Editor’s note: Following is an opinion submitted by Westporter Larry Weisman.
I think we all recognize that the Hamlet was not just another development application but a generational opportunity to renew and upgrade a significant portion of our town, and I think that most of us agree that the area is in need of redevelopment.
Whether you liked the Hamlet proposal or not, the fact is that the zoning regulations were amended to accommodate the project and the developer had every reason to expect that as long as it met the parameters of the amendment, the project would be entitled to an approval. Despite the fact that the developer reduced the density and made other concessions at the insistence of the P&Z, and notwithstanding the finding of various independent consultants retained by the Commission that the project did comply with the terms of the amendment, the application was denied.
This circumstance has given rise to a group, The Alliance for Saugatuck, which, rightly or wrongly, opposed the Hamlet project, in large measure because its leaders believed it was too dense with uses it deemed inappropriate for the area.
I applaud the Alliance for voicing its opposition and for its organizational skills, but I think that its activities and confrontational rhetoric have become counter-productive to its own goals and to any effort to find a development plan which will serve the interests of Westport as a whole as well as the residents of the area. I have not heard an alternate development suggestion from the Alliance, just a self-serving wish list which does not take into account the reality that it is private property with inherent development rights under state statutes.
I fear that the end result of this hardened opposition will be a large 8-30g project which is not what the area needs and which will not satisfy either the town or the vocal opposition. In fact, this is exactly the situation the RTM voted to avoid over two years ago by ratifying the text amendment when it was first appealed.
It seems to me that the time is ripe for the P&Z to consider following the lead of recent successful projects such as the Corbin District in Darien, which compromised by reducing the required percentage of affordable dwelling units, and for the developer to consider reducing the density of the proposed development and seek a mix of uses which opponents might find more acceptable than what was originally proposed, or an 8-30g alternative.
Unless the Alliance is willing to say that it is opposed to any development whatsoever, it behooves it to cooperate with the developer and the town to achieve a result which will achieve its goals and benefit us all.
So I say to the Alliance: tone down the rhetoric, use your influence to make some constructive suggestions, and cooperate with the developer and the town agencies to achieve the best results for Westport.
I say to the P&Z: consider some imaginative ways to rewrite the applicable regulations to facilitate development at scale acceptable to the town and practical for the developer.
And I say to the developer: look for acceptable alternatives other than 8-30g.
If we work together and talk to instead of at one another, we can still get this right. But if we continue to retreat to our own corners, this will be yet another lost opportunity.
Larry Weisman
Mr Weisman unfortunately doesn’t include the fact that the Planning & Zoning Commission, on numerous occasions during this very long process, strenuously urged ROAN to resubmit a plan that might work. It never happened.
Obviously the entire community needs to come together to work out a solution that allows for Saugatuck to be redeveloped in a way that doesn’t damage the river or impede access to metro north.
The real solution is a public-private partnership that brings state funding to the table to help remediate the site. Plus we need a developer willing to trade their massive promised investor profits for a fairer rate of return. [btw – It’s not clear if ROAN actually owns any land in Saugatuck. Maybe it’s time we help Saugatuck property owners find another way to get a reasonable return on their property investment….]
Maybe ROAN will be part of the next chapter for a well-planned redevelopment of Saugatuck. But ROAN’s track record so far of refusing to resubmit, suing the town, and now threatening to build the largest, ugliest 830-g possible leaves a lot of residents very unsettled.
Yes, we all need to reset together…and move forward.
Attacking ROAN by alleging bad faith and accusing it of seeking “massive profits” and “threatening to build the largest, ugliest 8-30g possible” (neither of which things the writer can possibly know to be the case), is exactly the kind of unhelpful, inflammatory statement we don’t need if we are going to reset and work together to achieve a satisfactory result.
Larry,
If you find the absolute truths Jen Johnson speaks of to be inflammatory and unhelpful then I do wonder on whose side or what team you sit.
Roan sat down with PZ and was assisted by Izzo, Tait, Mandell along the way, along with Foti, and no doubt the selectwomen to write a text amendment and zone change that made as sure as it could their entire wish list, and its goal was sheer and unadulterated GREED!!!!
While this may only be my humble opinion as I was not in the room, these meetings happened, between 2020 and end of 2022. Public knew zippola about it..
we were mushrooms.. kept in the dark and shoveled shit, over 2 years.
Then when it was presented is it any wonder we were aghast !
The disgraceful vote of the 33 on the rtm, which was encouraged and lobbied by investors etc, was an OUTRAGE. That the RTM sheep and that does not include Liccione the only NO vote, (who in doing so was the only RTM to represent the entire districts of Westports electorate) and Johnson was not on the rtm so neither of those rtm have to wear the badge of shame.
Similarly Johnson was not on the rtm for the rtm 29 petition vote and Liccione was one of 6 who voted against that.
As he should have. Because it was the public and majority consensus.
I am not sure why sensible saugatuck did not take this issue directly to court at that time.
I would have. I wish they had.
But they did not.
But this horrendous and ludicrous zone change might go right back to what it was if ms Gouveias repeal gains traction as it should.
Then we may see 1/2 story development in Saugatuck.
Meanwhile I’ll take the car repair garage and the old dry cleaners building over the “hamlet.
And I live there.
When you mention the Alliance should cooperate with the roan group, I think the roan group should on the contrary co operate with the alliance !
As for allowing 12% affordable housing as opposed to 30% that is a massive ask.
We all know why they don’t want to do onsite.. because it is governed by state regulations that it be the same quality and size instead of dumps offsite !
Well I disagree with that. Until this town fixes its affordable housing “offsite” to be of the same standard as onsite then why would anybody choose to support that ?
I certainly will not.
Hamlet needs to reassess esp in light of the one BBB, and stop with the excessive avarice.
Their project to conform needed railroad parking.
They cannot have it !
So conform without it. With zero conditions.
And good luck with that !
I applaud Larry Weisman’s suggestion to get all the interested parties together to come up with an alternative solution(s) to three large 8-30G projects, which is the ONLY alternative left to ROAN, as their previous application was denied although it did meet all the requirements of the New Zone that was created by the P&Z Commission specifically for the properties that they own or control but only utilized 65% of the allowed floor area in that zone.
A new project, which may be less dense, consisting of mixed uses of residential, retail, restaurants, gathering or event places, waterfront and marina uses, but has a smaller component of affordable housing units (12% vs 30%,), I think would be a welcome project for the train station area between the railroad tracks and the elevated Thruway. This method has been successfully implemented in Darien which has decreased the percentage of required affordable units and had the Town work with developers to create commercially viable projects, thereby avoiding the onslaught of 830-G applications, while Fairfield recently has had a flood of over a dozen 830-G applications, most, if not all of which, will survive any court challenges and be constructed quickly.
Westport deserves a special and thoughtful redo of the Saugatuck commercial district and hopefully the creative and motivated stakeholders, town officials and neighbors (of which I am one) will quickly create a unique, attractive, commercially viable and successful outcome which we all can be proud of, use and enjoy for all our time in Town. We all win with such an outcome, although it is Westport, and as we know, not everyone will get what they want nor be completely satisfied. Let’s give it a concerted effort before it is another lost opportunity to make Westport the best place to live, work and play that it can be.
I love that nobody here seems to be aware or is staying very very quiet about the “one big beautiful bill” which has likely allowed for a doubling of potential profit on this development.
Somebody with good knowledge of this bill should work out those numbers because I can promise you any development over 4 million is now looking at massively more in profit with huge depreciation opportunity and deferred expenses.. and I do mean HUGE. Huge tax allowances. And if Trump does what he says and gets the tax breaks for large construction and different tariff rate.. then forget about it.. Ching Ching !
So the” we can’t make it viable financially “ is now pie in the sky.
Next I have heard no confrontational rhetoric from the alliance group. On the contrary they have been very patient. At least when looking at the contempt and arrogance of the Roan group.
I believe the zone change is being repealed by Gloria Gouveia, who knows a lot more about PZ than any of us.
The density simply does not work.
The parking does not work.
The lies about how many employees there will be are downright outrageous.
The bypass parking situation does not work. – I consider that sharp practice.
Giving them any railroad parking does not work.
No new marina does not work
The height does not work
Parking solutions do not work because their goal is to facilitate the visitors to hamlet and their speedy “get them into the parking garage quick” accommodation and not the residents of this town, and other towns commuters, who will arrive back on the train to absolute gridlock. The train ride from nyc to Westport will pale in comparison to the drive home from Saugatuck.
Not one single condition should be allowed. And to say they conformed is a crock of garbage. Their application did NOT.
It would have to have been full of conditions, and we ALL know all too well that those get swept under the rug and it’s too late.
And add to this haiwatha s 150 new apts.. and the traffic this will bring.
And PS haiwatha is not putting in half enough parking, so those new residents will all be looking for parking, as overflow, and can duly apply for permits.
Saugatuck is not Shanghai or Bangkok, not yet at least.
I suggest Roan does the math on the new financial benefits of the One big beautiful bill and lowers their profit expectations back to a reasonable ROI.
That way a lovely 2-3 story max development with a lot less ground floor mixed use can be built and keep the charm of Saugatuck. They can have their extra apts, on the ground floor. They can build parking garages on the ground floor.
Because if I have the choice and I own 2 homes and one business on riverside avenue, I’d far rather live with what is now there than what hamlet offers.
An 8-30g is the last thing on their mind. Not half sexy or elitist enough .. we know this.
Oh no doubt they will threaten it. Even submit an application..
but do it ? Not a chance in my opinion.
Ask a decent accountant about the coup of the one big beautiful bill before waxing lyrical about their poor profit and viability.
No sympathy !
The Saugatuck development team, Roan, had ample opportunities, and ample amount of constructive pleas from the oublic at large to “tone down” their development and make it one that Westporters coukd support.
They started with a bigger than life destination fit for the stars, one that did not serve our community well. They were asked to rethink it, reduce it, and help us understand how the environmentsl concerns were addressed.
They blew these pleas off at every turn, with the familiar refrain: “It complies with your regulation.”
Well, it was THEIR regulation, and it did NOT comply.
I always appreciate Mr. Weisman’s wise words, but his admonishments to the public are off base here.
Hold on, Larry! Why the crazy rush? Let November’s voters have a say on whom they want to handle this.
The Hamlet and Saugatuck aren’t the only issue, but I want a different cast of characters handling it than we’ve had so far.
We’ve lived through a season of vilifying gardeners, taking away citizens’ right to petition, clear cutting trees that shielded ugly views, ignoring the duty to represent constituents, tantrums in public meetings, official reports based on incorrect information, sketchy financial decisions, and a capitulation of leverage with CTDOT in the matter of the Cribari Bridge.
While I appreciate pictures of our politicians appetite for Rotary Club lobster and Wakeman Town Farm booze, I’d like to hear some hard, factual, practical talk from them about what’s is store for us in Saugatuck.
And down the ticket there seem to be some good candidates that could straighten our course. Planning and Zoning candidates seem to include newcomers willing to do hard work, and in my district (9)_there are two new candidates (one who has a professional interest in cleaning up our waters) that might address our need for responsible representation. N
Werner, what you say about the RTM is absolutely correct.
But if anyone in your and my district 9 have stood up not only for the wishes of district 9 and in fact all districts so dismally represented by a bunch of croneys, goons and sheep, it is that
Sal Liccione and Jennifer Johnson are ALWAYS, on the right and majority side of their constituents.
The newcomers I have not spoken with yet, and though they might be on some right side of some of the issues I’d love to know where they stand on downtown parking? On the hamlet, on the gardens? On the sound ? On the tab mahal insane shed at Longshore. On the geothermal obscene waste of money for long lots. Let’s hear from them!
On affordable housing giveaways to developers.
The rtm get to vote on all these issues.
We must know where they stand before we can vote for them.
And on ALL the issues.
God knows we have some nightmare uncontested districts and we see their voting record. So we get stuck with these lemons.. unfortunately.
We’ve watched most of them, not many, but most screw up this town royally.. not least the RTM29 and the hamlet 33. !
Enough already.. we want direct answers to direct questions from these candidates so we can vet the wolves in sheep’s clothing.
As both Toni and Mary have pointed out Roan’s application did NOT comply with the overly generous text amendment resulting in a unanimous denial. I would invite anyone who believes otherwise to familiarize themselves with pages 15-29 of the minutes from the 7/28/25 P&Z Commission meeting. There you will find a letter dated 7/29/25 from Paul Lebowitz, Chairman of the P&Z Commission to Eric Bernheim, an attorney for Roan which outlines over 15 pages the many noncompliance issues. To facilitate your search I have included a link to the document. https://www.westportct.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/113179/638920588954870000
Larry — You are normally a brilliant writer. Afraid your latest missive may include some inaccuracies. Given you are imploring all parties to the table, we can only assume this is not what you intended.
The Corbin development in Darien (reimagined for the smaller acreage and crowded two-lane roads in Saugatuck) was EXACTLY the example our members shared with you and your compatriots some months ago. We specifically cited this development’s appropriate scale, use and mix, including:
• 3 ½ story buildings
• Lower density
• No hotel or “event” center
• On site affordable housing
• Adequate, well-planned parking
• Open plazas for public use and access
We’re glad you came to this same conclusion, and we appreciate the support.
But accusing the Alliance of making self-serving demands? Our several thousand allies, who have provided over 1000 comments objecting specifically (and sharply) to Hamlet’s size, scale and use, would vehemently disagree. So too, would hundreds of residents who emailed thank you notes to the Alliance for ensuring their voices were heard.
To change Hamlet’s luxury-entertainment-destination concept and reimagine it to propose a development that supports the community to include appropriate retail, office and residential (with parking) would be one the community in turn would likely support. This ensures long-term financial sustainability, and ultimately more secure investor returns; a goal any developer should want. It also produces far less additional traffic in an area with untenable traffic now.
Since our inception, the Alliance has favored appropriate and smart development in Saugatuck. Visit our website for clarification.
During nearly seven months of public hearings, the Hamlet developer was advised repeatedly to come back with a plan that: 1) complied with the text amendment they themselves wrote, and 2) made some attempt to approach what residents and P&Z could support. They refused.
If they’re willing to take the hard work and time they’ve invested to truly make a success for their investors, themselves and residents, we’d love to see them modify their thinking and begin again.
Carole Reichhelm For the Westport Alliance for Saugatuck