By Peter Barhydt
Editor’s Note: This story covers a meeting that took place prior to the meeting reported on the front page, titled “Charter Revision Commission Votes to Keep Planning & Zoning Appointed.”
Debate reveals deeper tensions over governance, public trust, and the limits of local control
At a meeting that unfolded less like a procedural exercise and more like a civic reckoning, the New Canaan Charter Revision Commission (CRC) spent more than two hours wrestling with a deceptively simple question: Should the town’s Planning & Zoning Commission remain appointed, or become elected?
What emerged was not consensus, but something more revealing — a portrait of a community trying to reconcile its tested traditions with shifting political and civic approaches.
The CRC, meeting on March 24, opened with routine business before turning quickly to what Chair Kathleen Corbet described as “the meat of what we’re here to discuss.” The issue at hand — whether to alter the structure of Planning & Zoning — has become one of the most closely watched and debated elements of the broader charter review process.
Corbet framed the discussion around a compiled set of arguments submitted by commissioners on both sides of the issue. She noted that many residents have expressed a familiar sentiment: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” But she added a note of caution — “it might not be broke, but you can make it better.”
That tension — between stability and change — ran through nearly every comment that followed.
Several commissioners stressed that the current appointed system has served New Canaan well, emphasizing expertise, continuity and insulation from political pressure. Angela Jameson said that after reviewing testimony and studying other towns, she had grown wary of elections.
“It seems to me that we would be taking risks with the fabric of New Canaan were we to move to elections,” she said, citing concerns that political cycles could influence land-use decisions.
Others echoed that view, noting that Planning & Zoning decisions are often constrained by state law, particularly Connecticut’s affordable housing statute. Russ Kimes emphasized that commissioners are “interpreting mostly Connecticut laws,” suggesting that elections would not fundamentally change outcomes.
But a competing argument emerged: that the current system may lack sufficient public accountability.
William Parrett questioned whether an appointed body should wield such influence without direct electoral oversight, particularly in a town where land-use decisions shape daily life.
“This is the only thing our town is, is land use,” Parrett said, arguing that residents deserve a stronger voice in those decisions.
Others countered that argument, noting representation. Karen Willett pointed to the growing number of unaffiliated voters — now more than a third of the electorate — and warned that an election system could make it harder for those residents to participate.
“It’s very, very difficult for an unaffiliated voter to get elected in this town,” she said, while still supporting reforms to make the appointment process more transparent.
The process today is that applications to join the Planning & Zoning Commission are made to the First Selectman, who then proposes a member to the full Board of Selectmen, with all the Selectmen individually interviewing and vetting the candidate before discussing the candidate as a group at a Board of Selectmen meeting, and then voting. The Planning & Zoning Commission today has Republican, Democrat and Unaffiliated members.
That idea — reform without wholesale change — gained traction as a potential middle ground. Several commissioners suggested improvements such as formalizing the appointment process, increasing transparency, or requiring additional training for members.
Still, a third perspective began to take shape: that the commission itself should not resolve the question, but instead send it to voters.
Jennifer Holme argued that the issue has generated enough public interest to warrant a broader decision.
“Why not send this to the voter?” she said. “I think the town of New Canaan voters are extremely intelligent.”
That proposal, however, raised procedural difficulties. Corbet reminded the group that the commission’s charge is to make recommendations — not defer decisions.
“Our job is to make a recommendation,” Corbet stressed.
Underlying the debate was a quieter but persistent question: how much of this issue is truly local, and how much is shaped by state law beyond the town’s control?
Several commissioners noted that controversial decisions often end up in court regardless of who serves on the commission. As one member put it, “the final answer comes from the courts.”
By the end of the meeting, no vote was taken. Corbet urged commissioners to reflect before reconvening the following day, signaling that a decision — or at least a formal recommendation — would soon be required.
What the discussion revealed, however, was less about the mechanics of appointment versus election, and more about a community grappling with trust: trust in expertise, trust in institutions, trust in the Board of Selectmen and trust in the electorate itself.
