees also included Roan Development’ lawyer, Eric Bernheim, and two Roan principals.
Johnson attended the meeting, she said, because she was concerned that it was planned as an executive session. “It was important. I didn’t want it to be a done deal,” she said of any decisions that could have been made about the developer’s litigation against the town for the P&Z’s denial of the Hamlet application.
“We needed RTM members there on behalf of the public to know what was going on,” commented Liccione after the meeting. “I was hoping to hear what they were going to say – rumor was that negotiations were going to take place.”
The meeting notice reads:
Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will open a public meeting at 7:00 AM on Wednesday, August 27, 2025, at Westport Town Hall, 110 Myrtle Ave., Room 201, Westport, CT. There are no items on the public agenda. It is anticipated that the Planning and Zoning Commission will IMMEDIATELY vote to go into an EXECUTIVE SESSION to discuss this pending litigation: Roan Development Ventures LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Westport, for property at 601, 606, and 609 Riverside Ave, 91 and 96 Franklin St, 2 and 16 Railroad Place (The Hamlet at Saugatuck).
Read more Westport Journal coverage of the Hamlet
- P&Z denies Hamlet; lawsuit anticipated
- Hamlet: to be continued
- Developers plan to pursue 8-30g application if Hamlet is not approved
- Conservation Commission approves Hamlet project, with 23 conditions
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.
Whoa.
An executive session called and properly posted and convened to discuss pending litigation is wholly appropriate. However, two-thirds of the public agency (PZC in this case) must vote in public session to go into executive session. The meeting must be posted properly and a reason given for holding an executive session.
But wait, there’s more! Is it appropriate to invite the plaintiffs who are suing you to be included in an executive session to discuss that litigation? What is going on here? Any discussion of whether The Hamlet will go forward in any form needs to be conducted in the public domain.
I will once again call for our elected bodies, such as the Planning and Zoning Commission, to retain independent legal counsel, apart from that of the town’s executive branch.
And any meeting that includes members of The Hamlet team must be held in public.
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS
if this is not one of those moments I don’t know what is.
Kindergarten 101, can anyone point out the 3 stakeholders who should have been sitting on the bench and NOT at the table.
SKULLDUGGERY – the Oxford dictionary describes this as dishonorable proceedings, dishonesty or trickery
Their words not mine.
This in my opinion was skullduggery of the highest order. But of course my humble opinion only.
To state that the word “anticipated” with mind you “IMMEDIATELY” and “EXECUTIVE SESSION” in the same sentence, and capitalized for effect., means that Russell Blair of FOIA interpretation of this spectacle was not correct, is breathtaking, ( in my opinion)
I spy with my little eye… just look at the photo and who is sitting where.
I see elected members of the RTM, sitting where the “public” sit, and I see plaintiffs who are suing us sitting at the big boy table.
I agree wholeheartedly with Toni on everything she said in her comment.
The general and majority of Westport public spoke loudly and clearly, we want to know what’s going on from here on out with transparency and clarity.
There should be sessions held IMMEDIATELY to repeal that ludicrous text amendment, instead of negotiating with ROAN.
That’s right, that same one the plaintiffs could not even comply with, in spite of how egregiously self serving it was.
This meeting was recorded by a Good Samaritan.
Deo Gratias
The important legal issue presented here is: whether the Planning and Zoning Commission can go into executive session for the purpose of carrying out negotiations with representatives of ROAN Ventures related to the pending litigation.
The controlling legal provision is CT Gen. Statutes Sec. 1-21 (g) which provides in relevant part, “at an executive session of a public agency, attendance shall be limited to members of said body and persons invited by said body to present testimony or opinion pertinent to matters before said body provided that such persons’ attendance shall be limited to the period for which their presence is necessary to present such testimony or opinion.”
There are at least two major problems with the proposed closed door negotiation session.
First, given that there was a final ruling by the Commission denying the application, which is now the subject of an appeal in Connecticut Superior Court, it is not clear to me that a pending “matter” (related to the Hamlet) is still before “said body” (i.e. the P & Z).
Second, it seems like quite a stretch to interpret the word “opinion” as encompassing a lawyer and/or his clients horse trading and bargaining with members of the Commission. Rather a more plausible reading is that this law is designed to allow a board to hear from an additional witness (such as a fact witness or, as relates to opinion, an expert witness) in a closed setting during the pendency of a matter. Not after the ruling.
Although the Town Attorney blithely suggested that in his experience this kind of closed door settlement discussion is routine, he did not even attempt to engage with the statutory language or case law. The fact that, as he asserted, this happens all the time doesn’t mean that it’s legal now or in the past for that matter. If the Town Attorney wants to be diligent he could, of course, easily seek a clarification from the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission. I’m not holding my breath.
I spoke with P&Z today- was inquiring when I could hear the taped public portion of Wednesday’s
7 am meeting. They told me it wasn’t taped as they”anticipated “ to go right into Executive Session which we know was not the case. They told me the Hamlet representatives only said a few words and all of the public discussion was setting parameters for Executive Sessions on this matter and nothing else was discussed. Evidently Tuesdays 1pm public meeting is for the same.
I asked why 7am and 1pm for these important meetings and the response was some board members work and was set to accommodate them. I informed them that a good percentage of citizens work as well and these scheduled times prohibit the attendance of too many interested citizens and it may appear an intentional
move to prevent too many voices being heard and considered. No answer for that was given but I thought important to illuminate as their numerous other meetings are conducted after working hours…
In my opinion from the info relayed the intent of the Exec Sessions coming will be bargaining with The Hamlet directly and the rules of engagement to do so. I asked if they were working on a change to the text amendment the answer was not at this time.
They also relayed that certain members of the public will also be invited to the Executive Sessions with no clarity on how they are to be chosen and specifically what credentials would be necessary to observe or comment Tuesday at 1pm and going forward in these executive meetings.
I could be wrong but the body language implied to me they are indeed going to bargain with the Hamlet whatever that might mean and what public input would add weight.
Also when I asked why the Hamlet will be involved in the closed meetings I was told because of the law suit and was typical when the Town is being sued. I hung up feeling disenfranchised.
PZ Commission has denied this application.
I believe this means it is no longer up for any negotiation.
I’m not sure what has happened in the past, regarding negotiations, post denial of an application, though potentially those may have been against the law.
There were scores of reasons PZ denied this application, and I believe a judge will agree the denial was justified.
I also believe the plaintiffs know this.
Why would any negotiations happen before it has gone through what is now the correct legal process.
I believe a far more prudent use of PZ time would be to IMMEDIATELY work on changes to the text amendment regarding height, density and FAR.
It is also my opinion that unless the Hamlet is reduced in size and scope back to a more “Gault” like size, a more than 40% reduction, then not withstanding the illegality of entering into negotiations, there is nothing to discuss.
Attorney Barrs comment above,
“Given that there was a final ruling by the Commission denying the application, which is now the subject of an appeal in the Connecticut Superior Court, it is not clear to me that a pending “matter” (related to the Hamlet) is before “Said body”( in this case the PZ. “
Attorney Barr goes on to suggest that Attorney Bloom could easily seek clarification from the Connecticut freedom of Information Commission.
That would appear to be a no brainer.
I anticipate that FOIA body will provide swift clarity.
Then, the rule of law can be followed, in this important case which has disastrous ramifications for residents of the entire town, not just Saugatuck.
I just listened to the first 15 minutes of a recording of this meeting and I am gobsmacked. The Town Attorney maintains that having opposing litigants in an executive session to discuss said litigation is “the way we’ve done it for 40 years.”
Well, that is a poke to every sleeping lion.
Attorneys of the litigants can discuss settlement agreements until the cows come home. But an elected body privately negotiating terms of a controversial development under litigation, for which the public has clearly spoken, is unfathomable to me.
Use the executive session for our attorney to bring settlement offers forward to the commission or discuss legal strategies. Nothing more.
I’m no lawyer but this is good-old-boy bush league lawyering at its finest. The PZC would do well to get a second opinion.
Now for the remaining 1 hour and 45 minutes of said meeting.
Well Toni,
their tone suggests they not only do not plan on a second opinion, and should, without a shadow of a doubt,. As it appears previous practice was not correct, and would not have beaten any challenge.
What is of paramount importance here, is they have been warned !!! , the public will have and use this recording in any legal hearing which will show that Patrizia and John Bolton, both attorneys, tried to point out the case law and were duly ignored.
It was reiterated several times. As it stands PZ vote was consistent with the law.
There is not much the Hamlet can change other than a 40% reduction to make the aspects of this that do not work be acceptable.
The biggest issues just cannot be made work without conditions.
Conditions burden future commissions.
We want ZERO conditions..
they had a dream text amendment.
And they still could not make it work because of their excessive greed.
This will be in court regardless but at this point it might be a double lawsuit..
public V hamlet, and public V PZ !!! At the same time.
I’m incredibly suspicious of the “hurry” when in court in my opinion the plaintiffs lose all day long.
This is a big beautiful bill “rush”. They do not want to lose out on the tax free benefits in 2025 and 2026….
Oh my opinion only..
But I think I understand precisely what is going on.