Charles Tirreno has lived in Westport for 30 years, and is a licensed massage therapist.
He grew up on the Saugatuck River, and cleans and weeds the parks and shorelines within walking and biking distance.
He has spent over 20 years rescuing and rehabilitating wild birds under the supervision of Fairfield Veterinary Hospital. He worked with Deborah Detmer of Westport’s Parks & Recreation Department to install fishing line recycle boxes at parks in town. The project was born of his love for the Saugatuck birds, as 3 cormorants died one summer from fishing line injuries. Charles writes:
A pair of bald eagles make their home for months at a time on a small grove of very old, giant oak trees on the Saugatuck River, between #125 and #137 Riverside Avenue.
For decades, the land on either side of this property line have been privately preserved by their respective homeowners. In fact, the property line was delineated decades ago in order to avoid a smaller parcel between, which would threaten more building and erase wildlife habitat.
This little oak grove is a vital point in the eagles’ migration, where they can safely fish and reside for months at a time. Residents of Westport have enjoyed watching and photographing them for 10 years in this habitat.
Eagle in flight over the Saugatuck River. (Photo courtesy of Charlie Tirreno)
Now a developer is floating (in my opinion) vague and misleading plans to build a giant house abutting and cutting into this grove of oaks, and making empty promises about preserving the (not officially registered, but still) historic Coley house.
There is a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting tomorrow (Monday, February 12). They’ll consider a text amendment that would allow subdivision of the property. Click here (for Text Amendment 1) and click here for details.
I encourage all residents who wish to speak up on behalf of the bald eagles to attend this meeting. Statements and support could make a big impact on their future.
If anyone has questions, they can email me: charlie.tirreno@gmail.com.
When I first saw the last name of Tirreno, I thought of my father’s old friend Larry Tirreno, who owned the car dealership on the Post Road near Mills St. I’m not sure if Charlie is related to Larry, but in my view, open space is more important than another house or houses and more cars, especially on busy Riverside Avenue. In my humble opinion, “The Eagle has landed. One small step for the eagles, one giant step for crowded Riverside Avenue.”
Seems, just from pictures, that the birds are screwed either way.
Just when you think predatory developers have sunk as low as possible. Bald Eagles were removed from the Endangered Species List in 2007. But they remain protected at the federal level via the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. If CT DEEP wildlife biologist Brian Hess (brian.hess@ct.gov tel: 860.424.3208) hasn’t been notified of this nest, he should be. Immediately. February is the start of eagle nesting activity.
Charlie Tirreno, thank you for all you do for Westport and for alerting us to the possibility that the eagles’s habitat and the historic house are in jeopardy. With so much development going on in Westport, we can only hope that, in this case, preservation will win the day.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald or golden eagles, including their parts (including feathers), nests, or eggs.
The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle … [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part (including feathers), nest, or egg thereof.”
The Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” Regulations further define “disturb” as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior” (50 CFR 22.6).
In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers effects that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle’s return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment.
A violation of the Act can result in a fine of $100,000 ($200,000 for organizations), imprisonment for one year, or both, for a first offense. Penalties increase substantially for additional offenses, and a second violation of this Act is a felony.
If the Eagle is building a nest, which this is around the time they start nesting, they will have to cease work and no one is allowed within several hundred feet.
These birds are magnificent. They deserve to keep their home. Thank you for bringing this to our attention Charlie and all that you do for these wild birds.
Thank you Charlie (and those commenting above), for shedding important light on this threat to our local eagle population. Some additional points to consider are these:
Even if the developer concedes to leave the oak trees in place, damage to their root systems during construction/renovation can still occur and can slowly kill the trees in a matter of years. Arguments will be floated that the trees died a natural death due to their age. Therefore, town approval bodies (Planning and Zoning et. al.) should ask for an independent arborist to not only assess the current health of the oak trees but also provide requirements that the developer/owner must employ to protect them. These requirements could then be used by town bodies as conditions for approval.
Even if the trees are not used by the eagles for nesting but just for roosting, it seems to me that the Protection Act still applies, per the statements highlighted in the third paragraph stated in Mr. Colabella’s comment posted above.
is there a nest or not? if so, report it to the deep and the land owner and developer. that definitely is a concern. the next big concern is all the poison being used. that is probably the biggest thread to them. i think two bad eagles have died in the past year or so in the area due to it.
Now more than ever keep an eye on these birds and their nests. I can just hear the “developer” exclaim “what eagles? There is no sign of endangered or otherwise fowl on the proposed property”. Cameras would help too! If someone secretly sabotages the nest(s) in order to get permits they should be in Jail!
A kind Westporter emailed me asking if it’s possible to add a comment for the meeting for those who can’t attend- yes!
Please direct emails to the Planning and Zoning Commission before NOON tomorrow and it can be taken into consideration.
I don’t think I can post the email address, but if you go to the P&Z Calendar on the town website and click on the meeting, how to email and how to attend the meeting is explained.
There are other wonderful animals who share the habitat- Osprey, egrets, cormorants, herons, different species of owls I wish I knew how to identify properly! In Autumn, the ducks feast on the fallen acorns from those Oaks. There is a Golden Eagle, but no one’s managed to get a photo, so I rather focus on claims I can prove.
I greatly appreciate the further insight and information folks here have provided. I understand they will likely construct something at some point. My hope is they will be required to do so without destroying the home of these animals with whom we are so fortunate to share our town.
It’s absurd to even consider building in this space. Another monstrosity to have to look at.
Westport should be buying up properties to keep as open space. I know where you can get a hundred million to buy up some properties.
This is the same developer — Vita Design Group — that has been seeking permission to knock down prime wildlife habitat at yet another riverfront parcel just up the street: 79 Riverside Ave. As we have warned on this forum previously, Vita is an unscrupulous opportunist whose plans to purchase and develop waterfront property will forever alter both the town and public-use land. If this project is permitted to proceed, it will be the fourth major construction project along the Riverside Ave area at or near Post Road. The largest of these projects — on Post Road near Cross Street — has been a hole in the ground filled with garbage and knocked-over construction barricades for over a year. Westporters deserve better, and they certainly don’t deserve the destruction of historic homes (as with 125 Riverside Ave), public parks (Eloise Ray Park, adjacent to 79 Riverside), or wildlife habitat (both sites).
It should also be noted that, as with 79 Riverside, any construction at 125 Riverside will require using the actual roadway as a staging area for construction equipment. The location, it should be recalled, is across the street from Saugatuck Elementary School. Given the already-congested traffic conditions nearly every day of the week at this location, it is difficult to imagine allowing a project which would necessitate lane closures and a police road detail for extended periods of time.
On a final note, I would refer Planning and Zoning to the Town of Westport 2017 Plan of Conservation & Development, in particular Sec. 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, et. seq., which reads in pertinent part as follows:
Westport has an incredibly beautiful coastal area and, as a result, considerable pressure for coastal development. An appropriate balance needs to be maintained between protecting coastal resources and managing coastal development…
Coastal areas contain a number of significant resources which must be protected. Concerns associated with the coastal resources include polluted run‐off, nutrient enrichment, and sedimentation from land‐based activities affecting a variety of activities in several key areas [including] the Saugatuck River…
There [is a] need for:
· flood hazard mitigation, and
· tidal wetlands habitat protection…
[We therefore recommend: 1) Limiting] intensification or expansion of development in coastal areas where it is not consistent with current environmental standards or coastal area flood safety standards; 2) Minimiz[ing] the amount and intensity of development in coastal flood zones; 3) Eliminat[ing] new non‐water dependent development from FEMA‐designated coastal high hazard “V” flood zones…
Based on the above, as well as the issues raised by other residents, there is more than sufficient cause to deny the subject application. I believe I speak for most Westporters when I say that while development is not per se a bad thing, development without regard to the environment or wildlife does not embody our true spirit as stewards of the land, rather than opportunists. I sincerely hope that Planning & Zoning will make the right decision, follow Town of Westport conservation guidelines and common sense environmental policy, and deny the application.
Per Charlie Tirreno’s earlier suggestion, here is a link to tonight’s P&Z Zoom meeting:
https://www.westportct.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/27154/1126
Here also is a link to P&Z department staff:
https://www.westportct.gov/government/departments-a-z/planning-and-zoning-department/contact-us
Finally, here is a link to P&Z Commission members, first group listed:
https://www.westportct.gov/government/departments-a-z/planning-and-zoning-department/board-commission-members-list
Here we go again. Lucien Vita of Vita Design is trying to develop vacant land along the Saugatuck River. The issues are the same at 79 Riverside and 125 Riverside – trees, flooding, erosion, and destruction of the eagles’ habitat. He must be stopped.
Here is my letter to the P&Z opposing the application for 79 Riverside. It has been temporarily withdrawn.
To: Members of the Westport Planning and Zoning Commission:
Date: January 19, 2024
RE: 79 Riverside Avenue, Westport
Dear Commissioners:
Please deny this application.
I am writing in opposition to the application of Tiny House 79 LLC owned by Lucien Vita to build a 4-story house on the Saugatuck River on .09 acres of land. This property has been open space in Westport and never has been developed. It was the boat slip for the property across the street at 76 Riverside which was built in 1883. The previous owner did not include this property with the sale of his house and tried to develop it on his own. He was denied a variance for coverage by the Westport Zoning Board of Appeals 5-0 in 2016. The buyer is aware of the denial.
The application requires ALL the trees be removed, a retaining wall built to prevent flooding, and a curb cut for a new driveway. Anything built on 79 Riverside will be an encroachment of the Town of Westport Eloise Ray Park. This is OUR park. We, as neighbors, have taken “ownership” of cleaning up the park, removing invasive poison ivy, and working with Parks and Recreation Superintendent Mike West to enhance the beauty and views of the park.
Eloise Ray Park must NOT become the front yard to this house.
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environment Protection (CT DEEP) wrote in their letter to you on January 9, 2024, “The proposed dwelling could be considered an increased hazard to life and property over existing conditions. Therefore, the Commission must determine whether building a new residence on a currently vacant lot, even if built to FEMA standards, will result in a significant exposure of life and property to flood hazards, or if it only marginally adds to such exposure considering the already developed nature of the surrounding area.” Neighbors have provided you with pictures to show what the flooding is during heavy rain storms. With high tides, full moons, and Nor’easters, and the change in weather due to global warming, this property will flood and will increase flooding on surrounding properties.
The giant oak tree that is the centerpiece and the other 4 trees on the land will be destroyed along with their root system to be replaced by a 4-story silo. The sea bushes that protect the riverbank will be destroyed. Eagles that perch in the trees while fishing on the river will lose their habitat. Developing this small parcel will be an ecological disaster for the river and its surroundings.
CT DEEP goes on to address the proposed wall, “Concerning the proposed wall, structural solutions to flood and erosion problems are allowed by CCMA policies only in very limited circumstances to protect residential structures existing before January 1, 1995. Accordingly, no
Shoreline flood and erosion control structures such as seawalls can be allowed to protect new residential development from future flooding or erosion problems at the subject site.”
The last time a house was built on the west bank shore line of the Saugatuck River on .09 acres was in 1940 at 181 Riverside.
At some point we have to say STOP to builders who destroy the environment and slither through zoning regulations. Common sense says this should not be allowed. CT DEEP clearly says this should NOT be done. The Planning and Zoning Board must DENY this application and act as stewards of our environment, protect the River, the Town and neighborhood parks.
Sincerely,
Louis M. Mall
RTM D2
I rarely see eye to eye with Lou mall but in this instance I unequivocally agree.
I believe open space, green space and natural habitats must be preserved throughout the town, from shores of the Saugatuck to Hyde Lane. Same for the treasure of historic buildings we are so lucky to have. The town needs greater focus on this before it is too late. I suggest developers look to redevelopments of brownfield-like areas that are in need of rehabilitation, much like the Westport Inn redevelopment.
Deny application.
Would love to see the town purchase the land or even aspetuck to preserve it as open land.
The town did have every opportunity to purchase this land just as they did the red barn.
I had 3 bids on this land. That is how I know this to be fact.
When do we scold for crocodile tears and stupidity.
The town should bid fair and square on land such as this. My last bid on this land was $325k….
I’m sure VITA paid around that. Maybe they will sell it, maybe they will not.
I’m sure if they do the asking price will be 600k.
And that would be fair. After all they bought it fair and square.
So why oh why did the town not buy it to begin with.. it’s been on the market years.
And x that sentiment by 100 for the red barn !
We can spend 100m on a school we let go to hell.. yet, we don’t see value when it’s staring us in the face ?
And then we start go fund me accounts for things which we should absolutely pay for.
How gullible.