Washington Street proposal is potentially awkward for council candidates

Oct 13, 2007 @ 12:23 AM

By Liz Mugavero

Norwich Bulletin

Ashford, Conn. -

One day after a City Council candidate debate brought the Washington Street development proposal back into the spotlight, city attorney Michael Driscoll said candidates who addressed the issue may find themselves in an awkward position if elected.

The first reading on the ordinance is set for Monday’s council meeting, so the sitting council members refrained from speaking specifically about the proposal. Since the council also serves as the zoning authority, members are expected to act in a different fashion than as the political body when addressing a specific application, Driscoll said.
But those who were able to speak freely about the development when asked their position may have to vote on the issue because of the timeline in which it will be addressed.

Monday, the council will set a date for the public hearing. This likely will be the third Monday in November, since the first November meeting will be canceled because of elections, as is customary.

But the Commission on the City Plan first must make a recommendation on the proposal. It is not on the agenda for Tuesday, which would push the issue to its November meeting, which is the third Tuesday of the month and the day after the scheduled council meeting. So the council would have to set the public hearing for the first meeting in December, when a new council would hear it.

“Applications like this should be judged only on the measure of a public hearing,” Driscoll said. “The ability to recuse oneself gives anyone the opportunity to get off the board if they are close to an issue.”

Driscoll said if candidates already have made up their mind on the issue, they should probably recuse themselves.

“Or, if they said they made their remarks at a forum but didn’t know everything about the issue and now think they can be open, they can still vote,” he said. “But they may be challenged.”

Candidate Pete Desaulniers openly stated he already had voted against the proposal in commercial overlay format as a Commission on the City Plan member. But Friday he said he wouldn’t feel he had to recuse himself if elected.

“Corporation counsel has a big decision to make,” he said. “But I don’t think it stops me from voicing my opinion. My position was pretty clear.”

Candidates Tucker Braddock and William Nash said they would not recuse themselves either.

“I’ll listen, give my opinion and do my homework,” Nash said. “And I’ll do what’s best for the city. I don’t believe a strip mall has a place there. Convince me otherwise.”
Alderman Mark Bettencourt said while he felt he made his position clear, he was careful not to discuss specifics at the debate.

“I wouldn’t be free to discuss it openly. There has to be the appearance of impartiality,” he said, but added he declined to sponsor the ordinance when asked.

Norwich Neighborhoods Coalition spokeswoman Marterese Ferrari spoke out against this latest twist.

“This move would certainly strain any future relations with the incoming council,” she said. “These scare tactics are further evidence of the developers’ desperation to control the timing of the vote to have the sitting, lame duck council vote on a proposal that the citizens feel should be withdrawn at the first possible opportunity.”

 Monday, Mayor Ben Lathrop is expected to prohibit any public comment on the issue on Driscoll’s advice.

 But Ferrari said neighbors definitely would attend the meeting.

“Although we cannot speak, we will be there. The presence of Norwich citizens will send a clear message that we demand smart development,” she said. “This is a defining moment for Norwich. There is still time to do the right thing and withdraw the rezone application. It is wrong. The people have spoken loud and clear. We do not want this. It doesn’t meet the criteria of the citizens for who we are, who we wish to become and how we want planning to be conducted in our city.”