Editor’s note: Following is an opinion submitted by Westport resident and Planning and Zoning candidate Michele Paquette
I’m calling for our Planning & Zoning Commission to take actions which demonstrate to residents that we can trust them.
People trust others based on a history of honest and clear communications, by listening to others and taking action on what they hear. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency exhibited by this P&Z is a cause for continued concern. The P&Z has not listened to residents’ concerns about the text amendment for the Saugatuck area, and this led to hours of divisive meetings for The Hamlet development. And the P&Z continues to demonstrate the same lack of transparency over the last few weeks, related to negotiations on the future of this specific development.
On Aug. 14, during the P&Z commission summer recess, some P&Z committee members and the town attorney, Mr. Bloom, met in an executive session to discuss the impending litigation with ROAN, the Hamlet development. The group appears to have met and made a decision to include only four of the seven P&Z commissioners in the negotiation process. The meeting minutes do not acknowledge this, and it is considered not proper to vote on an issue in an executive session.
Disturbingly, this decision was only revealed to the public during a follow up meeting on Aug. 27. During this meeting, the chairman and Mr. Bloom had multiple back and forth exchanges about this decision. They said to each other a few times, first the chairman would say “We voted to have only four commissioners” and Mr. Bloom would say “We didn’t vote. We didn’t decide this.” It was clear someone made a decision during the executive session, yet they didn’t want to reveal that they did.
What was the commission seeking to do and why? This raises many questions. Westport residents elected seven commissioners, not four. Exclusion of commissioners and doing it in a closed-door session is unacceptable and undermines public trust. Who gets to decide who the four commissioners are? Was it purely based on availability or something else? And how could this be done fairly? Fortunately, during the meeting on August 27th an objection to this approach occurred by a commissioner who was being excluded and by the public attending the meeting. As a result, all seven commissioners are expected to be involved in the negotiating process.
Next, during the meeting on Aug. 27, it was stated by Mr. Bloom that they needed to quickly move forward with negotiations because the P&Z commission would likely change after the elections. Why would a new commission necessitate the pushing through of a generational development like this? Many developments, like Hiawatha, have been transitioned from one commission to another. This can be true for The Hamlet as well, or will lame duck commissioners be allowed to cast a vote.
Also, the commission appeared to be happy to move forward quickly, ready to negotiate, before an answer to the lawsuit had been filed by the town. Without doing the work to file an answer to the lawsuit the town residents and the P&Z commission have no idea if we have a strong case against the suit or not. Why would anyone negotiate before knowing the strength of their position? This is a strategic miss by the town lawyer and the commission.
Finally, in this meeting Mr. Bloom recommended using executive sessions for negotiations with ROAN, citing this as standard procedure. But this is no ordinary project—it’s the largest in Westport’s history, with unmatched public engagement. Executive sessions exclude the public until a plan is finalized, and by then, it’s human nature to become attached to the outcome. Even Mr. Bloom acknowledged that once a plan is negotiated privately, it rarely changes after public input. And Amy Wistreich defended the commission negotiating in private since she was an elected official and represents the people. Yes, commissioners are our elected representatives, but I believe they do a better job by welcoming public comment, doing their work in the open, and standing ready to be accountable for their decisions rather than trying to hide them. That’s why this process must be different—transparent, inclusive, and responsive from the start.
This project has been plagued by a troubling lack of transparency and accountability. From the outset, public voices have been ignored, and now—alarmingly—publicly elected officials were being sidelined. Even worse, public input may be ignored after critical negotiations have occurred.
In conclusion, to rebuild trust, this P&Z commission must insist on a resubmission of this development so the public can provide input or the town must fight it in court to get what the town residents want from this development. Either approach is supported by 82 actual and potential conditions raised during the approval process. The P&Z Department laid out 59 potential conditions to be addressed on July 7, and, unfortunately, these do not fully address many issues thousands of residents have been communicating. And there are 23 more conditions by the Conservation commission. This development application was not complete nor should it be treated like one.
The Planning and Zoning commission has a duty to be transparent and act with integrity. Westporters care deeply about our community, and we will not be silenced. We demand to have a commission that we can trust.
Michele Paquette
Westport Resident and Planning and Zoning Candidate
Recent Comments