By Gretchen Webster
WESTPORT — Architectural Review Board members’ views on the proposed “Hamlet at Saugatuck” project were unanimous Tuesday night: The development would be too big, too tall, too dense, too urban and won’t resemble the New England coastal village design the developers promise.
“We can’t support this project,” said ARB Chair Ward French, summing up two hours of comments from his board and about 20 members of the public at the Town Hall meeting. “It’s a disappointment.”
While the board’s decision does not derail the project, it will be a factor in the Planning and Zoning Commission’s ongoing review of the plans. With Tuesday’s decision, the ARB has no plans for further review of the complex application, French said Wednesday.
Eric Bernheim, the lawyer representing developer Roan Ventures, was clearly frustrated at the conclusion of the meeting, saying the applicants were “told to go home and redesign the whole thing,” only to be spurned again.
“But you don’t have buy-in,” French said “Architecturally it doesn’t work.”
The plan had first been presented to the ARB on March 18, and while board members said that although they appreciated the work that went into the project, they needed more information. They asked for streetscape drawings so they could better visualize what Saugatuck would look like when 11 structures proposed by the developers would be situated among existing buildings that are not part of the project.
But at Tuesday’s meeting, several new streetscape renderings failed to quell requests for better perspectives of the project, especially among the public. One after another, members of the public, as well as board members, asked for a three-dimensional model of the project or a “3-D” virtual walk-through to be made so they could better understand the plans.
“I can’t fathom why you don’t have a visual model,” said resident Rick Smilow, who added it would not be expensive to create and that a more comprehensive understanding of how the development might look could generate broader acceptance.
“Everyone is scared,” said Smilow, a comment echoed by several others.
The number of five-story buildings, many 60-plus feet tall, was a major concern of many at the meeting.
French suggested that all the buildings of that size be cut down by at least a floor and a half.
Resident Michelle Paquette agreed, pointing out, along with some other Saugatuck residents at the meeting, that the Interstate 95 overpass looming over Saugatuck is only 52 feet high.
Paquette was also critical of a lack of outdoor space accessible to the public, and of the intricate design proposed for some of the buildings.
“It looks like we’re in Italy,” she said of the architectural renderings of some of the proposed buildings … “It looks like there will be little Italian boats in the water that would never survive in Long Island Sound … It needs to look and feel like Westport.”
Others, including board member David Halpern, said the project’s overall design appears too urban. “I don’t feel that what you have here reflects the New England village,” he said. “The density is more appropriate for a New England city.”
“The aesthetics are not of a coastal village,” agreed board member Julie Richardson. “It’s a towering cluster development that overshadows the heart of our community — downtown Westport.”
From the start of the ARB’s review of the Hamlet plan last month, board members said they felt hampered by the text amendment approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 2022, which limited the ARB’s oversight of the project to comments on its architectural and design features.
The P&Z will continue its review of the Hamlet at Saugatuck application at 6 p.m. Monday, April 28, in the Town Hall auditorium, 110 Myrtle Ave. The hearing, a departure from the commission’s usual Zoom meetings, is planned to give the public a chance to give in-person testimony on the application.
Freelance writer Gretchen Webster, a Fairfield County journalist for many years, was editor of the Fairfield Minuteman and has taught journalism at New York and Southern Connecticut State universities.
Well done to the ARB for their unanimous opinion that this monster is wrong in almost every respect.
Those small slivers of light which are meant to constitute a view of sorts will be missed if you blink.
A 3D physical model of both what was floated 2 years ago vs what is being floated now would be extremely helpful, though remembering even what was floated 2 years ago was also unacceptable.
It’s almost like , they are submitting this gargantuan plan in the hope the initial one from 2 years is accepted.
They were told to go back and fix it not make it bigger and uglier.
The public spaces are a joke, the public view is a bigger joke.
Attempting to narrow roads ( disguised as safety- how ludicrous, but convenient)
To try and call any of the buildings architecture New England is such a departure from reality, it feels like a Saturday night live skit.
New England is Martha’s Vineyard, block island, Nantucket architecture. If Nice or Cannes are what you want then please just take a 2 week trip there.
This is a self serving development exclusively engineered to make obscene profits at the expense of the towns residents using a text amendment which in my opinion the developers spoon fed to PZ and extorted maximum benefits which neither fit with the area nor the town.
FAR of 1000sf ( or potentially 1300 sf) to 1 parking spot makes absolutely zero sense..
it should in fact be more like an FAR of 1000 sf – 30 plus parking spaces.
The only way this build works is with an FAR verging on insanity. And parking regs purposefully so skewed in the applicant favor that all one can do is be left shaking their head.
We were assured 2 years ago at meetings that no promise or even discussion of taking over railroad parking existed. There are recorded meetings to prove it.
It would seem that since they claim this complies with the text amendment change, then it is time to rewrite that text amendment. Scrap it and back to the drawing board.
I believe the PZ has the power to do that.
The only people benefiting from this cluster of city style buildings are the investors.
Remember the developers answer to their investors.
We should be asking for, in fact demanding, a scale model of the entire area from the gault development on down.
And including the several properties not in this application because there will be more coming.
Connecticut state law which cannot be circumvented by towns, states it is not possible to deed restrict a hotel to remain a hotel so with the swipe of their pen they can just flip it into apartments of sorts.
Were they to do that nobody can stop them and since hotel rooms are conveniently located in buildings along with residences it would be an easy switch.
While I appreciate this is not their stated intention, it would be fool hardy not to be looking into the future potential implications.
There would be no affordable housing component, and that would be a huge financial coup.
Even if that were to never happen, I believe a stay of over 30 days ie. 31 in a hotel allows the guest to be considered a temp resident and purchase a railroad permit, and parks n rec pass entitling them to the exact same benefits afforded to tax payers in town. Golf, tennis, camps, sailing etc…
Hotels regularly offer steeply discounted rates for long or extended stays.
This could should it occur affect the entirety of the town.
Think little Johnny from nyc, or Denver, or California summering in Westport heading off to summer camp or sailing school while little Johnny from Westport, whose parents are tax paying residents in town, called a few minutes late and he gets waitlisted.
And daddy from out of town but staying over 30 days can golf every weekend at Longshore.
End of the day, how can we support a development which will destroy day to day life in so many ways for all of our towns population.
As someone who was there, Gretchen Webster’s article is accurate reporting of what happened at last night’s public ARB meeting at Town Hall.
Just one key comment that was not reported, but was said. At the end of the meeting, Architectural Review Board Chairman Ward French said that “the P&Z passing an 800% increase” – in allowable building density in the Saugatuck General Business District- “was a mistake”.
While he didn’t volunteer what % increase would have made sense, the general feeling is that 400-550% would have been ok. At that size, new development would still be attracted to projects there, the landowners could make money, and all of Westport would not be as resistant to a project that was “right sized”. The new buildings would inevitably be 3 floors high, not 5.
So here is a viable & bold suggestion:
1. P&Z reject the current Roan application
2. P&Z write a new text amendment, that actually makes sense for Saugatuck and all of Westport
3. Developers be invited to submit proposals for the area, with preference given to the guys from Roan, since they have been working on it for a long time, and have some good ideas (to go along with their unworkable ideas).
So, Westport P&Z, will you consider this plan?
I think, and I know many agree with me because i have been asking around, that the town should buy the wYerfront properties and make a green park with a small town owned marina.
Nothing woyld be more inviting when arriving at our wonderful low key town.
In the center of Saugatuck, ie marios… we could be more aggressive with development… The Saugatuck Performing Arts Center with massive under ground parking. Some new restaraunts. Maybe a small boutique hotel like one might find in South Beach for hook ups and rendezvous.
People would fall in love with westport instead of avoiding it.
Big shopping is for new york, thats why westport is so great, only a train ride away.
If the current plan were to go through or even 50 percent of the pictured scale, westport would be ruined for decades.
Think about what makes Westport beautiful… open space my friends.
That’s a brilliant idea , Todd Tracy.
I am bewildered by the response of some commentators. We are not a New England village nor should we want to perpetuate that. We are part of a vibrant metropolitan area that has a major shortage of housing. The only way to respond that is with increased density, with provisions made for parking and transportation facilities to support it. I don’t particularly like the Disney-esque design proposed, but the problem is not density, and it certainly wouldn’t “ruin” Westport forever.
We need to realize we are in the 21st century and we shouldn’t be trying to recreate the 19th century in architecture. The ARB should be focused on tasteful design not trying to make things look like they are from another era. If anything we should be requiring more housing in the project given its proximity to key transportation infrastructure.
Janet- You are partially right, but partially wrong. I was at the ARB meeting. The macro comment from that advisory board was that they could not even focus so much on design or individual buildings, or rooflines or windows…….the problem WAS DENSITY.
They professionally ALL felt that a series of 5, 5/1/2 story 60′ buildings was too much density for Saugatuck and Westport.
They said 3-story structures – like what other developers have done near railway stations – was the right approach.
The line about “New England Village” comes from the P&Z’s 2023 Text Amendment. The density allowed by the Text Amendment – an 800% increase vs. prior zoining – was a mistake.
Well, Westport is certainly a small Connecticut town and not a metropolis, even if we are in the NYC metropolitan area. We are a bedroom community that is a respite from the density and hubbub of the city. That is the reason I moved here from NYC many years ago and wish people would not move here and then try to turn it into NY. I’m also not sure what “tasteful design” means which excludes 19th century design. There are classic designs used in architecture, some of them going back to ancient times that are still utilized today with great results. It seems completely obvious that traditional New England architecture elements would be completely appropriate in Westport. Density and housing projects, with their attendant traffic congestion and noise would diminish the quality of life here, if not totally ruin it.