Editor’s note: The following letters address the Representative Town Meeting’s anticipated Tuesday vote on the recent Planning and Zoning Commission decision to rezone part of the Saugatuck neighborhood.
Disregard critics of P&Z’s decision
To members of the RTM:
It is apparent that there is significant support for rehabilitating the Saugatuck area.
Nevertheless, there are some who, while taking pains to appear neutral, wish to construct roadblocks to efforts such as the “Hamlet” proposal, which, although large and complex, is also bold and imaginative.
Westporters know that P&Z hearings can be long and arduous. They also know that the commissioners are experienced and do yeoman-like work to parse all aspects of the applications that come before them.
They consistently impose high standards on applicants, and require them to explain fully and justify their proposals
We are confident that all aspects of the Hamlet application and its effect on the town as a whole have been addressed and none has in any manner been ignored. To imply that P&Z commissioners are lacking in experience or thoroughness does not reflect the extraordinary efforts put forth by the commissioners.
Weight should not be given to suggestions which are, at their core, meant to obfuscate and delay implementation of P&Z decisions. The P&Z is entirely capable of determining how applications should be handled and how they should be implemented.
We are confident that the members of the RTM, in the discharge of their duties, will disregard comments which are disingenuous rather than constructive and are designed to impede a full understanding of the P&Z decision regarding the Hamlet project.
Respectfully,
Coalition for Westport
Larry Weisman, chair, Policy Committee
Ken Bernhard
Ron Corwin, former chair, Planning and Zoning Commission
Jo Ann Davidson
Melisa Diamond
Michael Dinshaw
Roger Leifer
Ellie Lowenstein, former chair, Planning and Zoning Commission
Mike Nayor
Denise Torve
Joe Strickland
___________________________________________
RTM members must vote on the record
To the editor:
I have been reading your informative articles about the proposal to make changes to the Saugatuck area of Westport. I am sure the developers have done a comprehensive appraisal of what is needed to deliver their vision of the “Hamlet of Saugatuck.”
In addition, I am positive the members of town boards and commissions along with our elected and appointed officials of the Town of Westport have done their due diligence to familiarize themselves with ALL available information about this important project.
In my opinion, ALL MEMBERS OF THE RTM SHOULD GO ON THE PUBLIC RECORD WITH A VOTE FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED PROJECT. In my opinion, a voice vote only on this project fails to dignify the project and the process.
A long time ago, I learned from many town officials the RTM represents the “voice of the people.”
In my nearly four decades of service to the Town of Westport, town officials should show their pride and fulfill their AUTHORITY, RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABLY TO THE OFFICE THEY SERVE WITH A CLEAR DISTINCTIVE VOTE ON A PROJECT OF THIS MAGNITUDE.
William J. Chiarenzelli
Retired Westport police chief
___________________________________________
Don’t overturn the P&Z’s decision
To the RTM: Uphold the Hamlet/Text Amendment #819!
I have lived in Saugatuck since ’86. My little marina is on the Saugatuck. I am raising my three girls in Saugatuck. I am NOT an investor in this project, but I have my life’s work here in Saugatuck proper and have watched every meeting to learn what this project proposes and what can be built. I urge you before you take a position on this you need to be informed.
The RTM should absolutely support Text Amendment #819.
Why? Starting in two months when Westport’s moratorium from state statute 8-30g expires, the state can allow any developer to build a mammoth housing project in this location. That’s the law, NOT MY OPINION. If you feel the state mandate of 8-30g is vague, go ask the bulldozer operator on Hiawatha or the folks on Lincoln, or better yet, park in Fort Apache and TRY to cross the street to walk the marshland at the Wilton/Kings Highway site where the court just overturned the P&Z to allow another huge project. The test bores (green pipes) are in the woods to clear up the “vagueness.” Keep in mind that the Hamlet site is a big lot, flat with recently upgraded sewer capacity. It’s a dream site for 8-30g.
There isn’t “another option” or “a third way.” This is privately owned land by longtime Westport families. They are proposing a mixed-use site with substantial internal parking, balancing hours of need with ample outside parking, an acre and a half-acre of open public space, a boardwalk on the river and the kicker … gave design control to the P&Z. An 8-30g will not have ANY of that!
My marina would probably do a lot better if they were proposing 350 residential units instead of 35, but the lesser density is better for the town as is their design that calls for mixed-use and substantial public space. I’m putting the interest of the town ahead of my personal interest. I can’t say the same for these petitioners creating fake co-op city models from their $10M homes. You can look up where they live and their offices.
If it’s 8-30g, it’ll be a huge box with no parking like the model depicted. If you are concerned about railroad parking, be concerned about that!
Last week, these folks sent around an email claiming that the commuter parking was being “confiscated.” The police chief debunked that myth at the RTM committee meeting. Then they claimed the parking leases were about to expire and the chief pointed out that actually the leases run until 2031. Now they’ve come up with this nonsense that the state will pull the leases. That’s bullsh*t. The state would not object to a unique mixed-use development where right now we have boat storage and a dry cleaners. It’s always okay for people to have different opinions, but it’s not okay to stir up fear from conjecture or worse … tell outright lies.
There’s no one lining up to purchase this land to develop it at a major loss, so it’s nonsense to point to the TOD study as some viable alternative. If these petitioners wanted to develop the land, they should have purchased it and then they could build what they want, and take that loss. They can make ROAN an offer right now. They won’t.
For too long, Saugatuck has been viewed as just a parking lot. Finally, there’s a chance to revitalize it. finding a balance with changing transit needs and mixed uses. The P&Z did a great job here putting the town first and they deserve the full support of the community and RTM to make this a huge success for all to enjoy.
Robbie Guimond
Westport
As someone who has deep respect, a strong history and personal friendships with members of the Coalition, I could not disagree with them more on this issue. The sentence that sums this difference is: “We are confident that all aspects of the Hamlet application and its effect on the town as a whole have been addressed and none has in any manner been ignored”. How can that be said when the public record lacks any feedback from the Fire Department and Railroad Parking (managed by the Police Department) and when the Text Amendment #819 largely ignores the 3-page letter written by Alicia Mozian, our Town’s conservation director for nearly 30 years. I just don’t get how Westport got to this point.
For the most part, I’m not opposed to smart development, and in isolation, ‘The Hamlet’ is a “bold and visionary” project as the Coalition writes. But the Hamlet can’t be seen in a vacuum. By its nature and location (along Riverside Ave) it will profoundly impact our town and region’s access to the rail station.
The RTM has an “exit ramp” which I urge everyone to consider. In short, don’t upzone to the blanket massive scale reflected in Text Amendment #819. Instead reject Text Amendment #819 and request that the Westport P&Z immediately turn their attention to the recommendations of page 112-114 in Part III of the Saugatuck TOD study. [Btw – The Coalition was a strong supporter of the Saugatuck TOD study (Dan Woog posted an opinion piece on March 14, 2018 ].
In short, the “exit ramp” is that Westport owns railroad parking Lot 1 (which is the large below-grade parking lot you see when you exit I95 coming from the south). Given its natural topography and location away from the center of Saugatuck and from Riverside Road, Lot 1 is a much smarter location for accommodating greater density. Why not use this time – when railroad parking is in less demand due to post pandemic transitions – to “control our destiny” by “up-zoning” where it makes sense and where we can better control what’s developed. Westport could then rezone the rest of Saugatuck at a density more in line with the Gault development.
Change is coming to Saugatuck in some way, shape, form and density. It is incumbent upon our elected Westport leaders to take control of our destiny by making Saugatuck a place for everyone’s future.
Being asked to disregard the critics is quite The Insult. –wow, stoop so low…
Here is the real deal.
The block around the train station should not be developed because having hotels and fancy shopping right there is actually the stupidest idea ever. It is a transportation center, not a fashion square. I have been going to the train station regularly since the 60s, and guess what, the traffic sucks. It gets worse every year.
The coalition propagandists have not given one good reason to ruin our transportation center. They must hate Westport. Do you know what it’s like to drop off your significant other at the station every day? Obviously not. The coalition people probably sit in their rich homes all day looking down on everyone else. “hey– let’s form a coalition man. we can develop the small town at every chance we get.” “all we have to do is ask people to disregard the critics.”
This is a utility for people who live here, please don’t turn it into a future wright-off for a hedge fund that needs to lose money in real estate. We need to be proactive and reject the people who want this.
Talk about a sell-out money grab.
I actually read one person who said we need to do this for the people who currently own the buildings. —They bought the buildings knowing what the zoning rules were. So if I buy a building we should change the rules for me so I can make a million at the expense of Westport.
The problem with Westport is that it lacks income diversity. You know what this looks like…
What about the poor people? are they gonna stay at your fancy hotel? thanks