By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — Though public input appeared to favor overturning the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recent rezoning of Saugatuck, members of the Representative Town Meeting on Tuesday voted to keep the sweeping changes in place.
After a nearly five-hour meeting, RTM members voted 33-1, with one abstention, to uphold a text amendment passed last month by the P&Z.
The amendment could allow redevelopment of the waterfront neighborhood with the Hamlet at Saugatuck project, proposed by ROAN Ventures. It’s a mixed-use development that, as currently envisioned, would include restaurants, retail space, residential units, a marina, a hotel and more.
The plans still would need site plan approval from the P&Z to move forward.
The RTM had the power to overturn the zoning changes with a two-thirds vote. The recent hearings by committees and full RTM were spurred by a petition from the Saugatuck Sensible Zoning Committee, signed by more than 20 voters, asking the RTM to review the P&Z’s action.
But the ensuing public opposition expressed in letters and at public hearings ultimately did not translate into votes by RTM members.
“The majority of my District 3 constituents made it clear to me that they are against this proposal,” said Don O’Day, a District 3 member. “But my job is to do more than read and respond to emails. It’s to make the best decision I can make, with the facts as I know them.”
He asked if the P&Z would have made the same decision without the looming threat of a “new and overbearing 8-30g development” with affordable housing. He said no.
“Will there be an 8-30g in the absence of the Hamlet?” O’Day asked. “Yes. Without question.”
The state’s affordable housing law — which allows developers to bypass the usual approval process in towns not meeting its threshold of affordable housing stock — appears to be living rent-free in many minds.
Perhaps with good reason. The town’s state-granted moratorium on such developments expires the first week of March. A wave of 8-30g applications is expected once that wall is breached.
“If ROAN doesn’t do it, the parcels will be sold to somebody else,” said Ellen Lautenberg, District 7.
“This is not a stake in the heart of the vampire for 8-30g in Saugatuck,” Peter Gold, District 5, said of RTM’s impending signoff on the rezoning.
He noted that Felix Charney, the developer who for two decades has sought to build a large apartment complex at the end of the Hiawatha Lane Extension in Saugatuck, also owns the Mystic Market parcel (which decades ago was the second home to The Arrow restaurant).
The only remaining obstacle to Charney’s Hiawatha project is a lawsuit brought by Save Old Saugatuck, a group of neighbors in the modest, middle-class neighborhood. It challenges the project of 157 apartments, with affordable units, contending that many parcels in the development were deed-restricted decades ago as single-family.
“The last of the affordable neighborhoods are where they attack,” Louis Mall, District 2, said of developers using the legislation for leverage. “And if we as a town don’t address this problem with 8-30g, we’re going to continue the devastation of neighborhoods, and it’s incumbent on us to find a solution.”
Seth Braunstein, District 6, voted to uphold the changes, but acknowledged the attention the petitioners brought to the issues.
“There will be an opportunity for people to continue to hold feet to fire on this,” he said. “And the engagement here truly has been remarkable. Whether it’s the petitioners themselves, who have tried to coalesce interest, or the public.”
Sal Liccione, District 9, was the sole vote for overturning the changes.
Matthew Mandell District 1, again abstained because questions had been raised about his role as executive director of Westport-Weston Chamber of Commerce, which has worked with the Hamlet team, a possible appearance of conflict of interest.
The next step for the Hamlet at Saugatuck is to apply for site plan/special permit. A ROAN representative said the development team plans to start work on that Wednesday.
Thane Grauel, executive editor, grew up in Westport and has been a journalist in Fairfield County and beyond more than three decades. Reach him at editor@westportjournal.com. Learn more about us here.
Some would say that, in the end, every community gets the government it deserves. That may be true, but there’s a reason why just a handful of towns in CT still have RTMs.
Isn’t the RTM supposed to represent the residence of the town? If the “public” response from the towns people is against the proposal, why doesnt the RTM vote against the proposal?
Seems there is a conflict of interests here. Yes, progress is inevitable, but what ever happened to responsible planning. This entire project is the death of Westport as we know it.
There seems to be a Density issue here. Hello Stamport!
Ten bucks to anyone who can fully diagram the murky organizational structure behind Hamlet’s Delaware registered front entity, ROAN Ventures.
Now that the RTM has refused to overturn the P&Z and McHamlet is set to go forward, do you think that the Town residents can finally, at long last, be told just who in Town actually has a financial stake in this deal? Who, actually, stands to personally benefit from this sweatheart deal?
Granted, this is information that I always felt should have been made public early on for the sake of full transparency as the town’s elected officials debated the project, but, strangely, it was kept under very tight wraps. Now that ROAN has won, can someone in the know please tell us that basic information? Who are all the local investors behind ROAN? Who stands to benefit financially from this highly unusual arrangement?
I would suggest that The Hamlet has nothing to do with the homes and history of Saugatuck Center. It has to do with money,
It also has to do with an elected official , who is suppose to represent the needs of District 1, but instead is responding to the money and decides to abstain from voting because the money is more important that constituent representation. Something else to remember at Election time.. .
It also has to do with “investors” choosing to be blind to the apparent and glaring land use abuses this project represents.
And finally and most critically, it has to do with a P and Z Commission Chair, who had led the Commission down a blind alley with a money-based logic while trying to convince us that she is working for the best interests of the Town. Again, something to remember at Election time.
It is worth noting that the elected official reference by Ms. Curry above did not recuse himself until AFTER the matter had gotten safely passed by the RTM cmt he chaired. He had absolutely no business chairing that cmt hearing. And the RTM Moderator further failed the RTM and the town by refusing to demand the elected official’s recusal when he was officially requested to do so BEFORE the RTM cmt hearing. I guess that is how things roll now in Westport when a host of unnamed local investors have money in the deal.
Having served on the RTM in the early 1990s, I must take exception to negative comments made about this institution and its effectiveness as a governing body. Despite my participation in the attempt to have the RTM overturn the zoning text amendment in the Saugatuck neighborhood, I believe our form of government is superior to that of a simple Mayor and Council format. In the more common Mayor and Council form of government, the Mayor needs only 4 of the 7 council members to control the town. Our RTM form of government involves more participation from the community and adequately serves as a check and balance to our town’s other boards. Electing representatives from your own district is a much more equitable way of having your voice heard. While the SSZC was unsuccessful in their bid to see the text amendment overturned, I believe our system of government is a superior one. This form of government requires discussion and debate on important matters, thereby bringing light and transparency to all important issues within our community. While I am deeply disappointed our efforts to reveal the horrendous flaws within the recently adopted text amendment where not overturned, I will continue to defend the RTM from this who choose to debase it.
I’m not sure joe, if somebody has got to you, but most respectfully, the RTM DUTY was to vote unlike they did with their constituents and as that did not happen this not democracy…
There are 28000 Westport residents all against this self serving conflict of interest oversized scope development.
There are about 1000 residents for this circus !
All investors and friends and family…
The process followed by the rtm was outrageous .
The only rtm member who listened to his constituents was Sal Liccione.
This is why Sal continues to get calls from other districts thanking him for representing their objections, even though he was not their rtm rep.
I’d love to hear how you think this was a just serve, when 28000 people were not on board… shoukd translate to about 28 rtm members not upholding this text ammendment.
End of the day 28000 residents do not want this vs… investors, and their friends who do.
Again rtm vote was not representative of the folks who elect them… something to remember in the next election…
While this system is more effective or “should be” than a mayoral system, clearly it was not in this case. Too many bully rtms telling the others how to vote.
What remains to be seen are ladder trucks, the new bridge, and the sheer scope of this not to mention the years of sitting in traffic those of us in saugatuck will do. The parking !
Let’s not forget the parking.
Joe, I suggest you are very misinformed and as a person winner or loser who brought this to the foray what has happened here in terms of the rtm is an utter miscarriage of justice.
Again.
To: M. Webster,
Your quote; “While this system is more effective”…. is my point exactly. Thank you.
The SSZC is obviously upset by our failed effort to overturn the text amendment.
I can assure you nobody “has got to” me, for what purpose you allude to, I’m not really sure, given the fact that we lost.
I think it is also a bit disingenuous to claim all 28,016 residents of our community are against this text amendment. You cannot verify that for a fact but you have brought up an issue the SSZC has been very concerned about; how few citizens were aware this text amendment was in the works? The people we rallied to the cause had admitted they had absolutely no idea this amendment was being considered. I miss the days when I looked forward to reading the Westport News every Wednesday and Friday because issues such as this one surely would have been front and center in the newspaper. Communications on important community issues have become more difficult to track, that’s a separate problem for another discussion.
With respect to this issue, the RTM was presented with a binary choice; approve this amendment or you can absolutely count on the development of a huge 8-30g project on this site.
It was very difficult for our group to prove a negative such as was posed by the P&Z Chair. Our group did not present a guaranteed alternative of what would be constructed on these sites, if the amendment was not approved.
I suspect the RTM did not want to appear to be the governing body who made the decision to overturn this GOD AWEFUL, 800% increase in density, in the event the applicant abandoned the project and an 8-30g project was eventually constructed in lieu of this ill conceived, leisure playground for the rich in the middle of this important transit hub.
Finally, regarding your last paragraph, perhaps I am “misinformed” however, the issue has been discussed, debated and voted on, we lost. The votes were counted, we were disappointed by the results and now it is time to move on.
Don’t forget that the last time RTM overturned a P&Z decision, in 2010, P&Z resolved to sue the RTM.
……..and do you think that this P&Z Commission wouldn’t consider the same move? Or, is it that we already know this P&Z Commission persuasion power is already in place? Witness it’s persuasive influence. No suing needed. A 33 to 1 RTM vote reflects an influence and persuasion already established. Just a thought for our future.