Dueling letters sharpen dispute over whether New Canaan’s Planning & Zoning Commission should be elected or appointed
By Peter Barhydt
A debate that began as a structural question about governance has evolved into something more pointed — and personal — as the Planning & Zoning Commission and a member of the Charter Revision Commission exchanged sharply worded letters this week over the future of land-use oversight in town.
At issue is whether the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z), currently appointed, should instead be elected — a question raised during the Charter Revision Commission’s (CRC) ongoing review of the town charter.
In a March 16 letter signed by all P&Z members, the P&Z commission pushed back forcefully against a Feb. 25 presentation by CRC Commissioner Joseph D. Palo, arguing that the case for an elected P&Z commission rests on “analytical errors, methodological weaknesses, and material mischaracterizations.”
The P&Z letter disputes several core claims from Palo’s presentation, including the assertion that electing commissioners would increase accountability and representation. The P&Z commission argued that its decisions are already tightly constrained by state law and technical evidence, limiting the practical impact of elections.
“Legal requirements and evidentiary standards often limit the PZC’s discretion,” the letter states, noting that those constraints apply regardless of whether members are elected or appointed.
The P&Z commission also rejected the notion that residents lack a voice in land-use decisions, calling that claim “factually incorrect.” Public participation, it said, is “structurally embedded” in its work through hearings, zoning updates and long-range planning processes such as the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Palo, in a separate March 16 response, dismissed the P&Z rebuttal as lacking substance. He wrote that the P&Z commission’s arguments were “long on speculation, hypothesis and wishful thinking but short on facts.”
His presentation, he said, was built on “20 references, plus 7 charts and graphs,” drawing from sources including state statutes, court decisions, census data and local documents.
At the center of the dispute is a fundamental disagreement about how land-use authority should be structured — and how much weight should be given to public sentiment versus legal and technical standards.
The P&Z letter emphasizes that its role is quasi-judicial, requiring impartial decision-making based on the record. It warns that elections could introduce political pressures incompatible with that function.
“Campaign donors, party endorsements, and electoral promises are far more visible and binding political pressures than appointment politics in a small town,” the P&Z commission wrote.
Palo counters that the current system lacks meaningful checks and balances. While acknowledging the existence of public hearings, he argues that they do not provide sufficient recourse for residents dissatisfied with outcomes.
“Public participation he describes still does not include any checks or balances for decisions P&Z makes. None!” Palo wrote.
He also pointed to the option of appealing decisions in court, but said that route is prohibitively expensive for most residents.
The exchange also revisits broader questions about data and methodology. The P&Z letter criticizes Palo’s reliance on a small public survey sample and questions conclusions drawn from comparisons with other Fairfield County towns.
Palo, in turn, maintains that the data — including the fact that many nearby towns elect their commissions — “speaks for itself.”
Beyond policy differences, the tone of the debate has drawn attention.
In his letter, Palo objected to remarks made by P&Z Chairman Dan Radman at a March 9 meeting, describing them as “a scurrilous attack on my character” and “beneath the dignity of the position he occupies.”
That escalation underscores how a technical governance question has taken on broader implications about trust, transparency and civic discourse.
The Charter Revision Commission has not yet made a final recommendation on whether to propose a change to voters. The question, as framed by the competing letters, is not simply whether elections would be more democratic, but whether they would improve — or complicate — a system already comprehensively shaped by legal constraints and procedural safeguards.
For now, both sides appear dug in. The P&Z has called for the Charter Revision Commission to conduct its “own independent analysis” of the claims before moving forward, while Palo has urged that residents ultimately be given the opportunity to decide the issue at the ballot box.
The debate is expected to continue as the charter review process advances in the coming months.
