Residents and council clash over charter revisions: should Planning & Zoning be elected and must Board of Finance members own property?

The New Canaan Town Council held a public hearing on proposed charter revisions on May 27, receiving comments from residents and commissioners before opening an extended council discussion on how, when and whether several CRC recommendations should appear on the November ballot.

Several residents and speakers urged the council to give voters a direct choice about Planning & Zoning (P&Z). Sarah Pierce, who identified herself at the start of the public hearing, told the council that accountability is an external mechanism and argued that P&Z is a question the electorate should decide: "do you want to elect your planning and zoning or do you want to appoint them?" She linked the issue to a recent local case she said affected a homeowner after the St. Luke’s garage decision.

Speakers representing the Charter Revision Commission and several long‑serving P&Z commissioners defended the appointment model, saying appointment enables technical expertise, balanced teams and inclusion of unaffiliated residents who might not run for office. One speaker (John Cruz) criticized the CRC’s retention of a Board of Finance requirement that members be real property owners, calling the rule exclusionary and noting it has existed since 1935. Kathleen, a CRC member online, reminded the council that the electorate rejected a similar change roughly a decade ago.

Town Clerk Claudia briefed the council on practical ballot mechanics and timing: ballots can be formatted to hold multiple questions, absentee ballots are available in October, a 45‑day ballot mailing will occur in September, and the council should aim to finalize question language in August–early September to meet printing and absentee deadlines. She also noted she had received a notice of intent to petition for referendum; signatures were pending verification.

On substance, council members weighed three related questions the CRC presented: (1) leave P&Z appointed or make it an elected body, (2) impose a 12‑year consecutive term limit for commissions, and (3) retain or remove the Board of Finance property‑ownership requirement. Arguments centered on accountability, recruitment and institutional knowledge. Several councilors said appointment permits quicker removal or replacement by the first selectman, while others said elections provide a cleaner accountability mechanism and let voters decide. Some members worried that elected seats would favor single‑issue or highly financed candidates and reduce participation by unaffiliated residents; others worried that a 12‑year cap would force out experienced commissioners who provide critical institutional memory.

Councilors also debated a CRC drafting item (C216) that would subject elected and appointed officers with managerial responsibility over town employees to administrative policies and standards of conduct. Town Clerk Claudia and others urged caution about placing operational personnel policy language into the charter, saying it could erode statutory independence of offices such as the town clerk and registrars and that administrative details are better handled in policy rather than charter language. Supporters of the change said the proposal simply clarifies that managers must obey the same HR and union rules as other department heads.

Council members asked the CRC for more legal guidance and empirical information — including Connecticut case law on property‑ownership prerequisites and historical vote data — and set expectations to revisit the items at a special meeting in two weeks. The council did not take formal votes on charter amendments at the session and asked the CRC to prepare follow‑up materials where appropriate.