By Peter Barhydt
The Charter Revision Commission’s (CRC) March 17 meeting underscored the growing complexity — and tension — surrounding a proposal to reconsider how the town’s Planning & Zoning Commission is structured.
What began as a policy discussion over whether P&Z members should be elected or appointed broadened into a wide-ranging conversation that touched on ethics oversight, political influence, public participation and even questions of conflict of interest among commissioners themselves.
P&Z Chairman Dan Radman, addressing the CRC, urged members to weigh competing claims carefully and not draw conclusions from limited data.
“There’s nothing specifically in there that speaks to whether it’s better to be appointed versus elected. Nothing in there,” Radman said, referring to materials presented to the CRC.
He also criticized reliance on early public survey results, noting that the 69 responses collected so far were “a grain of sand on the beach” compared to the town’s broader electorate.
Radman emphasized that decision-making quality would not necessarily improve under an elected system, arguing that both appointed and elected commissioners would approach their roles with similar care.
“I think it’s equal in terms of the level of decision making, the care and consideration that P&Z members, whether they’re elected or appointed, would put toward any particular application,” he said.
The discussion took a sharper turn when Radman raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, suggesting that Commissioner Jennifer Holme should recuse herself from discussions involving P&Z due to ongoing litigation tied to land-use matters.
Holme disputed that characterization, stating, “My case has been settled with you. You guys have voted and it’s completed.”
The exchange highlighted broader questions about how conflicts should be defined and managed. CRC Chair Kathleen Corbet later clarified that conflicts are typically “financially driven” under existing guidance, suggesting that participation decisions remain largely at the discretion of individual members.
Public comment also reflected the depth of disagreement surrounding land-use governance.
Planning & Zoning Commissioner John Kriz pushed back against claims that the P&Z commission operates without checks and balances, describing extensive public engagement in the development of the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development.
“We listen to everybody, and we listen to them without fear or favor,” Kriz said.
He added that public hearings are required for zoning actions and that recommendations are evaluated based on their merits rather than their source.
Kriz also outlined how an elected P&Z Commission would effectively eliminate representation by unaffiliated voters and minor party members, noting that their chances of every being elected were difficult. He further said that many people in town are likely hesitant to run in an election, and some people are prohibited from elective office by their employers – further limiting the pool of potential P&Z commissioners.
There was also pushback on allegations of a lack of checks and balances on the P&Z commission. Kriz said that “unless ‘checks and balances’ means all P&Z decisions must be further approved by someone, then the allegation is patently false.” He went on to note that the same lack of checks and balances could be said for the Board of Selectmen, Town Council, and Police and Fire commissions.
The CRC also heard from leaders of the Republican and Democratic town committees, who outlined how candidates are recruited and vetted for appointed and elected roles.
Republican Town Committee Chair Melany Hearne described a multi-step appointment process involving interviews, recommendations and public review by the Board of Selectmen. She noted that, in practice, the town often struggles to fill positions, rather than facing an oversupply of candidates.
“There’s more demand for qualified volunteers than supply,” Hearne said.
Both Hearne and Democratic Town Committee Chair Tim Klimpl emphasized that many boards and commissions function in a largely nonpartisan manner, even though political organizations help identify candidates.
Klimpl said he views service on town boards as fundamentally resident-focused. “You’re there for the town residents to be representative of them,” he said.
The discussion also touched on the challenges of running for elected office, including time commitments, fundraising and public scrutiny — factors that some participants said could discourage participation, particularly among unaffiliated voters.
At the same time, some CRC commissioners raised concerns that the current appointment system may limit transparency, suggesting that the town could do more to publicize openings and encourage broader participation.
The meeting concluded with plans to continue the debate in upcoming sessions, with a structured review of the pros and cons of elected versus appointed P&Z members expected at the CRC’s next meeting.
Chair Corbet emphasized that the issue will be debated in a public forum rather than through private communications.
“This is what a public open forum is all about where the discussion is had here,” she said.
As the charter review process moves forward, the question of how New Canaan governs land use — and who should hold that authority — remains unsettled, with both sides preparing for a more formal evaluation in the weeks ahead.
