Planning Board Chair Tricia Hammes and Zoning Board Chair John Saladino led a chorus of criticism at the Greenport Village Board’s Oct. 22 regular meeting, questioning why residents are left in the dark about major village initiatives and whether the board is listening to its own volunteer committees.

What began as a series of questions about unfinished projects and unanswered concerns at the meeting evolved into a pointed public reckoning over transparency, communication and the direction of village government.

Leading the charge were two of Greenport’s most prominent volunteer officials — Hammes, the Planning Board Chair, and Saladino, the Zoning Board of Appeals Chair — who challenged Mayor Kevin Stuessi and village trustees over what they described as a troubling pattern of inadequate public communication, delayed decisions and disregard for the work of volunteer advisory boards.

Their remarks, delivered during the public comment period, touched on everything from deteriorating waterfront infrastructure and millions of dollars in public funding to affordable housing, short-term rentals and the village’s failure to keep residents informed.

Hammes opened with a prepared inventory of village projects and initiatives whose status, she said, has become increasingly difficult to determine.

“Many of these are significant initiatives involving important village infrastructure, recreational facilities, public funding, or policies that affect residents and businesses,” she told the board.

As Planning Board chair, Hammes said, residents routinely approach her with questions about village projects — questions she often cannot answer herself.

Her list was extensive.

She wanted updates on continuing repairs at the railroad dock, where she said visible erosion and other problems remained; the long-delayed Mitchell Park bulkhead repairs; the village’s sewer system and the boundaries of its sewer district; plans for the skate park; the proposed ice-skating rink; and how recently announced state funding would be allocated.

RELATED: After a year of shifting timelines, Greenport’s Mitchell Park bulkhread remains unrepaired

On the sewer system, Hammes questioned whether the public had adequate information about the district’s boundaries, residents’ rights to connect and the potential costs of future improvements.

She also wanted to know what had become of plans to appoint an interim village trustee following a vacancy on the board left when longtime trustee Julia Robins resigned in August , noting that an appointment planned for September had yet to materialize.

But beyond the individual projects, Hammes had a broader complaint: Residents should not have to attend lengthy Village Board meetings or repeatedly question elected officials simply to learn where important initiatives stand.

She suggested monthly updates on the village website and in its newsletter, even when there was little progress to report.

“People do have questions on these things,” she said. “And they tend to come up, and then we kind of tend to all go about our business, and then realize months later we don’t really know what the latest update is.”

Not everyone, she added, has the patience to sit through three-hour board meetings.

Stuessi acknowledged the need for better communication and welcomed Hammes’ suggestion of a regularly updated project-status page on the village website.

But his response offered relatively few specifics about the projects Hammes had identified, including their anticipated completion dates and outstanding costs.

Instead, the mayor described ongoing discussions, potential funding opportunities and plans for future community presentations to explain how recently announced grants might be spent.

On the skate park, Stuessi said the village was pursuing the possibility of substantial funding. On the railroad dock and Mitchell Park bulkhead, he indicated that additional information would be forthcoming, while describing broader infrastructure improvements contemplated for the waterfront.

He also said the village was working to organize public discussions about its various park and infrastructure initiatives, including how available funding could be allocated. But the mayor provided no firm timetable for those presentations or for resolving several of the outstanding issues Hammes had raised.

Hammes acknowledged the work involved in securing funding for the village, but emphasized that major grant announcements inevitably generate public expectations — and questions about what happens next.

Deputy Mayor Patrick Brennan thanked Hammes for raising the questions and acknowledged the need for greater public engagement over funding decisions.

The exchange took a sharper turn when Saladino stepped forward.

‘Why does she have to ask?’

The longtime Zoning Board chair challenged the premise that residents should have to seek out information that village officials already possess.

“Why does she have to ask?” he demanded, referring to Hammes’ lengthy presentation.

Saladino argued that the mayor had been able to respond to most of her questions, demonstrating that much of the information was already available within Village Hall.

The problem, he suggested, was that it wasn’t being shared proactively.

“If you’ve been working on this, she wouldn’t have asked these questions tonight because this information would have been out there for the public,” Saladino told Trustee Lily Dougherty-Johnson during an exchange about the village’s communications efforts.

“So it seems like the only time the public gets an answer to a lot of important questions is if they come here and ask questions.”

He added that residents were then left to depend on whether a reporter happened to cover the exchange.

Stuessi defended the village’s communications efforts, citing improvements to its website and the increased availability of public documents, but conceded more could be done.

“Can we do better? Absolutely,” the mayor said.

When Stuessi said the village would gladly share information that could be made public, Saladino interrupted with a pointed response.

“I shouldn’t have to ask you to gladly share. You should volunteer that information.”

Saladino then turned to another issue that has long divided Greenport: short-term rentals and their impact on year-round housing.

He questioned whether Southold Town’s consideration of tighter short-term rental restrictions might make Greenport more attractive to investors seeking vacation rental properties, particularly after the village adopted its own revised rental law last year. (Greenport currently allows short-term rentals of any duration, provide the property has received a village rental permit.)

Saladino argued that the village’s law had done little to protect housing for permanent residents. He recalled the contentious debate preceding its adoption and accused the board of accommodating property owners whose financial interests favored vacation rentals.

“You passed a law that gutted the short-term rental,” he said. “You gutted it.”

Saladino said the permitting requirements might have become somewhat more cumbersome, but questioned whether the law had meaningfully reduced the number of homes being used as vacation rentals.

He pressed Stuessi to explain what the village had learned since the law took effect.

“What have you learned? What changed from a year ago when you passed it? What changed?”

Stuessi said the board had spent many hours considering the legislation and was prepared to revisit it after its first season in effect.

But Saladino remained unconvinced, arguing that issuing more permits did not necessarily mean the village was making progress toward preserving year-round housing.

Housing advocates join the criticism

The frustration extended to Dinni Gordon, the village’s Affordable and Workforce Housing Committee chair, who questioned why a promised special meeting on housing had still not been scheduled months after officials indicated one would take place.

Gordon said the committee deserved a clearer explanation of the delays, even if the proposed zoning changes involved complicated legal questions.

“I think it’s kind of insulting,” she said of the lack of communication with volunteers who had devoted considerable time to the effort.

Gordon argued that legal review should not prevent the village from convening a broader discussion with residents and committee members about the direction of its housing proposals.

Stuessi said substantial legal work remained and that the village was also awaiting architectural materials needed to advance an application for state technical assistance.

He pledged to work on scheduling a public housing meeting and provide an update.

Hammes subsequently returned to the microphone with an even more pointed criticism of the board’s relationship with its Planning Board.

She reminded trustees that proposed zoning changes would require Planning Board review and questioned whether the board would seriously consider its recommendations.

Hammes said the Planning Board had devoted considerable effort to previous proposals, only to see its input largely disregarded.

“Frankly, my experience as Planning Board chair has been that the board has frankly pretty much disregarded everything the Planning Board has said,” she told trustees.

She said she was unwilling to commit the board to another extensive review under similar circumstances.

“If that’s going to be the case, we should amend the code, take out referral to Planning Board, because it’s pointless,” she said.