WESTPORT–At Thursday evening’s meeting of the RTM Environment Committee and the RTM Public Works Committee, town attorney Ira Bloom asked a critical question:
In the wee hours of June 5, did the Flood and Erosion Control Board really mean to close the public session of the seven-plus hour meeting? Or did they want to continue the discussion at another time to get more information and public feedback about the Hamlet’s application’s compliance with waterway standards?
According to two members at the meeting, the distinction is important. If the RTM committees determine that the FECB cut itself off from making a fully informed decision, then that decision is flawed. The committees would likely vote to overturn the FECB’s decision. The full RTM has the final say, which would take the form of a vote at their next meeting, Sept. 25.
The subcommittees were meeting at Town Hall Thursday night as a result of two petitions filed last month by the Westport Alliance for Saugatuck. The petitions asked the RTM to meet and look at the decisions made and the processes followed by the Flood and Erosion Control Board and the Conservation Committee when they approved Roan Development’s application for a multi-use development known as the Hamlet at Saugatuck.
Robert’s Rules
A couple of hours into the meeting, Matt Mandell, a District 1 Member of both the Environment and Public Works Committees, opined that the FECB “didn’t know Robert’s Rules,” the widely used manual for official meetings. They didn’t realize that by “closing” the meeting, they cut themselves off from further input.
Bloom agreed. He said “I am rethinking my position” on the conditions under which the June 4 meeting was closed. He later said he wanted to go back to see what the FECB was talking about before they voted.
The meeting began with Ellen Lautenberg (Chair, Environment, District 7), kicking off the meeting with the ground rules. She expected comments from RTM members, an illustration of the complaint from the petitioner, testimony from town engineers and comments from the public.
Not here to debate the project
Jay Keenan, (Chair, Public Works, District 2) said the RTM members were there “not to debate the merits of the project,” but to review how the FECB and Conservation Commission assessed the application’s compliance with waterways protection guidelines.
Bloom advised the RTM committee members to determine if there is “substantial evidence” that the FECB and Conservation Commission didn’t properly consider the material presented and whether they had the opportunity to review all the pertinent facts.
Jennifer Johnson (Member, Public Works, District 9), and Wendy Batteau (Environment D8), asked Bloom questions about the project’s impact on the waterfront and what level of information did the FECB and Conservation Commissions have?
Petitioner details three problems
Petitioner Dara Lamb said she filed the petitions because she felt “afraid for the town.” The developer’s application failed on three levels, Lamb said: “procedural flaws, environmental risks / oversight gaps” and an application that she deemed “incomplete.”
Lamb discussed in detail the procedural flaws, particularly those that happened at the June 4 / 5 meeting of the FECB.
- Public comments on The Hamlet, item five on the agenda, didn’t begin until 12:50 a.m. June 5.
- The brand new chair of the FECB wasn’t entirely familiar with the process.
- The board was told by the applicant they had to follow the applicant’s time needs, not the commission’s.
Application approved by engineers
Ted Gill, engineer with the Department of Public Works, explained what the town’s Waterway Protection Line Regulation meant–he is required to opine on the impact an application may have on the health of Westport’s waterways 15 feet uphill of the 25-year flood line.
During May and June meetings with the FECB and Conservation Committees, Gill said he was faced with the opportunity to approve, deny or continue the application. Gill recounted that the application complied with all the engineering criteria outlined by the town, the state and the federal government and, as such, he approved the application, from the engineering perspective.
Gill recounted that at the end of the June 4 meeting, members of the FECB asked his opinion on whether they had closed the session or not. He recalled saying he wasn’t the right person to ask.
Colin Kelly, the Director of the Conservation Department, explained another clause of the Waterway Protection Line regulation and described how he’d worked through the massive application, the 14 public comments and the 55 emails. Net net, he said the applicant agreed to comply with Kelly’s conditions.
Conservation Commission: no pressure
Joshua Lewi, Chair of the Conservation Commission, said he felt “no pressure” to meet the applicant’s deadline. Michele Carey-Moody, Member of the Conservation Commission, said she saw, with her own eyes what currently happens with the water run-off during a rainstorm.
Kristin Schneeman (Member, Environment Committee, District 9), asked the engineers if there had been significant changes to the project after their reviews. She also asked about an engineering report that the applicant was asked to produce but which never materialized. The reason the report doesn’t exist, Gill said, was that the subject of the report–a tunnel–was eliminated from the applicant’s plan.
Claudia Shaum, (Member, Environment Committee, District 5), said she wanted to focus on a “narrow definition of what we’re deciding here.”
Keenan said that “outside of Ira’s concerns about procedural things,” he’s not sure there’s much in the testimony on which “anyone can hang their hat.”
Chris Tait, (Member, Public Works Committee, District 1), said this is a “big decision.” Further, considering that the people making the decisions on “something this big at one a.m. in the morning . . . I have issues.”
Four hours into the meeting, Lautenberg declared that, with many public comments still to be heard, the meeting would be continued on Monday, Sept. 15.
Recent Comments