Up and down Riverside Avenue, there’s been renovation and new construction. More is on the drawing board.
Friends of Eloise A. Ray Park is comprised of neighbors, some of whom have lived in Westport for more than 30 years. They write:
Several months ago we alerted the community to attempts by a developer – Vita Design Group – to build a new luxury townhouse adjacent to Eloise A. Ray Park.
As we noted, the park is one of very few public spaces along the Saugatuck River. It would be damaged, permanently altered, and encroached upon if the project is approved.
Eloise A. Ray Park
Unfortunately, while the project was slightly delayed, Vita has now submitted plans to the Planning & Zoning Commission.
A hearing is set for this Monday (September 23, 6 p.m., Zoom).
Eloise A. Ray Park sits on the west bank of the Saugatuck, and offers incredible views up and down the river. It is used every day by people walking to and from the center of town, and also those who come specifically to sit on a bench to watch the daily river activity.
With its location and impressive views, the park is also used for family gatherings and special occasions. It’s truly a wonderful place.
Unfortunately, Vita has been able to purchase what many believed was public land immediately adjacent to the park, and has submitted plans to build a multi-level luxury home which will change the park forever.
This land – 79 Riverside Avenue – borders the park immediately to the north. It has a number of old trees, and also offers prime habitat for wildlife. For this reason among others, it has been a perfect neighbor to the park for many years.
Benches at Eloise A. Ray Park.
But all that will change – along with the character of the park itself – if the town allows this development to proceed. In particular, we can expect the following:
- The park itself will effectively be unusable for long periods of time while construction is ongoing, and will be used in part as a staging area for construction equipment.
- The park will be damaged by construction equipment.
- Once construction is complete, the park will be forever altered by having a multi-level house, driveway, patio and walls encroaching upon it.
- Construction will also require razing the land at 79 Riverside, cutting down a number of old trees and eliminating wildlife habitat,
- Construction will also seriously impact traffic on Riverside Avenue — already very busy – because heavy equipment will need to use the roadway on a regular basis.
In sum, there will undoubtedly be a loss or permanent alteration of public waterfront space, of which there is very little these days. And while the developer will no doubt downplay these concerns, as they always do, those of us familiar with the reality of new development projects know better.
Autumn view, from Eloise A. Ray Park.
It is also worth noting that the Town has already allowed multiple new construction projects to proceed in the area.
Anyone who drives on the Post Road is familiar with the huge eyesore at 85 Post Road West, which now features several 2-story piles of dirt, trash and damaged construction fencing. This is only the beginning phase of what will be several years spent erecting a 68-unit apartment building that the town approved last year.
The Town also approved a multi-unit apartment building at the intersection of Wilton Road and Kings Highway North, which eliminated prime wildlife habitat along the west bank of the Saugatuck.
The town has also approved 2 additional new construction projects along the west bank of the Saugatuck near Saugatuck Elementary School. Incredibly, one involves a complete teardown of a historic 1700s house which is in good condition. Its only crime: being located just outside the official historic district.
Of course, all these projects pale in comparison with attempts by another developer to create an entirely new zoning district in Saugatuck in order to build 10 new buildings, up to 65 feet high, including a 100-seat theater, condominiums, a hotel, retail buildings and parking.
But no matter the scope or scale, each project necessarily results in eradication of the natural environment, elimination of wildlife habitat, and further urbanization of Westport.
These concerns are all the more pressing when a project is set to destroy spaces the town has officially designated as public land, such as Eloise A. Ray Park.
Anyone who would like more information can email saveeloise@gmail.com. There are fewer places like Eloise A. Ray Park every day. Each loss is a loss for all of us.
(“06880” Opinion pages are open to everyone. That’s the beauty of a hyper-local blog. If you value our work, please click here to make a tax-deductible contribution. Thank you!)
The lust of our Town for tax revenue is shameful. It is appalling that the Town would even consider this. The lost of habitat and the resulting additional traffic alone should make P&Z pay attention. Our quality of life is a prime attraction and it is going fast.
just look who our first selectmen is
Ur negative disgusting rhetoric is i assume the first selectwoman not selectmen. What she does for this town is immeasurable. From what i see, you are the first nasty complainer in town. What do you do other than troll articles with disparaging comments.
And even worse on 06880 the grammar!!! Cant even keep singular and plural consistent in the same sentence. Misstating the gender of both select-persons is worse yet!!! Don’t they teach English in chiropractor school any more???
While I agree that this park is a gem, I live close-by and frequent it often; I believe that the developer (or, private citizen) is well within their rights to develop that property for its ‘highest and fullest use” as is their right to do so.
The fault lies with past and current town administrations for being myopic and not forward thinking enough to put guard-rails in place, as it relates to zoning restrictions, to prevent something being built that could possibly (or, most definitely) be totally out of character for the area in question.
IMHO, of course . . .
I wholeheartedly agree that Eloise A. Ray Park and what diminishing open shoreline still exists — should be protected. Little by little (or not so little) Westport is fundamentally and irreparably changing from a charming town into a developers playground where anything goes, anywhere.The disregard for
quality of life and the environment — all major reasons many of us moved here — is shocking and saddening.
I know it was just one detail here, but why on earth would Town property be used as a “staging area” for private construction?
What Chris Grimm said.
Open space for it’s public use and a short supply along riverside Ave is so limited that Eloise Park is beyond extraordinary value that it must be preserved and in it’s special openess! Density in Westport is already under siege and the loss of special places and open views of the Saugatuck should not suffer the very openess and views they posses.
The creeping overgrowth and density in our Town is already so destructive and irreversible and this planned assault has to be a simple thumbs down disapproval!
SAVE THE OPENSPACE JEWELS THAT MAKE WESTPORT SPECIAL!
As others have noted, why is the builder allowed to use town property for their benefit? This isn’t a public works project like when Winslow was used as a staging area for a sewer project that benefits the town. This benefits the builder so they can build there. Not my problem. Also, let’s not forget the irreparable damage they did to 1 Wilton Rd when they essentially tore down that historic building and changed the character forever. I’d rather that building been gone and turned into a turning lane. But, it was supposed to be preserved. And it was destroyed anyway so they can have their office in it. That building has been ruined. Let’s not let them ruin anything else in town for their gain.
I completely support the preservation of the park, but the issue is a private citizen bought the land next to it when the town should have with open space money. We didn’t. This was years ago’s poor thinking. We need to do better.
As to the use of the park for staging. No way it should be allowed and we should all write to P&Z and say don’t approve that, if that was actually requested. Technically it would need an 8-24 approval separately. The park land is ours. While yes, a piece of Winslow was used for the sewer project, but that was for town benefit. This is not.
In addition, the comments in the opinion above that the Town approved 85 post road west and the project on Wilton road are incorrect. The town denied both. These were 8-30g projects that went to court and we lost.
We need protect our parks and we need to use our open space money better to preserve more land. As they say, they ain’t making any more of it.
Once again the town has dropped the ball. They (we) should have purchased that property and left it alone for all the reasons listed above. Just like they should have purchased the property where the old restaurant was at Old Mill beach. They could have planted some sea grass, put in a couple of benches and preserved the view. What a damn shame.
Our Town should be doing more, e.g. purchasing land, to increase and maintain open space. If land is held privately but could give rise to undesirable outcomes, the Town should use all legal means, including the bully pulpit, to “save our Town”. All Town bodies need to work in concert and not as “silos” to achieve these public goals. The BoS and First Selectwoman are crucial, but so are all of the members or the RTM and the P&Z Commission. Bodies such as the Conservation Commission, the Flood & Erosion Board, even the ARB are important. Those who assert the claim of property rights are, at best, stating only that land usage is subject to the law. A property right is not a mystical, overwhelming and almost religious claim. All references to property rights serve little purpose. It is the law, regulations and the interests of our citizens, including the developers, that must be determinative.
This well intentioned letter is very confused about the planning, zoning, and building process and also includes factual inaccuracies about what has or hasn’t supposedly been approved by “the Town.”
Complaining about individual projects misses the forest for the trees, no pun intended, and is a total waste of time. If you want to limit development in Westport, to preserve historic features, and to protect the natural environment, you need to call for wholesale changes to our zoning and (nonexistent) historic preservation laws.
I strongly support doing so. But I doubt that when the rubber meets the road, many other Westporters do — because they fear these laws would limit development rights on their properties, and therefore potentially make them less valuable. It’s very “preservation for thee, but not for me!”
Westport has changed dramatically and has clearly become overbuilt. One can ask is this just progress? Progress remains positive if it is thoughtful. It seems the town has not protected itself and continues to allow developers to profit at the communities expense.
What ever happened to Save Westport Now?
How is it that a private developer can use public lands for construction staging for a private project?
Remember in November ’25.
There is no way any chairperson will allow a public park to become a staging area. No way.
The luxury home is not the selling point, it is that it’s on a beautiful pristine river with lush trees, and a park next to it!
Leave the park alone.
Hope to see everyone speak out this Monday.
Yet town bodies want the Westport Community Gardens to be a staging area for the Long Lots School rebuild that you support.
Do you want them to leave the Community Gardens alone? Please, say so right here.
The use of the community gardens for staging for a school that will benefit generations of families and thousands of people is a totally different story than a luxury house that is being built for profit of a builder. Also, that is the town using town land for it. Would you like the town to use area neighbors front and back yards for staging? When you build your house, do you expect the use of your neighbors property to make your house better? I don’t think so. If the builder wants to build on an essentially unbuildable lot, it is on them to figure it out. They do it all the time in NYC and other urban areas. They will need to find staging somewhere else and bring stuff only as needed. They will need to find legal parking for the workers to arrive. They might have to arrange transportation. It can be done. Just don’t give them town land just because they want it. If they want to build they will have to figure it out like everyone else. Not using town to increase their profitability.
Nuts and bolts — the email link for more info looks right, but comes up as “eliose” not eloise. Hand, well, thumb-typing now…