Editor’s Note: This article has been updated with the inclusion of P&Z Commission Chair Paul Lebowitz’s closing comments.
WESTPORT–The plan to reinvigorate Saugatuck with a $400 million, multi-use development was turned down by the Planning and Zoning commission.
This evening, the commissioners met and indicated that they would deny the Hamlet at Saugatuck plan, Four commissioners voted to deny the application (Paul Lebowitz, Patrizia Zucaro, Amy Wistreich and Michael Calise) and three abstained (Neil Cohn, Michael Cammeyer and Breann Injeski).
The “Hamlet at Saugatuck” is planned as a multi-use development of 11 buildings, including retail, hotel and residential buildings between the Saugatuck River, Charles Street, Franklin Street and Railroad Place.
The commissioners spent a large portion of the meeting discussing the “document of denial.” Michelle Perillie, Director of the Planning and Zoning Department drafted the document, which was based on the commission’s discussion on Monday, July 21.
Ira Bloom, town attorney, encouraged the commissioners to “focus on the parts of the application that do not conform with the text amendment” passed in 2022. “This will be something I have to defend in court,” Bloom added, so make sure the document is strong.
Less is more
P&Z Commission Chair Paul Lebowitz repeated Bloom’s admonition. “I’d like to hang 30 or 40 more lights on this Christmas tree,” but it is not necessary. “Less is more.”
The commission cited four reasons why the application did not conform with the text amendment: style, parking, waterfront, traffic/safety:
Style
- The application does not conform to the “New England coastal village” aesthetic outlined in the text amendment.
- The monotony of the design doesn’t match the “warmth on a small scale.”
- The application would “irreversibly alter” the character of the neighborhood.
Parking
- The parking management plan failed to satisfy commissioner’s concerns–particularly as it relates to addressing employee parking, which the developers insist will be off site.
Waterfront
- Public access to the waterfront and public views of the water were not adequately addressed.
Traffic/safety
- The traffic impact analysis did not consider all the impacts on traffic.
- The safety of the parking plan was not properly considered.
Lebowitz keeps door open
Lebowitz stated after the vote:
“I have not been involved in something with this many meetings, applicants, consultants, pages.”
“I hope there is a place in this town for this type of application.”
“If this were to come back to us with those reasons of denial taken into consideration in a new application, there might be a much better chance for people to look favorably on it.”
Applaud the P&Z Commission
Dara Lamb, speaking on behalf of the Westport Alliance for Saugatuck and its allies, said “we applaud the painstaking work of the Westport P&Z to apply the factual requirements of the text amendment to find the Hamlet proposal failing in compliance.”
That the denial “started with the architectural failings” was entirely appropriate, according to Lamb. She felt the project’s overall failing was to “fit into Westport’s very special sense of place, the needs of the community.”
Lamb expected the road ahead to be “bumpy.”
Deeply disappointed
Eric Bernheim, Roan Development’s lawyer, said in a note after the meeting:
“We are deeply disappointed with the decision of the Zoning Commission. We worked extremely hard to address all concerns raised and in doing so we received confirmation from the experts engaged by the Commission and the Town Zoning staff that we had complied with all applicable regulations. The Hamlet is fully compliant with the Town’s regulations and it was denied nonetheless.
“Zoning regulations are the Town’s greatest tool to invite scaled development and investment into their community. The Hamlet was proposed at a lesser scale, density, and height than what is permitted by their regulations. Tonight, the Commission ignored their regulations and sent a clear message to those wishing to invest in our Town’s future development.”
A Pyhrric victory?
Echoing comments made after the vote, Commissioner Neil Cohn said, “I can’t join the majority tonight. By declining to approve this with meaningful conditions, I believe we’re doing the town a real disservice. For those who genuinely care about traffic, density, and thoughtful development, this may prove a Pyrrhic victory. I’m respectfully abstaining—because I’m deeply concerned about the long-term consequences this decision may have for our community.”
Law suit anticipated? I thought Plan B was 500 apts under 8-30g.
I understand it is 600. ! lol !
But Apparently the 45% ROI, from hamlet, turning into 15% on 8-30g is ok !!!!!
That’s what I’ve heard.. I’m not attesting to this.. could be hearsay.
Again ! Greedy developers !
I hear no lawsuit n straight to 8-30g for the tantrum throwers.
Might need to keep that garb-age in court for a couple decades
Looking forward to the saturation of this market.. and apts at 400k if they are lucky !
Westport owes a huge debt of gratitude to our P&Z Commissioners and staff for their time consuming, thoughtful and thorough review of ROAN’s application for the Hamlet.
It wasn’t easy getting to last night’s vote. But through community action, listening and careful consideration, the P&Z made the right decision. That being said, it is sobering to consider just how close Westport came to becoming subject to a flawed vision that could have, among other things, compromised railroad parking for the needs of a private developer.
As the community now looks to the November elections, it is important to pay attention to your RTM representative’s role over the last three years. Most were silent during the Hamlet proceedings. Only a handful stepped up to represent constituents’ interests at public hearings. And ONLY ONE (Sal Liccione D-9) voted against the Text Amendment back in December 2022 that facilitated the ROAN submission. See https://westportjournal.com/government/bucking-public-input-rtm-upholds-saugatuck-rezoning/
It’s time for change on the RTM. If you were concerned by the Hamlet scenario and want to be part of Westport’s next chapter, head to the Town Clerk’s office and pick up a petition to run for the RTM (you’ll need 20 signatures from your district). Everyone who cares about the town’s future should consider running. The RTM is the most powerful town body, and unfortunately in recent years too often leadership has allowed votes on key issues to be relegated to a last-minute stamp of approval
Please consider running for the RTM.
To ensure that Ms. Johnson’s inaccurate comment does not cause confusion, please ask readers to note that all RTM members encourage a democratic election with multiple candidates in all Districts. Petitions require 25 signatures of registered voters from the candidate’s district, not 20.
Ms Johnson’s comment caused no confusion, whatsoever.
Really Jeff?! Really?! “All RTM Members encourage a democratic election”? Including you and the RTM 29??? The denying of the centurys old sacred democratic practice actually enshrined in the Town Charter of any town elector being able to place an item of concern on the RTM Agenda by petition – under your leadership! – sure doesn’t seem like “All RTM Members ecourage (democracy).” That Trump-like Inspired Authoritarian vote of yours will live in infamy Jeff. That is your legacy!
Yes, Moderator Wieser is correct – 25 signatures are needed to run for the RTM (plus a few more as a buffer).
The confusion lies in that different RTM petitions require a different number of signatures: 1) running for the RTM requires 25 resident signatures from your RTM District; 2) petitioning the RTM to add an item to the agenda requires 20 signatures [petitioning the RTM is now restricted after 29 RTM members voted to take away that citizen right].
Pay attention to how your RTM representatives are voting. Please consider running for the RTM…and make sure you have enough signatures to qualify to be on the ballot this November. The Town Clerk is a great source of information and assistance – (203) 341-1110.
Perhaps a new moderator would help.
It most certainly would ! And one elected by the public not the croneys !
This P&Z decision proves in spades how important and consequential your votes for office are, and how it will be in November. We owe a debt of gratitude to these commissioners for their dedication, thoughtfulness, persistence, and the bravery to do the right thing under extreme circumstances and pressure.
Regarding Jennifer Johnson’s and Michael Treadwell’s important comment:
As occurs elsewhere, the RTM moderator should be a position elected by the residents rather than by RTM cronies. That would be a good first step in holding his/her position accountable to promotung the interests of the electorate.
And the RTM 29 who voted to empower this RTM moderator with resident petition censorship authority he desired should be replaced. However for that to occur we need residents to become vested in promoting what residents actually want by seeking RTM positions. Attending and speaking at meetings is fine, but insufficient when resident voices are routinely ignored and RTM cronyism prevails.
Jennifer Johnson is correct in calling upon Westport citizens to seek office to replace these RTM 29 and return this august body to being the peoples voice as it was intended.
Representative democracy was never intended to replace the will of the people with the personal opinion of those entrusted with decision-making authority.
Dan O’Day and the other RTM 29 specifically and intentionally voted to ignore what their constituents wanted them to represent. Dan admitted this. He and they voted to censor their own constituents! That should disqualify them all from this “representative” office, and relegate them back to being just ordinary individuals who get to merely speak their personal opinion for 3 minutes, and subjected to being ignored.
As an aside, for Mr. O’Day to now desire to captain this Town after insulting his constituents with this slap in the face, and then promoting additional insult by violating our Town Charter’s C21-2 provision to utilize Westport’s Public Site and Building Commission in the Long Lots Elementary School replacement, is the definition of hubris.
Hopefully Westport’s electorate will finally utilize November as THE opportunity to reorient our leadership towards transparency and finally taking direction from those that they are elected to serve. This is long overdue.
Enough is enough.
Don not Dan O’Day…pardon the typo.
Please please please – for those who are reading this – note that it is another incendiary inaccurate statement by Ms. Johnson that 29 RTM members (82%!) voted to take away the right of citizens to petition the RTM. We still hear petitions from 20 electors on topics that we are legislated to act upon. We will not debate the merits of the Yankees v. Red Sox as was suggested once in this Journal, but we have acted and will continue to act on matters that we are legislatively empowered to act upon. I regret this further confusion that is being offered.
Jeff,
Please stop disparaging Ms. Johnson. These passive aggressive attacks on her are unbecoming. Your attempts to “correct” her are clearly smoke screens in order to obfuscate the truth. You fool no one and it looks silly.
Reality: NO ONE attempted to petition the RTM regarding baseball team preferences. That’s your straw man argument. In truth the petition(s) that you denied were pertinent, timely, important and of great relevance to our Town… the only fault is that they wrankled the first selectwoman so had to be killed. And you dutifully obliged.
Despite the Town Attorney supporting your desire to filter resident petitions, many other attorneys stated Ms. Flug was not only incorrect but making it up on the fly.
Our Tiwn Charter does not and never has empowered the RTM moderator to filter petitions that meet the 20 resident or 2 RTM requirements.
YOU decided to have Attorney Flug distort word definitions to suit your censorship objectives at the time. There was no reason to have done this other than censorship.
That’s the truth residents must remember when casting their votes in November.
It’s time for residents to reassert their voice without obstruction by the RTM moderator. Elected officials are supposed to work for them. RTM is supposed to represent them, rather themselves.
As a start, please consider allowing the public to chose the next RTM moderator. It’s time for substantial changes.
Wieser, has been a scourge on this town for years.
Jennifer Johnson has respectfully and with grace stood up for her voters, and inspite of the bullying by O’Day, Mall, Colabella,Braunstein, etcccc.., amongst others, she has stood fast.
I am personally sick to the teeth of ZERO responsibility !
The RTM-29. Who f’d us !!!
The jesup green vote – a FIX, once several realized they were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t..
took the proverbial high road. Oh ! My opinion only.
Another joke.
I’m tired of the disgusting treatment of Harris Falk( check out some meeting recordings) just diabolical and evil treatment.
Is it any wonder this administration led byTooker /moore try and appoint committees whose meetings they do not record.
But WE record them.
Vile, and nasty IMO.
Jennifer Johnson, Sal Liccione, HarrisFalk,( previous RTM) are amongst the true and dedicated, steadfast supporters of democracy. Of fairness, of civility.
Remember RTM-29
And HAMLET 33
Those 29 and 33 voted against the residents.
Jeff! You are legislated to vote on any petition.
You know it, I know it, we all know it.
Yet you pick and choose based upon your like/not of the selectman.
The 82% RTM vote was a despicable disgrace. A gross misrepresentation of electorates wishes.
I know it, and everyone else knows it.
It was also illegal !!!
You were asked recently to look at a committees decision on the hamlet and placed it so far out on the roster, its vote Would be impossible or precarious. Certainly effectively late.
Tooker called some of us obstructionists because we did not agree with her agenda/s
I see 1 obstructionist and bully- YOU.
Nobody asked to debate Red Sox n Yankees! That was your cronies self serving interpretation to disparage fair democratic free speech. But you could not even manage that. Instead anyone with a democratic view is labeled a keyboard warrior. Or an obstructionist.
Get over yourself !!
You are always on the wrong side of the vote.
.
Jeff, Your continued wilful misreading of the Town Charter is an embarassment to your beloved RTM.
The legal opinion that you cling to was written by a hired-hand (a very nice hired-hand, hi Eileen) at the direction of either you or Jen Tooker or both and it would not survive 5 minutes in front of a judge.
You and so many others imbue in the Town Attorney legal authority which they do not possess. They write opinions to serve and protect their client, Jen Tooker. They do not get to declare what is Legal and Illegal. Unless someone has completely changed our legal system with telling me.
The RTM is no longer a respected or necessary part of Westport town government…..So please “Vote No One for RTM 2025!”
Let the mud flinging commence.
John, can I ask what RTM 2025 is? Or is it just a sarcastic comparison to the Project 2025? For a moment, I had hoped that there would be a referendum on RTM or another form of town government.
I shudder to realize that this is happening here, just as it is on the national level, but I would not be surprised. Four years ago, I heard so many say “Party doesn’t matter for First Selectperson,” and I disagreed as forcefully as I could, but I suppose not hard enough. Tooker did give them more pickleball courts right before the election, so why not vote for her? It sounds like we have some messy things going on in our local government. We must make people aware of these issues. RTM is more important than most people realize. Be careful when you vote. Unfortunately, we rarely get choices. In my district (1), when four candidates are running for four spots, we don’t have many options. How do we get people to pay attention and participate?
Bobbi,
Thanks for asking. This is just what I plan on doing when I fill out my ballot this election day…I will not vote for a single person for RTM. And I will be actively encouraging others to do the same. If enough people do this, and there is a measurable difference in the perentage of ballots without RTM votes, it will be a sign that people are fed up with the RTM. And by extension, our current form of town government.
Wacky idea? Probably. But so is voting for Representatives that boast that they proudly ignore feedback they get from the people in their district (Hi Don O’Day!) Or voting anyone into an organization that refused to uphold the basic rule of town law (Hi Jeff Weiser, Jimmy Izzo, Andrew Colabella, Seth Braunstein, Lauren Karpf, Stephen Shackelford and a whole host of others who will be upset I left their names off this list….they are really proud that they silenced us!)
I have lots of things to say about this. But I need to get back to my day job on this lovely Friday. If anyone wants to discuss, you can reach me at jdmwestport@gmail.com