Hamlet at Saugatuck / featured image
Developers’ architectural renderings of “Hamlet at Saugatuck” project.

Editor’s note: The following letter was sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and a copy submitted to the Westport Journal for publication.

I watched the The Hamlet developer’s newest presentation to the March 11, 2025, PZC — as well as the Dec. 12, 2022, PZC meeting where the relevant text and map amendments to create a new zone and rezone the district were approved, and the subsequent Jan. 17, 2023, RTM meeting discussion and vote on the citizen petition to overturn the PZC decision.

It was with the best of intentions I reviewed these meetings so that I could understand what is likely to happen in Saugatuck, its implications for all of Westport, and how this could be a really good thing.

After hours of viewing, I have one question: “How is this very dense, very intensified, very complicated proposal going to make Westport a better place?” The only answer I could dig out from the many hours of past discussion was: “It’s better than a monolithic 8-30g development.” I think the PZC can and should do better.

The text amendment was approved 5-1 (Commissioners Danielle Dobin, Paul Lebowitz, Neil Cohn, Michael Cammeyer and Jon Olefson with “yays;” Amie Tesler a “nay”). The decision was challenged with a petition to the RTM on Jan. 12, 2023, and upheld. There is no going back. But I find it worthwhile to look back at a few thoughts that were shared then.

Michael Calise, not yet a commissioner at the time, cited several reasons why an “integrated development” at the outset was problematic. He also noted the amendment would exacerbate, not alleviate, parking problems in Saugatuck and was inconsistent with how parking requirements are otherwise doled out in Westport.

Commissioner Patrizia Zucaro left the Dec. 12, 2022, meeting abruptly before the commission voted on the text amendment, but not before saying the text amendment is one in which, “We don’t want the height; we want more setback; there’s insufficient parking, and the FAR [floor area ratio] is bigger than we’ve ever seen.”

Commissioner Amie Tesler took exception to the pleas of other commissioners to prioritize “economic incentives” for the developer.

“I don’t like hearing [statements about] what best suits the economics of the developer. I thought this is a text amendment for this district, and if its applicable to them, that’s great. They brought it to us, but it’s a text amendment we are using for this area. So, personally, I am on this Planning and Zoning Commission for Westport, Connecticut, to better suit the needs of the constituents of Westport … not a developer…. That’s why I’m [here] .. to better suit the mood and our needs in the present and the future. I assume we’re doing a text amendment for said district, and not a sole entity.”

That was then. This is now. The text amendment, now law, potentially allows for more density than we’ve ever had, insufficient parking and unrealistic promises of traffic amelioration. The original plan promised 35 residences and a small hotel. We’re now looking at 57 residences in multiple buildings and 57 hotel keys in three separate buildings. Somehow the connectors between the hotel buildings are relevant in an integrated development, but I don’t really understand why. It can’t be good,.

The one shred of hope I have that this new Saugatuck village can and will be a plus for Westport is the repeated declarations that the PZC has plenty of DISCRETION to rein in a bad, greedy, oversized development. I urge you, implore you, to use that discretion to your fullest ability.

The developers refer to this tiny riverfront piece of Westport as “the last strategic piece of property in all of Connecticut.” That sums up why so many resources are being thrown at this project. I agree this is among the seediest areas of our beloved town and truly needs refurbishment. I think everyone agrees with that. It becomes a matter of degree, and Roan has turned up the temperature to the maximum — not all of it allowable. They are hoping you will bend and mold rules in their favor to make it more than “economically viable.”

If I hear “in compliance with the regulations” one more time, I just might explode. I would love to hear the applicant admit, “This is not in compliance, but we’re hoping you won’t notice.” There is a lot in the plan that appears to be not in compliance. Please don’t give them a pass.

The enchanting marketing materials of “The Saugatuck” would have you believe we landed in a fairytale land. In a highly monied marketing and lobbying campaign underway by the applicants, there is a new magazine dedicated to the development; a slick website, state lobbying, lots of ooh-and-aah descriptions of the gorgeous views of the river (really — the I-95 overpass and electrical towers?), the charm of a New England village, and romantic dimly lit alleyways. Even the business presentation is infused with “suspend disbelief” marketing pap.

For example, there was a reference in the landscape architect’s descriptions about bountiful hydrangeas creating fragrant walkways. Well, hydrangeas don’t have fragrance.

Is the one-plus acres of “open space” to include sidewalks, or real open space? One document stated the marina is part of the open space, but the marina is not part of the current plan before you. Will any open space be GREEN space, or just dimly lit narrow alleyways.

The residential section features private, not public, amenities. The retail areas are dense. A 57-unit hotel is in addition to the new hotel on Post Road East and a renovated hotel space at Longshore. How much hotel space does a largely residential community need?

The design and height requirements leave much to the developer’s imagination. Could it get more complicated? The cascading rooflines sound and look nice on schematics. I’m not convinced the execution will accomplish it. As others have requested, I think scale models are mandatory to understand how these varying proportions work.

The parking solution is complicated and does not satisfy the already scant parking requirements. In no way should the PZC allow the use of railroad parking spaces to satisfy the development’s parking requirements. Costly underground, stacked parking in a flood zone? Valet only? Automated flood gates? I can imagine the cost to park will exceed NYC parking rates just to cover the operating costs of these unwieldy ideas.

I think it would also be helpful to identify those outspoken proponents of The Hamlet who are financially or otherwise invested in its outcome. I noted that about 48 letters of same or similar language were submitted to PZC as of today in favor of this development. Some are multiples from the same family/address. The language is reminiscent of The Hamlet’s marketing-speak, and likely written by their PR consultants. Are you or the public aware of what, if any, other special interests are involved among decision makers and the influential? We should know motive behind the “strong” endorsements.

This is not an easy or quick decision for the PZC. You probably should have taken more time on the text amendment. Please do take the time on these site and coastal plans to get this right. There is too much at stake.

In conclusion, The Hamlet as proposed on March 11, is bigger, taller, denser than I believe even you expected. And there is much left out: the remediation of the soil, and the process to remediate; the marina; the other parcels not yet included in the plan. Parking and affordable housing requirements are being given leniency to go offsite. Please don’t.

The developers’ mantra now is, “We’re complying with the regulations.” As long as there is compliance, is there standing to object? I hope so. Parking. Height bonuses. Density. 35 versus 57 residences? They are pushing beyond yet declaring compliance. I would like to know every single feature that is not in compliance.

There should be no special permits, no forgiveness of regulations. No bonuses. I suspect parking will be the biggest lever the PZC could use to scale down this “too big to fail” development.

I suggest a redevelopment that is far more modest; less problematic from a traffic and parking situation, and with a greater focus on serving the existing Westport residential sector. A boardwalk. Some retail, residential, and a marina all sound great. Some affordable housing units onsite would be fabulous. Buildings that are shorter in stature and far less dense. A better ballfield next door — I know that is town land but they could improve it for goodwill.

I walked downtown yesterday, and counted at least seven Main Street storefronts closed up, not including the Siriano closing and the rumored closing of Tiffany. I am concerned Main Street is highly vulnerable given this over-the-top Hamlet plan.

As a 25-year empty nest resident who has chosen to age-in-place here with my husband and dog (despite our kids moving to Boston and Charleston, respectively), I do not see this as added value to the quality of life in Westport.

Yes, Saugatuck needs something. This is not it.

Toni Simonetti

Westport

Add as a preferred source on Google