OLD LYME — Still one day after a Zoning Commission hearing to consider plans to redevelop Halls Road was suddenly cancelled, town officials were not able to offer a clear or coherent explanation for why the decision was made or who made it.
In posts to social media on Wednesday, Mark Terwilliger, a de facto spokesperson for the Halls Road Improvements Committee, and domestic partner of its chair Edie Twining, placed the blame for the decision squarely on Paul Orzel, chair of the Zoning Commission and on Zoning Enforcement Officer, Eric Knapp.
“HRIC and the Town would have preferred no delay,” wrote Terwilliger, “but the chair of the zoning commission and the ZEO asked for it. As the proposer of the regulations, the Town had the right to refuse, but granted the request. Facts for anyone who’s interested in such things.”
But as of late Wednesday, Orzel did not reply to numerous requests for explanation from CT Examiner, or apparently from members of the Zoning Commission.
Terwilliger’s explanation was at odds with a letter sent by First Selectwoman Martha Shoemaker on Tuesday to Orzel requesting the delay on the grounds that the Halls Road Improvements Committee and Shoemaker needed more time to review testimony in the case.
Shoemaker cc’ed her request for a delay to Twining, Knapp, and the committee’s lawyer, William Sweeney, but has not replied to numerous requests for comment by CT Examiner.
Her letter meanwhile was contradicted on Wednesday in a post to social media by Michaelle Pearson, wife of Selectman Jim Lampos, claiming that the meeting had been postponed at Zoning’s request.
That was echoed in an email to parishioners at the First Congregational Church of Old Lyme, that “the Halls Road Improvements Committee would have preferred to go as scheduled, but it is impolitic to refuse requests from the Chair, whatever one’s objections.”
That in turn was directly contradicted by Knapp, who provided perhaps the clearest explanation to members of the Zoning Commission in an email on Wednesday, in an apparent attempt to quell questions raised by CT Examiner editor Gregory Stroud with town officials.
In an email on Wednesday morning, Stroud asked Orzel and Mike Miller, the vice-chair of Zoning, to reconcile varying explanations.
In an apparent reply, sent to members of the Zoning Commission, but not CT Examiner, Knapp seemed to take broad responsibility for decision, but which he said was at the request applicant — Shoemaker and the Halls Road Committee.
Knapp also explained that the hearing would likely have overwhelmed the auditorium and would have been postponed, in anycase, on Thursday night.
“This is clearly a matter of significant public interest. The best path forward is to move the hearing to the high school, the biggest forum we have in town, and to proceed when the applicant has had the chance to review the materials submitted,” Knapp wrote members of Zoning. “I believed that yesterday afternoon. I believe that this morning. Of course, you are free to disagree with me. This was a judgment call, and my judgment is not infallible. But this was not done in bad faith, and we will strive moving forward to give everyone the opportunity to be heard.”
“It was the applicant who indicated that it wanted more time to review the many, many items submitted into the record. For the Commission to say ‘no’ would have smacked of bad faith,” Knapp explained. “Ultimately, this is an application. It is being heard by the Commission, but it is not the Commission’s application. To force a hearing when the applicant indicated it was not prepared would have reflected poorly.”
But asked by at least one member of Zoning to explain who exactly made the decision to cancel, Knapp would not answer.
In an email on Wednesday responding to Knapp, and shared with CT Examiner, Miller questioned how the decision was carried out.
“Typically, an applicant can come forward and make the request to postpone. And the ZC would consider the reasons and take a vote,” wrote Miller. “If we followed this procedure like we have done many times before then the public would know who requested the postponement and the reasons for it. The public would know the reasons why our ZC denied or approved the request. In my opinion that is transparency that people need to trust their government.”
“In lieu of the above, you could have sent the commissioners an email informing us of the applicants intent to request a postponement,” Miller offered alternatively. “Based on past experience we would have granted it and the special public meeting would have been cancelled. If that were done then that email chain would provide a clear understanding of who requested the postponement.”
“I certainly was not notified of any request to postpone.”
“So, my query is, who made the request to postpone this special meeting and who was the decision maker that granted it?,” Miller asked Knapp.
[email protected]