By Thane Grauel
WESTPORT — The Planning and Zoning Commission is continuing to discuss whether or not to rezone much of Saugatuck to allow a large mixed-use development.
The public hearing on a text amendment to allow construction of the Hamlet at Saugatuck ended Nov. 21. Commission members are now working on adjusting the language to ensure that whatever might be built matches what is proposed by ROAN Ventures or any potential future developers.
The commission discussed the text amendment again Monday, and many of the same concerns were discussed, including height of buildings, particularly east of Riverside Avenue, building setbacks, public spaces and protecting the historic facades on Railroad Place.
No votes were taken, but Chairwoman Danielle Dobin took an informal poll to hear the thoughts of members who will vote on the application. Patrizia Zucaro and Amie Tesler appeared against. Others appeared in favor. Paul Lebowitz appeared in between, saying Saugatuck needs to be rezoned, but that he had very specific concerns about the east side of Riverside Avenue, which could be the site of very tall buildings.
He was referring to the buildings that now house Tutti’s Ristorante, the white office building to its west, commonly known as the Button Factory, and the old brick Saugatuck post office building.
“This is too big a parcel to not know what the future of it is,” Lebowitz said. “I definitely would not want to see 65 [-foot-tall buildings] in that parcel. I’m dead-set against that and I’d be a hard no.”
“I don’t agree with Paul that something has to be done in Saugatuck,” Zucaro said. “I actually like the way Saugatuck looks right now.”
“I do like the concept, the theory, of having mixed-use there,” she said, adding that she’d like to see less residential in the plan and more waterfront uses.
“I also think it’s still way too big …” she said.
Tesler said she doesn’t think all change is inherently bad.
“I think change should be organic, I think it should be well executed,” she said.
‘I like that it’s a New England feel, I know people are averse to the grittiness, but to me it’s a slice of heaven. It’s still a slice of why people left New York.’
P&Z member Amie Tesler
“As the plan stands currently, I am not intrinsically in favor of it,” Tesler said.
She said she understands what the developers are trying to do, but said she likes how Saugatuck looks.
“I like that it’s a New England feel, I know people are averse to the grittiness, but to me it’s a slice of heaven,” Tesler said. “It’s still a slice of why people left New York.”
“I think we’re on the right path here and making the right steps,” Michael Cammeyer said. “With some minor modification we could be hitting home in the proper way.”
“I do share some concerns that the other commissioners share,” he said. “But I think we’re heading in a positive direction to continue discussing it.”
‘I don’t think the area is particularly charming or attractive in its current state. I think it lacks any public amenities, or access, it’s literally all asphalt. There’s no grass, there are no trees, there are no views of the river, there’s no access from the river, there’s no access to the river.’
P&Z chairwoman Danielle dobin
Dobin disagreed with Tesler.
“I don’t think the area is particularly charming or attractive in its current state,” Dobin said. “I think it lacks any public amenities, or access, it’s literally all asphalt. There’s no grass, there are no trees, there are no views of the river, there’s no access from the river, there’s no access to the river.”
The P&Z’s workshop discussion will continue at future meetings.
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.
I agree with Chairwomen Dobin, “I don’t think the area is particularly charming or attractive in its current state”. However, I think our views of this project drift apart from that point onward. I think the P&Z is missing the most relevant component of this neighborhood altering proposal, this is a massive project that has many Westporters deeply concerned and rightfully so.
Given the limited amount of information presented to the P&Z for an overwhelming intrusive text amendment, that if approved, would make way for the largest commercial development in the Town’s history.
I would be shocked and very disappointed if the P&Z believes they have an adequate understanding of the scope and scale of this potential project. Waving an 8-30g flag around the room to scare opponents is not the approach I would have taken, merely because the project has many other vulnerabilities that could have been focussed on that are far more compelling.
Ambitious projects of this magnitude should be presented to the Town in model form (given, most lay people have difficulty understanding architectural drawings) along with well conceived schematic architectural floor plans and elevations, designed for each of the proposed buildings.
I am NOT against a project in this neighborhood, in fact we have all waited decades for a renaissance in Saugatuck, however, I am against the back door approach taken by the developer; using a text amendment path to secure a blanket approval for a design that will require the P&Z and fellow Westporters to take a “leap of faith” on the appearance of what will ultimately be built on those sites.
Why the P&Z has taken on the review of this project, on their own, without seeking outside professional help from a third party consulting firm, for such a complex project is a serious question. I am not trying to bash the P&Z, they are volunteers, they work very hard and I have great respect the Board, I am merely pointing out there is no shame in asking for help.
What has been presented, if built, would be grossly out of scale for our village neighborhood. Once this text amendment is approved, the Town would have no legal way of stopping the project, should our “leap of faith” be miscalculated. While the P&Z appears focussed on the waterfront, (the shiny object) they fail to address the buildings on the State Street Cleaner site. The developer is proposing four 60’-70’ towers, within 20’ of each other. The site plan fails to accurately illustrate those proposed “green, pedestrian areas” will remain in constant shadow, creating a Wall Street canyon effect. An architectural model, unlike an architectural rendering, (referred to in the business as “eyewash”) would clearly illustrate a solution that all Westporters could visualize, understand and render an informed opinion on.
Lastly, let’s remember, zoning regulations are already in place for these sites. I accept a subtle nuance between what is as-of-right versus what can be reasonably requested by the developer. Zoning regulations often become stale over time and need to be refined to accommodate changes in the neighborhood. Yet, if the developer’s request requires a herculean increase in density, this is a giant red flag, typically meaning he is overpaying for the real estate and is forcing Westporters to live with a project that is out of scale, merely to financially benefit the existing property owners.
Saugatuck has waited since the 1960s when I-95 cut their neighborhood in half, a la Robert Moses, to figure out how best to reassemble its village vibrancy. Westporters have waited so long, I think they deserve a more well conceived design solution.
I agree with Joseph V’s comments above and hope that the P&Z will not allow a mere text amendment to be approved giving the developer an open path to pillaging Saugatuck. I understand the want for a Saugatuck facelift but a project of this magnitude is overdoing it. As Joseph rightly put, “forcing Westporters to live with a project that is out of scale, merely to financially benefit the existing property owners.” isn’t fair to the town and I believe any changes to the zoning regulations for Saugatuck should be clearly defined, and strictly limit the max size and height of any new development.
I am also at a loss in understanding how anyone thinks Saugatuck can handle the additional traffic a project of this magnitude would generate. Traffic is continuously backed up to/from the train station and the surrounding areas so I cannot envision how a project of this size wouldn’t make that situation worse; and for that matter, where everyone will park since parking is already at a premium in Saugatuck.
The town is going to great lengths to include residents in the downtown redesign (which I applaud) so I hope that while its focus is on the downtown redesign it is not too distracted to allow for a developer to push its way through P&Z and build out a mega-development in Saugatuck.
I’m writing to say that I totally agree with the comments above by Brian Lipira and Architect Joe Vallone. The scale, scope, density and mass that the Hamlet developers are planning is wrong for Westport and would be a disaster for Saugatuck.
I do recall that when discussions first began on the Hamlet, the Roan Partners were asked if they would or could have a model built so that ALL Westport residents could get a quick visual understanding of “what they were planning”. Their attorney quickly rejected that idea. That was a mistake. And as Joe Vallone wrote, I agree that Westport P&Z did not have enough external professional help and consultation to aid them – and the public – in the consideration process.
And then there is traffic….what’s bad would get worse. In a sense it’s a “quality of life” issue. People regularly move from traffic congested neighborhoods and towns to be in ones with less traffic. The 300,000 square foot Hamlet development would generally make traffic worse for everyone who uses I-95 exit 17, the train station, the Cribari Bridge and Riverside Avenue. I’d guess that is HALF of Westport. So in that regard, building the Hamlet would lower the quality of life for half of all Westporters.
I think Westport P&Z should reject the text amendment request, while at the same time signaling changes to zoning would be acceptable.
I’m not against change, development and civic improvement. It just needs to be sensible!
Perhaps like most Westport residents, I was unaware that there has already been a remarkable, thorough and community represented design/master plan for the village of Saugatuck. Completed and presented to the Town in March 2018, it was entitled the Saugatuck Transit Oriented Design Master Plan report, and contains the many desires and recommendations that would benefit that crucial area of Westport while retaining the Southern New England ambiance we all wish to retain. So much time, work and energy went into the creation of this design & master plan that I am dismayed it has not been formally presented at any of the P&Z meetings as representation of what exactly the Town is looking to develop. In addition to the Barton Partners consulting firm, this project included the involvement of Saugatuck residents, Saugatuck business owners, commuter council representatives, transit representatives, historic preservation officials, architectural design officials, our Police department, and staff from Town Planning, Conservation, Engineering, and Parks & Recreation. As stated in its introduction: “The diversity of the Committee composition served as its strength as it brought together a wealth of local knowledge, expertise, and perspective.”
In my opinion THAT report, containing THAT design, including THOSE consensus principles should serve as the fundamental starting point for any developer when they asked the P&Z the following question: “What is it that you would like to see constructed”. From THAT starting point, any changes could be negotiated.
I urge Westport residents to look up this TOD report and read it. I imagine you will agree that THIS comprehensive body of work is exactly what Saugatuck is looking for.
I understand that the 8-30g sword of Damocles is a real consideration, and I commend the P&Z Commissioners in the way they have conducted these lengthy hearings on this Saugatuck proposal. It was a difficult task. I just wish, and request, that prior to making a decision on the Saugatuck proposal before them, they enter the TOD report into the P&Z deliberation record, AND publicly discuss and consider its contents during their deliberations. Within this TOD report, the P&Z already has a roadmap on how to renovate and rejuvenate this crucial part of our community that has been dubbed “A gateway for Westport”.
Dr J
Each of the P&Z Members make valid points, whether in favor of, or in opposition to this development. The above comments from concerned Westporters include compelling thoughts that make sense. In synopsis, this much is true – The Hamlet as proposed is a larger than life project that will be tucked into a small corner of Saugatuck. Construction will entail extensive site work that includes soils remediation, not to mention digging of underground spaces possibly for parking, at a waterfront site. No viable solution for today’s current local traffic nightmare has been presented, yet alone a proposed solution given the proposed added traffic impact of the proposed residential and hotel bed occupants, retail customers, and the employees who will work there. Additionally, this will have a tangible effect on Exit 17 (without even factoring for the expected Hiawatha multi family traffic).
I would like to shift gears for a minute, and share my own personal experience as a tenant of a similar, massive, multi-use development that was built in what was a bucolic and vibrant part of Connecticut, West Hartford Center. We made a very significant investment and built out a beautiful restaurant in this new development. Here is the risk: when you commit to this type of development, assuming you are a competent operator (which we are), you are assigning majority control of your risk to the viability of the development you occupy. The development is Blue Back Square, and until today, even under the management of an incredibly talented and experienced current owner (third ownership group since opening in 2008), it struggles to assimilate into the community.
There are some key similarities between Blue Back and The Hamlet.
1.) Blue Back has 6 story buildings and the common areas are surrounded by those tall buildings. ‘The Blue Back Square’ common area is surrounded by these buildings and feels isolated from the energy of Main Street and Farmington Avenue (compare to Riverside Avenue but on a larger scale). As a result, people only tend to congregate in ‘The Square’ for specials events and promotions.
2.) Both projects are massive in relation to their surrounding areas and forever changed the landscape of the neighborhood. Local homeowners who live beyond the Blue Back-related street parking-regulated areas in West Hartford Center still deal with unwanted on-street parking in front of their houses from people wanting to avoid the garages.
3.) Parking is in garages – and let’s be honest, people hate parking garages (see SONO Mall, downtown Stamford, etc,). Parking is not free. As it is, I have to protect my own lot right now in Saugatuck for my own customers to use – how will The Hamlet protect theirs?
4.) Blue Back is mostly zero-set-back with their buildings of ground-floor retail, upper floor residential, built right up the the sidewalk. Sounds like The Hamlet.
The result of Blue Back’s design is that more people than ever visit ‘The Center’, (that is the original area of West Hartford Center that is not within Blue Back), and the businesses in ‘The Center’ thrive. This trend may repeat in Saugatuck with The Hamlet, and if so it may help those businesses like mine, that are removed from The Hamlet. Yet I remain concerned.
I have done business in Westport for 13 years, and lived here the past three. I have always loved doing business in this town. Westport is the most business-friendly and supportive town I have ever worked in. Living here has only taken that to the another level. I want only the best as a resident and business owner.
What it really comes down to is a cost-benefit analysis of what we can gain or lose from this development versus the cost. I am a local business owner, and I am unsure how it will affect my business. Having sat in on hearings, I can tell you that there is nobody who is in fact certain how the traffic concerns will be mitigated, nor is parking exactly figured out in detail. It is all a guess at best. As for my business, we may enjoy increased volume of visitors to Saugatuck as a result of The Hamlet. Or, we may see customers endure greater inconvenience than ever brought about by increased traffic and competition for parking, and choose togo elsewhere with less of a hassle. It is all anyone’s best guess.
My bottom line is this: when there is any doubt, let’s not make a hasty decision, especially one that can be around forever. When there are no major problems or risks, then move ahead. it seems to me that Saugatuck would benefit from some updating, A major project like this has many concerns and risks and maybe, just maybe we all need to take a collective breath, respect everyone’s point of view, and collaboratively outline a scope for the project where the benefits tower over the risks. Less may be more for us all.