By Gretchen Webster
The Conservation Commission Thursday evening approved the application for the Hamlet development project in Saugatuck, with 23 conditions attached.
If the developer, Roan Ventures, does not comply with any one of the conditions, the approval will be void, according to the resolution approved unanimously by the commission.
The “Hamlet” at Saugatuck could end up being the largest municipal development ever seen in Westport, consisting of a multi-use development of 11 buildings, including retail, hotel and residential buildings between the Saugatuck River, Charles Street, Franklin Street and Railroad Place. Some 14 off-site “below market” housing units would be contributed by the developer under the plan. While developers have billed it as being a “New England-style” mixed-use development, many citizens have expressed concerns about the potential effects on traffic, parking, and water pollution in the Saugatuck River.
Approval comes with conditions
The lengthy and detailed conditions include required emergency and maintenance plans, floodproofing, and soil remediation protections, continuous monitoring by town conservation staff and the state DEEP, and many other conditions of approval.
The Conservation Commission had already heard the project plan at a meeting April 30 and later made a site visit, where the details were made clearer and questions answered, Commission Chairman Joshua Lewi said at Thursday’s meeting. He said the commission also received 45 letters from the public commenting on the project.
Consultants Brian Cutler of Loureiro Engineering Associates and Andy Soumelidis of Landtech, explained the systems included in the plans for controlling runoff and flooding, and to treat water before it entered the Saugatuck River.
They described a complex system of catch basins and “bioplanters” that filter stormwater runoff, and connect to piping under the project’s parking garage. There are “multiple treatment measures before it discharges into the river,” Soumelidis said.
An underground tunnel that had been planned to connect two parts of the development to accommodate deliveries and garbage disposal had been removed from the project plans, he said, after environmental concerns from the state DEEP.
Only a handful of residents made comments on the application at the meeting, including Dara Lamb, speaking for the Westport Alliance for Saugatuck, and Gloria Gouveia, a land use consultant and former zoning enforcement officer for the town.
Gouveia had several concerns including runoff from the project’s parking garages, and contaminated soil being disturbed during demolition of existing buildings. She asked if the commission members were “considering the implications of what could be found under those buildings.” she said.
“What if this developer goes bankrupt? Is there anything about this application that may keep you awake at night?” she asked the commissioners.
Carol Reichhelm of Harbor Road said she thought the town was being pushed too fast to approve the Hamlet application. “This is a $400 million project. It might deserve a little more than the time it’s been given in the last few months,” she said.
Next steps in the approval process
The Planning and Zoning Commission, tasked with determining the fate of the project, held one of many public hearings on Wednesday evening where they heard many of the same public comments from citizens and representatives of the developer as well as peer reviewers.
Moving ahead, the planners are scheduled to hold a special meeting on Monday, June 16 before closing the application to public comment. Legally, the P&Z must close the Hamlet hearing by June 18, and begin a 65-day deliberation period.
Freelance writer Gretchen Webster, a Fairfield County journalist for many years, was editor of the Fairfield Minuteman and has taught journalism at New York University and Southern Connecticut State University.
Sadly, there was no changing their minds. Their decision was obviously made before this meeting. They had their approval papers ready to go as the meeting closed.
You are for sure correct Gail. Minds were made up before anyone spoke.
Conditions as we know from other such 8-24 processes are MEANINGLESS, which I why it will not be appropriate for PZ to pass this with conditions. They are duly ignored ALWAYS.
Conditions just give the boards the “excuse”- lame excuse to pass it.
I was surprised when a question was posed about adjacent properties one of the members of the commission sarcastically asked “who will pay for remediating it”, and nobody present from the public reminded the commission and the contractor and the applicant, that WE THE TAXPAYER are paying for it thanks to the grant the selectwoman aided them in getting through WESTCOG.
The applicant applied for 12 million. I’m not sure if they were granted the 12 or if it was 8 million.
Either way we the taxpayer is making that involuntary contribution.
GALLING to say the least.
Yes, :”Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”
Why not appeal?
13.0 APPEALS
13.1 Any person aggrieved by any regulation, order, decision or action made pursuant to these Regulations by the Westport Conservation Commission or any person owning or occupying land which abuts any portion of land within or is within a radius of ninety feet of the wetland or watercourse involved in any regulation, order, decision or action, may, within fifteen (15) days after publication of such regulation, order, decision or action, appeal to the Superior Court for the judicial district where the land affected is located.
13.2 All appeals shall follow the procedures outlined in the Inland Wetland and Watercourses Act, 22a-36 through 22a-45a of the Connecticut General Statutes. Notice of appeal shall be served upon the Westport Conservation Commission.
I have a suggestion going forward for any application such as this, which of course does not apply to anyone doing an 8-30g,
But for non 8-30g applications.
I believe affordable housing should always be onsite,
But in the event back room deals are struck, the % of offsite should be far higher.. a minimum of 30-40%.
It should be a monetary number.
So if 52 apts are being built and they want to put affordable housing offsite.
If the cost to build those 52 is $50 million dollars, then 30% which is 15 million should be spent on the affordable component to be built elsewhere.. whether that’s 14 units or 40 units.
It should always be a monetary calculation. It should NEVER be a financial coup for the developer and their investors.
And NEVER EVER should any offsite housing be put in already affordable units.
This is a SCAM- a home grown SCAM !
The only winner is the greedy developer and their investors.
Where was the rationale in allowing a contractor to use already affordable housing to fulfill their affordable housing responsibility.
Seriously corrupt policy !
Not of any benefit to the tax payer of this town.
This town needs a NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY right now. So these slithery snakes cannot completely walk all over us.
And just to preempt the screamers shouting 8-30g.
There’s no 8-30g doing apts for 2-4 million each, and willing to allocate 30% of those apts to be affordable.
There’s no 8-30g builder doing apts they hope to sell for 3 million without a parking space !
Nobody will buy/lease them.
This is a policy that must be corrected and it is PZ’s policy. Not a state mandate. In fact I imagine it would horrify the state.
It screams segregation and racism..