In a packed meeting room with standing room only, residents spoke out in anger and frustration, telling the board during the public hearing for the zoning changes that they felt left out of the process. One resident informed the board that he had the required number of signatures to file a permissive referendum which would prevent the board from approving the proposed changes and that he had every intention of filing the lawsuit.
“This town went to great lengths to develop the comprehensive plan and these zoning changes are in conflict with it. These are not minor tweaks,” said resident Dennis Towers. “I am letting you know I am filing a permissive referendum. So far we have 633 signatures and it is the only way to combat these changes.”
Towers also told the board that he felt the changes being made to the ethics law was an “act of retaliation” by Councilman Robert Pulsifer, the subject of the only ethics investigation by the Board of Ethics.
“I believe that the Ethics Committee was used by senior councilmen as a tool for revenge with the ultimate goal of eliminating the current Ethics Board as an act of retaliation and as a means to weaken the scope of a future Ethics Board,” said Towers. “Councilman Pulsifer, the subject of Wilton’s only ethics investigation, provided the outline for the proposed ethics law.”
Towers then presented an April 2011 newspaper article in which Pulsifer is quoted as saying the Ethics Board needed at least four revisions: The name of the person making a complaint should be disclosed so the accused can address his or her accuser; Party officers should not be allowed to serve on the ethics panel; the Ethics Board scope of inquiry should be limited to financial disclosure and conflicts of interest, not personal conduct apart from town duties; and that the Ethics Board needs some oversight to make sure, when launching an investigation, it does not go beyond its intended responsibilities.
Pulsifer was the subject of an investigation in 2010 when a complaint was filed about his financial disclosure forms. The ethics report, while noting the Ethics Board did not feel it was a violation, said that Pulsifer failed to disclose a source of income which, in essence, failed to make the public fully aware of a possible conflict of interest.
The source of income at the middle of the controversy was Pulsifer’s band. Pulsifer has publically said several times that he feels the Ethics Board overstepped their boundaries by looking into his band and his conduct while playing venues with the band. At one 2011 town board meeting, to make a point, he showed up in his band outfit – a sleeveless flannel shirt, jeans, straw cowboy hat and carrying a guitar case.
The changes in the new ethics law eliminates all current Ethics Board members and removes the confidentiality clause, which gives a complainant anonymity. It also states no two members can be from the same political party. Board members went forward anyway and approved the new law.
Towers was not the only resident upset with the town board. Dave Gabay spoke up, telling board members that he had worked with the town board in 2000 on the Comprehensive Plan and felt he had been blindsided by the proposed changes.
“[In] early 2000 I had the pleasure of working with that Master Plan,” said Gabay. “It was amazing – it involved hundreds of people. You dropped the ball on keeping us informed. It is also my fault because I didn’t see this coming.”
Continuing, Gabay said he tried to get up to speed on the proposed changes and even looked on the town’s website for the history of the modifications and what they were supposed to correct, but that he could not find anything.
“There are 118 changes,” said Gabay. “That is more than housekeeping. I don’t think we have gone through those changes and we have not been given the tools to analyze those changes. You went only through town officials and professionals but not town residents.”
Resident Janet Talley also expressed frustration, noting that the process used by the zoning committee was possibly an ethics violation. Her comments were met with applause from the audience.
“The process was not in sync with the comprehensive plan,” said Talley. “It has been a waste of time and money to throw out the [existing] comprehensive plan. It appears to me to be an ethics issue.”
Donald Weller agreed with Gabay, telling board members that with the comprehensive plan, “hundreds of folks got involved.” He said that Pulsifer’s comment that the people he consulted during the review process did not have an agenda was wrong.
“Mr. Pulsifer is not correct. You should follow the processes set out by the plan. Businessmen do have [agendas.]” said Weller. “This board wants more development in this town at the cost of the residents.”
Some of the proposed changes include opening what has been designated as rural areas, such as the Parkhurst and Ernst Road areas, to development which could include hotels, self-storage facilities and drive through restaurants. In addition, it will add new uses by consolidating RB2 zones along routes 50 into RB1 opening that area up to commercial development and apartment complexes.
Jarod Ginsmore of Woodlake Drive also expressed anger at the proposed changes, noting that the board was eliminating one of the hamlets in the town.
“You are getting rid of one of the hamlet zones,” said Ginsmore. “That is taking away property rights. The public should be more involved – you say this has been going on two-and-a-half, three years and the public does not know about it? There is no open dialogue.”
The proposed change would affect the hamlet area near Route 9 and Ballard Road.
He ended his comment asking the town supervisor, Art Johnson, to not take a vote on the changes.
“Art, please keep this open,” he said.
Board members did not vote on the zoning changes.
The next Town of Wilton Board meeting will be January 4 at 7:30 p.m.
