Mayor Asks P&Z Chairman To Recuse Himself On 51 Green Street Discussions

(Editor's note: Full disclosure - Stephen Devoto, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Committee is also a founder, editor and frequent contributor to the Middletown Eye).

Two weeks ago, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted an 8-24 review of a proposal by St. Vincent dePaul to move its soup kitchen and other operations into the former Green Street Art Center.  St. Vincent had been vetted by the Economic Development Committee, and chosen by the mayor, as the winner of a request for proposal, to utilize the building abandoned by Wesleyan University, and owned by the city.

An 8-24 review requires that the P&Z measure the proposal against the city's Plan of Development.  The P&Z, in a decisive majority, voted that the proposal did not fit the requirements to the Plan of Development.

Last week, the Common Council ignored the P&Z vote, with some Council members directly criticizing it.  The Common Council voted to accept the St. Vincent dePaul proposal as a lease agreement with the city, instead of a sale.  That change required the proposal to go to the P&Z for a second 8-24 review.

Planning and Zoning chair, Stephen DeVoto, has proposed that the P&Z delay the 8-24 review until after there is a separate public hearing on the topic, so that Green Street neighbors can express their opinions.

As a result, Mayor Daniel Drew has sent a letter to Devoto (and to the P&Z, Common Council, and directors of St. Vincent dePaul) urging Devoto to recuse himself from any discussion and vote on the Green Street proposal.

Devoto was seeking a legal opinion on his course of action at press time.

The mayor's letter:

Dear Chairman DeVoto,

I appreciate that you have written directly and provided me with an opportunity to address what you have said and written recently regarding the P&Z’s upcoming 8-24 vote on the city council’s unanimous approval of the lease of 51 Green Street to St. Vincent DePaul.

I believe, based on your voluminous written communications and your having canvassed the neighborhood on this issue, that you have demonstrated a strong bias against St. Vincent DePaul and that your participation in any vote or debate on this issue would compromise the integrity of the P&Z Commission.

Therefore, I believe that you must recuse yourself from any votes moving forward having to do with this issue and that you cede the chairmanship of the commission to Deputy Chair Fazzino regarding the same.

I urge you to take this step for the following reasons:

1. It is highly inappropriate, and unusual, for any commissioner – and especially the commission chair – to have spoken on the record at a public meeting other than P&Z on an issue before the commission for consideration. At the March 4 council meeting you spoke on the record urging the council to delay taking a vote.

2. You acknowledged that evening that you had never viewed St. Vincent’s proposal prior to voting, which failed by a margin of 1-6.

3. You canvassed the neighborhood surrounding the Green Street building this weekend about the project. This is highly unusual and inappropriate. No one but you knows what was actually said and, if this application ends up in court, your off-the-record conversations could have an impact on any decision in which you participate in moving forward.

4. Your argument that a meeting with St. Vincent’s and the neighborhood must take place before any 8-24 vote is fallacious. I agree that communication between St. Vincent’s and the neighborhood is positive and I know that St. Vincent’s is planning to do so already. However, an 8-24 review is solely a review by the commission as to whether the application is consistent with the city’s plan of conservation and development. In no way is or should that determination be based on any meeting that could take place beforehand.

4. You allowed representatives of the so-called “Green Community Center” an opportunity to testify before the first 8-24 vote. Please allow me to remind you that the “Green Community Center” was a competing group and had been removed from consideration in the city’s review. You have stated in writing that the commission voted down the 8-24 based on testimony before it that evening. Therefore, it could be argued that the group’s testimony, irrelevant to the issue at hand, colored the vote. Your allowing that testimony was inappropriate in light of your legal responsibility to determine solely whether the application before you met the plan of conservation and development. The city planner advised you that it did.

5. You acknowledged before the Common Council that a public hearing was unnecessary for P&Z review and the department director told you that at no time can anyone recall a public hearing being assigned for an 8-24 review. It would be a highly unusual step and breaking with all precedent to hold one on this issue, especially in light of the fact that you are now aggressively arguing for one, creating an impression of bias against St. Vincent’s application.

6. You are arguing that the 8-24 must be delayed to allow time for a meeting to take place between St. Vincent’s and people in the neighborhood. Notwithstanding that St. Vincent’s and its clients are made up from people who live in the neighborhood already, it is worth noting that this meeting is being organized and moderated by the vice chair of the Middletown Democratic Town Committee and a member of the Common Council. It is not appropriate to ignore precedent and delay the implementation of something about which the public spoke overwhelmingly in favor and on which the Common Council voted unanimously. It is especially inappropriate when doing so would leave the impression that the delay was being undertaken to the political benefit of specific people.

7. You have communicated voluminously and in writing with multiple people outside city government about this application. Some of these people are opponents of the project and some are affiliated with St. Vincent’s. In so doing you have compromised the integrity of any vote the commission might take in which you participate.

Finally, I would like to address the repeated and erroneous claims I continue to hear about transparency. This issue has been before multiple public meetings with public hearings for the EDC, P&Z F&G committee and the Common Council as a whole. There was an open RFP process. There were building walk-throughs and community meetings. We heard from innumerable people who live in the neighborhood. This has been an extraordinarily open and transparent process and for you to say otherwise is untrue and further evidence of your bias against St. Vincent’s application.

For the aforementioned reasons and in the interest of both preserving the city’s and commission’s integrity and in limiting any potential liability that could arise as a result of your involvement, I strongly urge you to cede your chair to Vice Chair Fazzino during deliberations and votes on this topic.

Sincerely,


Daniel T. Drew
MAYOR