By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Transit and Planning and Zoning committees of the Representative Town Meeting voted early Friday to recommend major changes to zoning in Saugatuck be kept in place.
The decision by the two committees came at the end of a seven-hour online meeting that began Thursday evening and continued into Friday. The panels’ recommendations are not binding on the full legislative body.
The full RTM will meet on the matter online at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday.
The committees met in response to a petition from 31 citizens challenging a text amendment passed Dec. 12 by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the full RTM were to approve the petition by a two-thirds vote, the rezoning amendment would be overturned.
The text amendment could enable developer ROAN Ventures to undertake sweeping redevelopment of the waterfront neighborhood with a project called “Hamlet at Saugatuck.”
More than 180 people were online Thursday. More than 200 attended an earlier meeting on the petition Tuesday.
The general public didn’t have a say during the deliberations until Thursday night. More than two dozen people spoke. Most expressed concerns or were against the changes. But many, including investors in the project, spoke in favor.
Alex Hyman, a fourth-generation Westporter, said he remembered the days when the town was home to an eclectic bunch of writers, artists and people from all income groups.
Old homes keep getting torn down and replaced with much larger ones, he noted.
“The charm and the appeal that so many of us have loved and appreciated about this town, we’ve seen it gradually slip away,” Hyman said. “I ask that the RTM vote against it.”
Skip Lane, a commercial real estate broker, spoke in favor.
“I love Saugatuck, I don’t want to see an 8-30g,” he said of the prospect of an affordable housing project. “I’ve met these guys, they have really thought it through, and I think it’s going to make Saugatuck great.
“When it gets done, this will be a great little village,” he said. “Everybody will look back and say, ‘Wow, why did we not do that that?’ — but I get it, people don’t like change … I think everyone should just wrap their arms around it and let’s move on.”
Several people mentioned the possibility of 8-30g applications in the area should the rezoning fail. The town’s state-granted moratorium on affordable housing projects — which largely allow developers to skirt the usual zoning regulations — expires the first week in March.
The RTM’s Transit Committee voted 5-1 against overturning the text amendment. Sal Liccione, District 9, supported overturning it.
The Planning and Zoning Committee voted 6-0 to not overturn the measure, with one abstention.
P&Z Committee Chairman Matthew Mandell, District 1, abstained because, he said, a question was raised about his role as executive director of the Westport-Weston Chamber of Commerce, which has worked with the Hamlet team.
Mandell didn’t say who had concerns, but Liccione earlier said he had raised the issue of a possible conflict with RTM Moderator Jeff Wieser, District 4, and Town Attorney Ira Bloom.
The RTM committee meetings were held this week because more than 30 verified voters in town signed a petition asking the RTM to review a text amendment that made substantial changes to zoning for the area roughly bounded by Charles Street, the Saugatuck River, Railroad Place and Franklin Street. Twenty signatures were needed to trigger the review.
The RTM, under the Town Charter, has the power to overrule the P&Z, but has to do so with a two-thirds vote — 24 of the 36 members, no matter how many are in attendance — within 30 days of the petition’s filing.
If the zoning changes pass the full RTM hurdle Tuesday, the Hamlet at Saugatuck would still need a separate site plan approval before the project could move forward.
Plans currently envision a mixed-use development, including a hotel, marina, restaurants, residential units (some affordable, on or off site), retail outlets and more.
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.
Thanks to Mr Sal Liccione, RTM District 9 Representative for his bravery to call out and stand by his serious traffic concerns about this particular project and its impact on our train station.
Yes, what would we ever do without Sal?
I second Ms. Johnson’s comment. Thank you Sal, for having the integrity to stand up on behalf of so many concerned Westport residents. We all know this is a total disaster from, among other things, a traffic standpoint – at least ONE of our elected representatives had the guts to say so.
It seems to me that the RTM subcommittees are willfully dodging the enormous issues that our developer-friendly P&Z seems to be inviting: how will the extraordinarily increased density affect our schools, what capital expenditures will police and fire departments need to address potential high rise emergencies, how can already dense traffic be handled much less ameliorated under the new and hastily written development-friendly planning changes? Uncomfortable as these and related issues are, both long-time and new residents must be assured that the quality of residential life in Westport is the prime concern of our elected representatives.
A note to RTM folk—please represent us, the people who live here! Please do not think you need to represent the developers and people who want to exploit Westport property ownership for a profit.
One could reasonably summarize this meeting with five words; RTM to constituents: drop dead.
Have seen this movie before.
I remember similar issues with the teardown/build of Saugatuck Rowing some years ago; which has since become a Westport community amenity, especially their youth rowing programs. Also the former Gault heating low-rise & storage tanks. And then the former high turn-over restaurant building across the street [long gone].
The corner low rise brick building [former Saugatuck Post Office – really!] has been a sad structure for decades.
Mr. Mandell, It is not just one individual who has serious concerns about your “ appearance of a conflict of interest” in this matter considering your paid employment at the Chamber of Commerce. Since the Chamber has taken an active role in advising the Hamlet team (and some of the Chambers members allegedly include investors in the project) it begs the question for many town residents – myself included – as to who are you representing on this matter? The Chamber/Hamlet or the Town Residents?
This “appearance” problem is such that you should have done much more than abstaining on the vote – you should have recused yourself entirely from the hearings rather than chairing them. Your leadership role in this process is a stain on the integrity of the RTM. Westport town residents deserve better from their elected town officials.
The Mc-Hamlet:
Several years ago I opined that Westport suffers from an “Identity Crisis”. The RTM P&Z/Transit meeting Thursday evening illustrated this on steroids.
For decades I’ve witnessed individuals come to Westport for our exceptional amenities embedded within the charm of a Southern New England town aesthetic. However too often arrivals are accompanied by the phrase “You know what Westport needs?”, and then imposition of their desires, commonly ignoring what generational residents want.
Due to Westport’s increasing affluence, experiences commensurate with that wealth have attained increasing influence and impacts upon our Town. An endless parade of modest, “more affordable” perfectly functional homes that have successfully raised generation after generation, literally bite the dust replaced with opulent Mc-Mansions.
Alex Hyman lamented this observation, but was dismissed by the young investors in the project with what can be best described as contempt, as in essence they told him (and the Town): “Move over old man, we are here, and we know what’s best”.
I remind that A) What’s “best” is an inherently biased opinion, and B) The consideration given to our elders is a direct reflection upon our individual humanity.
I remind the “Modern-Day Yuppie” investors that the Town they discovered and adore was built by the generation you seek to impact or displace by your “visions” under the subjective rubric “progress”.
Predictably, along with this march of “betterments”, the “aesthetic attraction”, “historical attraction”, “unique character” and “New England charm” is eroded, then lost – replaced by the Long Island, NYC, Westchester ambiance Westporters loathed. Of course the attractive amenities remain (schools, recreation, theater, restaurants) but absent the distinctive Town character. Amongst these deaths by a thousand cuts, the Saugatuck proposal represents an enormous incision.
Instead of being protected, Westport’s identity’s been increasingly prodded towards the design of Long Island, Westchester and elsewhere – their “comfort zones”. We are not Great Neck, Westchester, Palm Beach, Naples, or a “Town in Denmark”. We are/were Southern New England.
Is THIS the Saugatuck vision that residents have desired? NO. The 2018 TOD made that clear. THIS proposal is what the DEVELOPERS envision for Saugatuck not what SAUGATUCK envisions for Saugatuck. Despite Attorney Bernheim’s disingenuous attestation that this ROAN project “checks all 8 boxes of the TOD design principles”, he intentionally omitted the two most critical principles of all: NO buildings taller than 2.5 – 3 stories, and NO footprints greater than 20,000 SF because it did not fit the narrative he was promoting. That ROAN’s attorney “misrepresented” is no surprise as he and the project developers know that it is primarily the scale of the proposal that is unsatisfactory – not the revitalization itself.
To falsely state that Westport residents are always inappropriately fearful of change is a strategy used to disparage opposing individuals, to silence legitimate concerns, diminish rival credibility. And a developer preening over the alleged success of Bedford Square was expected – as dining and retail that is unaffordable to the majority of fixed income seniors, “working class” families and our “affordable housing tenants”, still represents success and progress to him because their patronage is “superfluous”.
Thursday evening accusations of “fear-mongering” was used to discredit and silence legitimate concerns. The multitude of concerns expressed were NOT fear-mongering. They remain legitimate and responsible. Kudos to those who sufficiently cared to express them.
There is no argument that Saugatuck has long deserved a sensible, responsible revitalization, and no argument that Westport’s residents DO DESIRE CHANGES to that neglected area of Town. The question has always been one of SCALE befitting a historic Southern New England village – APPROPRIATENESS given Saugatuck’s unique physical and environmental characteristics, constraints and challenges. SENSIBILITY.
In addition, as Seth stated, “The optics are not good”. Displacing affording housing to elsewhere in Town, while constructing an expensive boutique hotel, luxury condos, high end retail, and spa for the enjoyment of the affluent, might deservedly be viewed as being as “entitled as it gets”.
With the P&Z’s herculean efforts, and despite the RTM subcommittee’s concerns, and the public’s displeasure with its scale, for legitimate 8-30g concerns this project is destined to move forward. A developer and handful of investors have succeeded in forever imposing their will onto the entirety of Westport’s residents. They will leave their indelible mark in the face of substantial public opposition and near certain infrastructural impacts because THEY believe (and will always believe) that THEY knew “better” than the multitude of residents of Westport who desire something different but have no effective power.
The term “Hamlet” at Saugatuck was a clever marketing ploy intended to foster the imagery of a small quaint village as, by definition, a Hamlet is small. In reality, and in congruence with the Mc-Mansions, this area will be forever designated the “MC-HAMLET at Saugatuck”.
Just look around Town – did anyone expect anything other?
Interesting…
Roan is being called out because they’re new to town but forgetting that the properties are privately owned by Westport families is a mistake. These families have provided service to the community for generations and should be allowed to maximize their exit strategy.
What they’re proposing to replace are ugly structures that do not contribute to the aesthetics of Saugatuck. We can’t compare it to razing a single-family home. It’s apples and oranges. In addition, 21 Charles has already established the scale of the area. It’s a prominent structure and what surrounds it needs continuity. Keep in mind, the proposed street scape on riverside is the same height as Saugatuck center. P and Z still controls that final design.
If some feel a ” smaller” scale project could be profitable, how come they have not secured the funding and presented it to the neighborhood they are now trying to control?
When the YMCA was originally proposed, it was limited in size and the end result is that it is about 20% undersized across the board. David Waldman’s development downtown was limited in scale, and he stated that reducing the size of his project cost him his profitability.
Younger people moving in and wanting to invest and shape the community that they want to raise their children in is nothing new.
Would you prefer 300+ residential units like Hiawatha, that dump cars into the area at morning and evening rush hour or a mixed use, including more great restaurants, all while providing publicly accessible waterfront and amenities.
Which one of these options is better concerning traffic?
8-30g …We have had multiple examples where developers used it to permit extremely inappropriate developments, if this project is overturned it’s 100% likely the next developer will and those 300+ units will be a reality.
Let’s not repeat past mistakes, let’s retain some control over what goes in this space.
The TOD study was abandoned because it was not viable. Regardless, P+Z used key parts of it for guidance and Roan met those suggestions.
Lastly, the idea that this was rushed through is ridiculous! It’s been discussed for well over a year and a half with carefully thought-out public access requirements. Anyone commenting now could have put in the effort and been easily informed and heard. Unfortunately, the folks who didn’t like the P+Z decision are attempting to stir up support based on misinformation and hyperbole.
I take issue with Mr Guimond’s comment “The TOD study was abandoned because is was not viable”.
The Saugatuck TOD study, which cost $500,000, was completed in 2018 by top-flight consultants and involved thousands of combined public hours in meetings, reviews and surveys. The Saugatuck TOD study showed that it makes sense to locate denser development away from the heart of Saugatuck and closer to Route 136 given the topography and the need for easier rail and fire/emergency access. Yes, this would require “liner buildings” around “tiered parking” (which was vehemently opposed by a vocal minority of Westporters opposed to anything put forth by the consultant (see Dan’s post on March 14, 2018)). But given the choice that we now face (namely, the flawed Hamlet or some vague 830(g) project looming down the road), it is now worth immediately revisiting.
The Saugatuck TOD plan can be found easily on the Town’s website. Given the overarching importance of the Saugatuck rail station to our town’s economic health and quality of life, it is worth taking the time to revisit this impressive study. Page 112, for example, shows where and how Westport could address affordable housing. From a traffic perspective the Hamlet will have a disproportionate and adverse impact on residents who rely on Saugatuck Rail station over those who use Greens Farms. The Saugatuck TOD Study gives us the solutions we need now. Let’s not allow it to be wasted.
Robbie,
Many residents HAVE BEEN quite concerned about the McHamlet proposal since its inception – perhaps you are just not aware of this – however vocal “objection and opposition” could not occur until there was something concrete to object to and oppose.
Because proactive community outreach and engagement by developers is virtually non-existent, residents are far too busy with family and work obligations to become informed until the 11th hour. Reactionary resident protestation becomes the norm. Unfortunately without a Town referendum that’s how the process generally works – and it is a reality that developers always take advantage of.
If ROAN and its investors actually cared about Westport’s inhabitants, they would have engaged and partnered with them (the way that the TOD consultants did) to create a sensible development plan the community would support.
As you stated, THE DEVELOPERS had years to have done this – but for obvious reasons THEY decided to “go in another direction”; by law they are not required to work with the community as profit motivation takes precedent over community support.
But thank you for clearly crystalizing the motivations here:
1. Profit
2. People moving to a Town with sights on changing it without concern about what the inhabitants desire.
You are correct that this is “nothing new”. In fact, historically, these newcomers were given a name: “Carpetbaggers” – i.e. “moving to a Town and exploiting a situation for personal gain”.
I reiterate: The entire community supports changes in Saugatuck – however it is the SCALE that is at issue. And again you ignore the fact that The TOD’s KEY design principles of SCALE were completely ignored. THAT is what is so objectionable.
The TOD study provided a framework and guidepost to build upon – and for the many reasons delineated, that should have been the developer’s foundation. If ROAN (and the “younger people moving in” investors you reference) actually cared about the community at large, they would have partnered with it rather than choosing to impose THEIR vision because THEY think that they know better, and it would make them “X” amount of money.
Robbie, it is not too late for ROAN and its investors to do the right thing. A final design that honors the TOD scale principles, and one that comports with the vision of the community, can still be constructed utilizing the approved Text and Map amendments – but it would take a willingness to begin an earnest dialogue with Westport’s residents to work in partnership. Yes, the 8-30g issue and retaining control over what is constructed there IS important – but as you have heard, Westport’s residents also want control over what is ultimately constructed rather being hostage to ROAN’s imposition.
Perhaps an amendable solution is still possible instead of ROAN constructing that objectionable McHamlet. The enormity and indelible impacts of this proposal demands it.