As The Hamlet at Saugatuck wends its way through the town regulatory process, a new group — the Westport Alliance for Saugatuck — has formed to oppose it.
The Hamlet developers — ROAN Ventures — say that the Alliance’s petition contains “significant misinformation.” ROAN responds to several of the Alliance’s statements below.
==================================================
Claim: “The 2023 zoning text amendment, created for this development, allows for an 800% increase in density.”
Response: This figure is misleading. Our submission is approximately 20% less dense than what is permitted under the 2023 zoning text amendment.
The Hamlet is a thoughtfully planned, low-unit development designed in full compliance with Westport’s zoning regulations. Much of the site is currently private asphalt parking, not accessible or usable by the public — thus, relative density comparisons are skewed.
Part of the area slated for development: Riverside Avenue, between Railroad Place and Charles Street.
=================================================
Claim: “The site plan includes 11 buildings, up to 70′ high located along the river (riverfront side) and on the large block fronted by Railroad Avenue with shops, restaurants and RR drop off points, all the way to Charles Street (upland side).
“To put this height and mass in perspective, at their highest points, many buildings will be at or above the height of the I95 overpass.”
Response: Under current zoning, up to 10% of a building floor area may exceed 60 feet and go up to a ridge of 72 feet with a pitched roof (67 feet to the midpoint of the roof), if certain conditions are met.
Our submission limits this to just 1.54%. The regulations measure height to the midpoint of a pitched roof. When we discuss the ridge height, that is to the very top of the pitched roof, but the zoning regulations will only measure to the midpoint of the roof.
Only one building height reaches 65 feet, topped by a pitched roof element, at a small portion of the building, that brings the ridge of the building to 70 feet.
Most buildings are 60 feet or less, with those closest to the water beginning at 43 feet (below the 45-foot maximum), with a large setback, stepping up to 60 feet along Riverside Avenue. The 2 buildings on Charles Street are both 60 feet in height.
Along Railroad Place — where zoning allows buildings up to 40 feet and then up to 72 feet to the ridge after a 15-foot setback — we’ve instead chosen a historically inspired 30-foot setback and significantly reduced heights, ranging from 14 to 33 feet on Railroad Place, then stepping up to 64 feet to flat portion of roof.
In doing so we’ve prioritized charm, historical continuity, and noise buffering over maximum buildout. We propose less height, less density, and significantly more setback than the zoning regulations allow for.
Proposed development on Railroad Place. Riverside Avenue is on the right.
==================================================
Claim: ““It’s too big! The hotel complex on the riverfront includes 4 buildings with 57 hotel rooms and almost 100,000 square feet of event/restaurant/ banquet non-residential space, with an underground parking lot below the water line, whose entrance will be just after the sharp left turn at the end of Ferry Lane, where it becomes Riverside Avenue, with the potential to cause lengthy back-ups and safety hazards. This is incredibly concerning since Saugatuck has recently experienced an increase in serious auto accidents, including a fatality.”
Response: This is incorrect. We propose approximately 21,000 square feet of event/restaurant/banquet non-residential space on the riverfront. Based on feedback from the commission, we have now proactively moved the garage entrance away from the Ferry Lane turn further down Railroad Place. We’ve designed the below-grade entry to allow car queuing without affecting surface traffic. Safety has been a top priority throughout the planning process, including traffic sightlines, pedestrian access, and emergency vehicle accommodation.
Riverfront buildings (aerial rendering).
================================================
Claim: “On the upland side (the block between Charles, Franklin, Riverside and RR Place) will include 6 buildings with 57 high-end condos, as well as shops, an event center, spa, private club, underground (valet controlled) parking garages.
“The site plan includes removing 42 free public parking spaces, taking over other public owned land, and narrowing Riverside Avenue, which already experiences excessive traffic delays, and entering into a long-term agreement with the town to purchase 70 parking permits, thereby taking them away from the public. To be viable, the plan also includes the use of Railroad Parking which is prohibited under Westport’s own zoning regulations.”
Response: Earlier iterations of the Hamlet, at the suggestion of our master planning firm, DPZ CoDesign, included removing on-street street parking to accommodate a more pedestrian-friendly experience.
In response to our last hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission, our newest plan keeps on-street parking largely intact. The latest plan proposes removing only 7 parking spaces in an adjacent rail lot owned by the Town of Westport on Franklin Street, to accommodate a roundabout that has proven to be a traffic mitigation measure.
However, we will add those 7 free parking spaces below grade, resulting in no net loss of free public parking.
Further, no law prohibits the public or our patrons from using railroad parking, which is free after 3 p.m., largely unused after 5 p.m., and almost empty on weekends.
We’ve not entered into any exclusive agreement for parking permits as suggested. We will cover all of this in detail at the hearing on April 28 to ensure there are no misconceptions, and to show that we fully comply with the parking regulations per the text amendment.
Furthermore, we are now proposing that all employees be required to park offsite as a condition of approval, ensuring that all onsite parking is available for residents and guests of the Hamlet.
Aerial rendering of The Hamlet at Saugatuck.
=================================================
Claim: “It’s a Marina District without a Marina! Although this area was designated a Marina District, a marina is not included in the current site plan, therefore public access to the riverfront and a marina is uncertain. A future marina with water taxis to other developments on several Norwalk Islands has been proposed, potentially adversely affecting waterway traffic and safety.”
Response: A marina currently exists today. However, there is a robust and exciting plan for a new marina, which is very much an integral part of the overall masterplan. We are actively pursuing approvals through the appropriate channels. Full details of the newly planned marina will be presented once the appropriate regulatory step is reached.
Also of note: the Connecticut Department of Transportation has already given us written approval to expand the new marina into their right of way, yielding 5 additional slips.
View of the riverfront, from the Saugatuck River.
==================================================
Claim: “The plan will create new traffic chokeholds, exacerbate existing traffic issues, and create congestion that could delay emergency vehicles and will surely negatively affect the quality of life for Westporters from every district — especially districts north and east of the Metro-North station who will experience long delays entering and leaving the area. The plans do not provide adequate parking for the planned usage and take away current free parking.”
Response: Independent studies by both our traffic engineers and the town’s traffic peer reviewer, which are on the record with the Commission, confirm that our plan will improve traffic flow at all studied intersections which go beyond our immediate site. Improvements include signal timing, expansion to roads and new traffic calming measures such as dedicated turn lanes and a roundabout on Franklin Street (proposed as 2-way between Railroad Place and Charles Street).
Without these improvements, existing conditions are projected to worsen over time without development of any kind. The Commission, by approving a project under their regulations, can require the developer to make offsite improvements to mitigate the traffic impact on the area. A development that is not governed by the Commission’s regulations will not be required to make any offsite traffic mitigation improvements.
We will also present a comprehensive parking management plan at the April 28 hearing.
Planned traffic and traffic light changes.
==================================================
Claim: “The increased scale and density is likely to create environmental concerns, flooding issues with potential contamination of the river and harbor.”
Response: Our plan includes comprehensive environmental remediation of a currently contaminated site. We are introducing infrastructure to ensure clean drainage and flood protection that goes beyond current requirements.
Currently there are no drainage systems that are intended to prevent flooding or prevent contamination of the river and harbor. Our plans implement best practices for managing flooding, runoff, and water treatment measures. We are committed to working with the town to ensure that the measures put in place not only comply with the applicable regulations but improve the water quality measures that currently exist on the integrated site.
After remediating the currently contaminated site, ROAN Ventures plans a walking path leading to the Saugatuck River.
==================================================
Claim: “It does not address our affordable housing mandate. Importantly, rather than being built to address Westport’s current affordable housing shortfall, this plan makes our town’s shortfall worse — offering only 14 off-site units whose location has not been secured. According to the developer’s attorney
“These units will not come on-line for over 3 years, it will have to be updated before finalized…The units are going to be offsite and per the anticipated approval, we will come back to advise where they are going to be located.”
Response: We are required to provide either 20% of units on-site or 25% off-site within a quarter mile. We currently own 2 qualifying properties, and have a plan in place to satisfy the requirement.
Importantly, we’re also making the largest contribution to Westport’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund in town history and the foreseeable future.
Rejecting this plan could open the site to an 8-30g development with 500+ units and extremely limited town oversight — no density or height limits, architectural review, parking requirements, traffic mitigation, or public benefit obligations.
Residential units, on the floors above retail.
==================================================
Claim: “It sacrifices Westport’s unique appeal as a charming small New England coastal community. this plan does not meet the stated goal of Westport retaining its unique appeal because of its New England small town charm. The size and scale of the proposed development does not fit Westport.”
Response: This is a subjective claim. Our award-winning architectural team has modeled the design after classic New England coastal towns. The Architectural Review Board supports our current design, which aligns closely with local aesthetics and history—far more so than early conceptual renderings which are now obsolete.
The 21 Charles Street office building would be renovated, in the style of a building like National Hall.
================================================
To summarize, these are the public benefits of The Hamlet:
• Improved traffic flows: Based on large investment into the redesign of the area’s obsolete traffic lights, roads and infrastructure.
• Boost to our tax base: Over $6 million in annual property taxes for the town to invest in our town, and help keep taxes low for everyone.
• Open space and waterfront access: Available to all Westporters; we are adding – 50,000+ square feet public open space — 10 times the required amount, with 150+ new trees and thousands of additional plantings.
• Improved Connectivity: Proposal for public shuttle service across Westport, to and from the site.
• Land remediation: Full remediation of contaminated soil — no capping of dirty soil, which is a common practice.
• Green energy: Geothermal energy system throughout the site.
• Classic design: Inspired by classic New England coastal architecture.
• We are protecting the gateway to Westport from an 8-30G site with hundreds of units, no design, density, height, parking or traffic requirements, no public benefit and overloading our schools and public infrastructure
• We are a local developer. Our offices are in Saugatuck, and have been for over 4 years. We care deeply what happens here.
Click here to view presentations from our consultants. Click here to view our petition.
(The Planning & Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on The Hamlet at 6 p.m. on April 28. It is scheduled to be in person, at Town Hall.)
(“06880” publishes “Opinion” pieces on all sides of many issues. That’s just one of many features. If you rely on this hyper-local blog for information and diverse opinions, please click here. Thanks!)
Great rebuttal. get this built!
It appears, after reading the concerns and replies, that the developers have been quite thoughtful regarding the concerns presented. It amazes me how resistant certain elements are about this wonderful proposal to take a depressingly blighted area of Saugatuck and converting it into a vibrant area of our community. Perhaps the naysayers have a vested interest in keeping the focal point of our town on Main Street, which continues a downward slide into franchise retailing? Thou protesteth too much. IMHO, of course.
“A picture is a 1000 words” – That phrase is so often applicable! P&Z members, and RTM representatives in 2023, relied on the developers pictures (illustrations) on what the Hamlet would look like, before deciding how to vote on both the Text Amendment, and the citizens challenge to the Text Amendment.
As we see it now, Roan mis-lead everyone who had a vote. They showed pictures of a hypothetical development that had a certain size and density, but now, they have a real application and a real plan that shows, and pictures, much greater size and density. I think we call that “bait and switch.” I hope the P&Z Commissioners who voted “yes” in 2023, and the new Commissioners recognize this tactical trick.
Saying something is within the law isn’t saying much to assuage concerns. Asserting that the development is 20% less dense than allowed under the law, does not rebut “It’s 800% bigger.” Word salad is usually what we get from these guys.
Here’s some Plain English:
It’s too big. Too dense. Too pretentious. Too rushed.
A lot of us don’t like it for the damage it will do in terms of traffic and all that comes with too big, too dense. After waiting years for the development to come forward, suddenly we are on a short timeline.
Here’s some more Plain English: We want Saugatuck developed, for sure. With thought, not greed. There are plenty of brownfield sites that can serve as an example.
Scale it down.
I would add to the thoughtful Simonetti response, the question: who needs it? To whom goes the benefit?. The developer is the only real winner…the town becomes a city, the relatively quiet Saugatuck becomes a noisy, congested, commercial hub and all for a “need” that is totally manufactured by greed and avarice.
That whole area is an eyesore and an embarrassment in this quite affluent community. The riverfront and the whole block from Riverside to Charles Street are about as inviting as u improved scrap yard. For God’s sake, let go of your personal NIMBY grievances and allow this town to TRY to improve itself. I’m sick of the tired, dated and rundown look of that whole area!
Make it nice! Make it work!!
John – Are you an investor? Yes or No
Executive summary: don’t reject us because we took advantage of your disastrous regulations. But if you insist, we’re going burn it all down with an 8-30g deathstar.
That certainly seemed to be the message.
This is their first development ever! They brought out the big guns, but they have no prior experience based on their White Roan website. They don’t have the $$$ to make it an 8-30g, and no one does! This is not an 8-30g location. Hiawatha is. They used scare tactics to make everyone think this. They have too many local investors because this project is so costly
The key point here is the 8-30g threat if we dig in our heels and prevent this project. As of now we have had input and the developers have responded with concessions. It doesn’t have to go this favorably. And this is a warning for the town (us) to be proactive in creating our own affordable housing and circumventing more mandated development from Hartford. Just saying no to everything will mean yes to the worst development abuses. We need our own housing development plan, not at 20% of the development but 80-100%. Trying to get into compliance 20% at a time will only lead to more density overall and less local control.
Sticking our heads in the sand is not an option. The Hamlet is a defensive move for us, considering the 8-30g threat. We’d be better playing offense and planning our own developments.
Great article, Let’s get this going!
This is in our neighborhood and we can’t wait!
Hi Kelly,
Have you discussed this with the other person named Arciola (I can’t remember his name) who regularly contributes thoughtfully and sensitively about Westport? Also, since it’s almost Easter what would Mr. Arciola say?
Eric, I am not really sure what Arciola you’re referring to, but we are the only ones left here in Westport, as well as my in-laws and yes they support as well.
What does Easter have anything to do with anything. Please elaborate.
It’s this Sunday. Tomorrow is Good Friday. Time to let all this “bad kharma” flow from the river to the sea (as we say at Columbia).
It amazes me after reading this how a few obstructionists always try to block this town from moving forward. They did it with The Gault project, with the YMCA etc. Now they are blocking a much needed investment and are exposing us to 8-30g! Who will take credit when our town has a monster multifamily in our station instead?
“A picture is a 1000 words” – That phrase is so often applicable! P&Z members, and Westport RTM representatives in 2023, relied on the developers pictures (illustrations) on what the Hamlet would look like, before deciding how to vote on both the Text Amendment, and the citizens challenge to the Text Amendment.
As we see it now, Roan mis-lead everyone who had a vote. They showed pictures of a hypothetical development that had a certain size and density, but now, they have a real application and a real plan that shows, and pictures, much greater size and density. I think we call that “bait and switch.” I hope the P&Z Commissioners who voted “yes” in 2023, and the new Commissioners recognize this tactical trick.
Robert – there would be much less objection if the 2025 Roan plan was more like the 2023 plan. Have you compared the plans?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
And you should know that 8-30G housing is not a bad thing. It’s not low income housing (which is also important). The “less expensive” units in 8-30-G allow your kids’ school teachers, and our policeman to live in Westport.
Thank you for keeping the town informed Dan. The spread of misinformation is dangerous. We cannot trade a top project like the Hamlet for an 8-30g like the ones in Fairfield!
I’m encouraged by ROAN Ventures’ thoughtful approach to The Hamlet at Saugatuck development. Their commitment to adhering to zoning regulations, and prioritizing historical continuity demonstrates a genuine respect for Westport’s character. The proactive measures taken to address traffic concerns, such as relocating the garage entrance and designing for safety, reflect a developer attuned to community needs.
It’s refreshing to see a project that balances growth with preservation, offering enhancements to public spaces while maintaining the town’s charm. I believe The Hamlet has the potential to be a valuable addition to the community.
Rob – Clearly lots of these responses are from local Roan investors. Are you an investor? Yes or No?
Oh for heaven’s sake.
It’s too big.
Period.
💯.
All those with a financial interest, please identify yourselves more plainly.
This article was really enlightening not sure why we are still debating this. Right now the gateway to Westport is an eyesore. This is such a great improvement to the town.
Let’s not let state legislators dictate what goes on this property with ugly massive multifamily that give nothing back to the community.
The Hamlet will be a big win for our town. The naysayers and refuseniks will inevitably be proven wrong. Have any of these negative nellies spent more than 10 seconds in the area?…PSA: It needs A LOT of improvement.
Rich – Are you an investor? Yes or No.
As for me, I live on Stony Point. I have driven thru that area 3000 times. So have my neighbors. I have never thought once in my life, nor have I heard my neighbors say “life would be better if Saugatuck looked better”. Is it wonderful / beautiful ? – No.
But 7 five story buildings that don’t fit will be an eyesore!
Of course it needs a lot of improvement!!! The argument is because I spend so many days a week currently traversing this area and get stuck in miserable traffic!! Why would anyone want to make it worse??? They say the light before the Cribari bridge will go from a grade F to a grade E. Is that really special??? Please! It’s going to be the same, if not worse.
Approve this already the majority of the town is really excited by this well thought out project. Who doesn’t want a dry cleaners parking lots and no access to the water transformed.
Reading through the opposition petition and the responses was very helpful for me.
What are we talking about here why are constant improvements met with the same opposition time and time again.
Let’s not fear change it is coming better to have a project that is built under our zoning than outside of it.
Majority are NOT.
I live in Saugatuck, and I’m Not.
I don’t know anybody in Westport who likes this gargantuan cluster plan. Not a single person.
So I’m not sure where your majority is coming from. Maybe family friends of investors.
It’s a disaster.
Let’s not fear change ? And what embrace this monstrosity which will destroy the area and all for sheer greed and avarice
Thanks but no thanks.
Going to make sure they do not buy permits. At least not until they have employees in 5 years, who can then buy them individually IF there’s not a wait list. Wait list used take 5 years to clear.
Going to make sure they do not get permission to exclude counting their staff in parking numbers..
going to make sure the hotel rooms can never be changed into apartments. 🧐- a growing trend used to get around zoning regulations.
Imagine that. Apartments disguised as hotel rooms. Not suggesting Roan would ever do such a thing but best to get those hotel rooms deeded in perpetuity.
This needs to be 50% smaller and account for all parking needs on their site, not at OUR railroad.
Such a great opportunity to turn a wasteland into a destination. I look forward to having a hotel in town where friends and family can stay in the heart of a vibrant community walkable to the train, restaurants, and the riverfront. I welcome the tax revenue, which will help pay for the huge expenses we face in coming years. I am excited about the prospect of additional condos, which would allow seniors to stay in Westport longer without the burden of maintaining a single family home. And I can’t wait for more green space on the riverfront, something the refusenicks/parking lot lovers are impeding downtown. I really struggle to see who doesn’t benefit from this.
My only comment is we need the ARB and others to ensure the finished product actually looks like the renderings. The new Corbin District in Darien looks terrible, totally contrived and cheesy and nothing like the proposals.
All the reasons for developing this brownfield site are valid.
But how is the question.
If the condo’s are for seniors, they will be Condos very wealthy seniors. Per the developers attorney, these will be “very high priced condos.”
Westport is in dire need for affordable housing, not more multimillion dollar condos. Near the train in a walkable commercial area is perfect for affordable housing. Why locate it offsite? How about back to the original 35 units; make half affordable. Now that’s a positive, constructive idea.
With the current economy and unknown building costs I admire the courage to get this project underway.
(Not an investor) Fill in the properties not included in this project with 5-story buildings and you’ll begin to understand the density. The Noroton RR projects which are so thoughtfully done are only 3 stories….and customers are all going to LOVE valet parking!
And we don’t even know how “bad it is” because Team Roan failed to produce a scale model that the P&Z and public could see. They have had OVER TWO years to impress us and really show Westport what the Hamlet would look like, but they skipped that step. Seems clear to so many that they are afraid to show the truth!
Today when people get off the train or I95 they are greeted to the idyllic New England town of Westport with a landscape of run-down dry cleaners and auto body shops. But those opposed are worried about The Hamlet threatening Westport’s charm?
Some of you mentioning this development being driven by greed must have missed the part where the developers are actually building significantly less than they’re allowed to… This is going to clean up the area, bring in millions in tax revenues, and benefit the residents of our town.
The negative comments here are typical. A small group of loud, self-important individuals that struggle with reading comprehension and feel like facts get in the way of a good protest.
So, who are the petitioners? Announce yourself, be transparent. Why hide behind something you feel so strongly about?!
I believe there is a petition signed by 400 people.
And you say that like it is a threat ? Should they hide ?
Seriously ? Is there some reason they should hide ?
Do you think people in this town are “afraid” to say they object to something ?
Well no ! Nobody’s hiding. Except the investors of this cluster fk. And bear in mind by my guess once you take investors and friends of investors out of the equation, likely 25,000 residents would vote against this.
That is who we would love the names of. Please all investors announce yourselves.
You know for small things like “conflicts of interest”
Yeah just small stuff like that.
Buddy’s doing favors for buddy’s etc… all that sort of thing.
Ciara – Your repeated objections are becoming increasingly difficult to take seriously. Based on your past comments and your involvement with growing businesses on Main Street, it appears your opposition to the Saugatuck development may be influenced, at least in part, by concern over potential competition. Alternatively, perhaps you simply prefer to take a contrarian stance.
Imagine the potential benefits—reduced parking congestion and improved traffic flow in town—once Saugatuck becomes a viable destination. At that point, what will there be left to criticize about downtown?
As for your claim that “likely 25,000 residents would vote against this,” it seems highly exaggerated. If you truly believe that level of opposition exists, I encourage you to gather signatures and demonstrate it through appropriate channels.
Which objections ?
That they need to build in sufficient parking using their land, and not CTDOT commuter parking.
Or the one that staff numbering almost 1000 must be counted in their parking complement, as they will not be taking Ubers to come to work
Or the removal of off street free convenient parking on railroad place
Or the excessive height of their buildings so they can squeeze more profit out of the project
Or is it the traffic which is going to get exponentially worse, shocker when it’s so bad now, I sometimes take exit 18 to get home even though I’m 1/2mile from 17.
Or is it that I do not believe a single word out of a single “expert” or “consultant” hired by them and paid by them
Or is it the pig with lipstick story that a roundabout and changing some traffic light timing will help
Traffic as i95 dumps out hundreds of cars wazing, and now to boot we have another 2000 people trying to get to Hamlet esp at evening rush hour.
Or that there are still 5 buildings not included in this phase, no doubt to stem the shock factor from rising.
Or that there are many other buildings in Saugatuck who by rights should be able to do anything this group gets away with.
On top of the 5 not included, there’s also in addition Rizuttos, Vivas, Sunoco, Rico’s, rowing club, all will be able to build the same heights. Peter’s corner where rainbow Thai and dunkin are, why not throw up a 5 story, mixed use development there.
What about the not so new but not much talked about trend of turning hotel rooms into condos ?
You might ask, what are you talking about?
Well apparently some unscrupulous companies, not that I would dream of casting any aspersions on ROAN, but some are circumventing zoning regulations and affordable housing % by building hotel rooms with the plan of then turning them into far more valuable “residences” – all to get around regulations.
Imagine that ?! Shocker
I also live in Saugatuck, have done for many many years, and I eat in many of the 19 restaurants which will all be put out of business once hamlet builds the 00000,00 sq feet of taverns, cafes and bars it has said it is planning.
You might not take any of those seriously but I do.
So do the people I happen to know around me.
I was not anti the Gault build.( mind you I bet they wish they had waited for the text ammendment change)
But, this is a different animal altogether, and its size simply doesn’t work.
Ms. Webster, you are one to talk with the name calling, threatening, and hostile personalized jargon remarks.
There are no names associated publicly with the alliance. Investors who spoke two years ago announced themselves.
Does it not exhaust you always being so negative and full of hatred? Doing favors for buddies, sounds like you, based on conversations I have had with your staff and a certain elected official.
Ms Perri,
Favors for buddies and elected officials ?
Again be careful with your accusations.
You could wind up in court.
Do I get tired of the negativity ? Well this last 4 years has certainly been a challenge in town between Parker Harding, the gardeners being accused of being pedophiles and potential school shooters, and the 7 million dollar shed. Quite challenging.
You are the one sounding like a hater.
The names of the petitioners are on the petition.
Look them up.
All 400 and counting are there in black and white.
Enjoy your day.
The Hamlet plans will undoubtedly change in time but it’s an overall much needed project to develop an area that has long been in need of such investment. Predictably, some readers want zero change because they want Westport to stay frozen in some time capsule. Others want to tone the plans down but the reality is investors look to optimize their ROI and zoning laws & town regs put tight restrictions on what can be done. Cannot blame them for optimizing within the legal limits. This development will help make this area a true destination spot for all, and with great living and recreation options. It will also help raise tax dollars that should help pay for town investments much like the new Long Lots School. Can’t keep spending $ without either cutting in other areas or raising funds. I look forward to the Hamlet and only hope a small minority of residents don’t hold things up unreasonably.
Regarding the above statement “However, we will add those 7 free parking spaces below grade, resulting in no net loss of free public parking” – Clearly this is fuzzy math. There are currently over 100 at-grade parking spaces that the public uses. Replacing them with “7 free parking spaces below grade” is grossly inadequate.
Regarding: “no law prohibits the public or our patrons from using railroad parking, which is free after 3 p.m”. There is no law that expressly states that it is allowed in perpetuity. The current “after 3PM” policy was a pandemic-related policy put in place by the police department. But that can change at any minute just by removing the signs. The policy will soon need to change as more and more people take to the rail rather than endless traffic on i95.
The current Hamlet plan relies on using public land to make their parking numbers work. For this reason (and others) the P&Z should reject the current plan. The Hamlet should use their own land, not public land. While the Town has the authority to use their land for the Hamlet – which happens to be some of the best locations for taking the train – they don’t have the authority to encumber any of the State’s land. The State happens to be the largest landowner at the train station, which includes Lot 7.
Regarding environmental remediation of the various contaminated sites, can the Hamlet developers please answer if they plan to tap into the $8 million in brownfield remediation funds they applied for (thru WestCog) and received conditional approval? Are they going to accept the funds which require they meet certain standards for clean up?
How often do you go to Saugatuck and are unable to find parking? It has literally never once happened to me, and I’m there all the time. I needed to take the train recently, went at peak rush hour, and found a daily spot directly in front of the train tracks. People hysterical about parking apparently want our town to look like Rt 1 in Milford – vast expanses of poisonous blacktop inhospitable to pedestrians and cyclists extending like an enormous moat around every single building to make sure that on the busiest day, patrons must walk less than 10 feet before reaching their air-conditioned destination. That may be your aspiration for Westport, but it’s not mine.
I totally respect that we have two different views on this. For me, it was not that long ago that my family had a 5 year wait for a rail permit. While the post pandemic world is different, one thing we know for sure is that traffic isn’t going away. More and more people are taking the train to avoid i95 traffic.
When you add 630 employees (per the Hamlet’s WestCog application for the brownfield funds) plus about 100 additional permits from the condo owners who don’t want to wait for the valet, plus the 300 people attending events at the proposed Barn, plus the new hotel and restaurants, it’s not hard to realize that the days of long traffic delays and multi-year permit waits is around the corner if the current Hamlet plan is approved.
We sit at the doorstep of a unique opportunity to redevelop the entire Saugatuck area in coordinated way – like what Norton is now accomplishing. Both Norton and Westport received grants to develop Transit Oriented neighborhoods at their train stations ….with walkable, bikeable, pedestrian-friendly, shuttle bus access AND with multiple options for housing and commercial. Norton is almost done.
We should work with the Hamlet developers or partner with another developer to achieve a better, more comprehensive solution for all of Saugatuck.
Looks pretty good to me! just one local’s opinion, but compared to a lot of the architectural disasters from Brooklyn waterfront all the way up the coast, I’d give this an enthusiastic thumbs up.
Oh, FFS, no one is saying the area doesn’t need reimaginging and redevelopment! Yes, it’s currently an eyesore. Yes, it’s a disorganized hodge-podge. But that doesn’t mean we need a mini-megalopolis to replace it: The current plan is obscenely grandiose, clearly designed to maximize investors’ profits with little concern for anyone else.
My main concern as a Coleytown resident who couldn’t be farther from NIMBYing this, is that ROAN is planning to citify the area while ignoring the very real parking and traffic issues a project of this scope will create. I mean sure, I enjoy the bucolic pleasures of a parking garage as much as the next person (I can smell the fumes now!) but seven free spots? Parking to dine in Saugatuck already a challenge…won’t it be fun to leave home extra early, hoping to nab a walkable spot in the RR lots in the winter dark? And boy, am I glad I no longer live with a commuter; we’d be eating dinner at 9:00.
The project as conceived will NOT make things easier or more pleasant for town residents, many of whom have no choice but to commute through the area. And I fear the only local businesses that benefit will be the new ones.
Here in NYC on my block, the New School University wanted to replace a 4-story building with a 16-story behemoth that was shocking to ponder, but well within the university’s right to build. When they held public hearings, the usual complaints were heard: it’s too big, it’s ugly, it doesn’t belong here. After a while of listening to the feedback, the architects said, “OK, if you don’t like this version, let us show you another option.” It was far bigger, far uglier, and still fully allowed by zoning. The complaints soon died down. Today, we have the 16-story building, with the knowledge that it could have been worse. That’s what the Hamlet’s threat of state-sanctioned affordable housing that locals have no control over is about. They’re right…. it could be much worse. Proceed with caution.
Bottom line, whether this project is in or out of your back yard affects you. And oft times more than other times. If you are a commuter, if you are a saugatuck diner.
Do we acknowledge getting rid of the dry cleaning building and improving it would be great ?
Sure.
It would be. At 2/3 story’s.
But do we value existing businesses the 19 who are there already, likely promised all sorts of never gonna happen assurances that they will be ok.. they will not be ok… they will be bankrupt.
I mean I hope we value our existing saugatuck businesses.
I’ve lived in this town for almost 25 years and those are the restaurants I go to because I live in this neighborhood.
They have made this area vibrant like it or not…
We do not need hamlet to come in and bankrupt them.
Saugatuck known statewide for most vibrant dining in the state…..
they don’t need more restaurants created… not in Saugatuck.. with 19 existing.
When you allow a bunch of money hungry bean counters take over your town this is what happens… they write their own wishlist. And they screw the existing places…
This is about community, loyalty and sense.
Hamlet has no place here… none.
The Hamlet plans will undoubtedly change in time but it’s an overall much needed project to develop an area that has long been in need of such investment. Predictably, some readers want zero change because they want Westport to stay frozen in some time capsule. Others want to tone the plans down but the reality is investors look to optimize their ROI and zoning laws & town regs put tight restrictions on what can be done. Cannot blame them for optimizing within the legal limits. This development will help make this area a true destination spot for all, and with great living and recreation options. It will also help raise tax dollars that should help pay for town investments much like the new Long Lots School. Can’t keep spending $ without either cutting in other areas or raising funds. I look forward to the Hamlet and only hope a small minority of residents don’t hold things up unreasonably.
It needs and always has needed some investment.. but do we want to become brikell Miami… no !
They just need a profit !!!! That can be 1million..not 100 million…
I mean quite frankly $1 is a profit.
Sadly Mandell and his cohorts screwed us on a couple of good projects for that area and some Tod, only to embrace this shit.
Talk about feeling bent over.
He appears to have changed his tune though that is his M.O.
Many of us could have told him 2 years ago that he was bedding down with the proverbial imho devil tho he conveniently recused himself on the mortifying rtm vote of 33-1. The one Sal Liccione,
The only man who spoke for the majority of the town in spite of the bullying and co-ercing that went on.
Even threats.
Just a sad sad situation..
nobody is asking to stay frozen in time.. I mean don’t be ignorant. We do live here. We do want a great town… just not one that has us all on our knees..
and certainly not for a greedy avaricious bunch of opportunists.
The fact that we have so many local investors in this project tells me the 8-30g was just a scare tactic. Since when have 8-30g investors looked at riverfront property? More telling is the fact that Roan or the hotel company will need to charge $950/ night to get a good ROI doesn’t match the needs of 8-30g. They pulled the wool over our eyes to get this far. Soon, we will have a traffic nightmare. Gridlock. As if we didn’t already?? Their traffic fixes/recommendations aren’t up to snuff. No parent with young kids will ever come to our side of town. Forget it! This will decrease the property values of the Saugatuck shores area because no one will go there! 500 additional cars during the 5-6pm rush hour? I’m dreading that. I’m not a NIMBY. This area is god awful ugly, but I still need to be able to get across town, and so do my neighbors.
I hope this gets built soon. It would vastly improve Saugatuck.
It would improve Westport. Density around train stations is inevitable, if this isn’t built something less cohesive will be. I also don’t understand people’s desire to”save” surface parking lots. As a person who takes the train every day from the Westport station this is a much needed improvement.
I am not an investor but I greatly appreciate the developers who are working to improve Westport. Thank you ROAN!
So then bury them all ! Absolutely brilliant suggestion. Bury all parking. At their expense.
Nobody has a problem with buried parking and far smaller (50%) density. It could be really lovely.
Gault height.
Use their own land to expand pavements as they wish. Leave our roads alone and create bicycle lanes.
And done.
Fabulous. Let’s get going.
Roan has the resources to stage a marketing blitz. Their response does not address the real issues such as traffic and density. I’m a commuter; as it is getting to and from the train station is a nightmare. Sometimes it takes longer for me to get to the train station than it does getting into nyc. This is unsustainable -and it turns away potential home buyers who would rather live in towns that don’t add to already unpleasant commute.
The project is too big and dense. Not appropriate for Westport. If Roan can’t make a profit building a “hamlet” (hardly a hamlet) and provide affordable housing, then another developer will build a better alternative, no doubt. And yes, I would like to know who the investors are.
I’m a Saugatuck resident living near “ground zero”. I can’t even imagine the daily problems this project would create in navigating through this small neighborhood. It will also be bad for the local businesses during the construction phase. People will avoid coming to the area.
Hi 06880,
As a Westporter I view the Hamlet as a terrible idea. It’s been said before but bears repeating:
Increased traffic
Loss of free and commuter parking
Impacts to public safety
Environmental and conservation impacts
Lack of affordable housing
Sustainability and viability
Yes Westport could develop that area. But putting in a development that will irrevocably change the Saugatuck, for the worse, is not the answer.
Excellent article. As a Saugatuck resident, I believe the Hamlet development is a huge improvement from existing buildings and parking lots. I welcome the upgrade!
I moved with my family to Westport from NYC in August 2023. We chose Westport for its small yet sophisticated vibe, the cultural life, the food, the architecture, the school system, the diversity – all the things that would make a perfect new home for a Manhattan couple and our two young boys.
Everything has been delightful – and then we were made aware of the Hamlet.
At first it appeared to be a much needed improvement of a huge block of mostly ugly buildings right on in the heart of Saugtauck and at the town’s major transportation hub. It looked great.
But something happened along the way.
It has since morphed into a dense, unattractive (totally out of character for the town) monster that will dwarf the community around it and snarl already horrible traffic. It looks more a midwestern planned community’s artificial “downtown” instead of an authentic New England neighborhood.
The developer appears to be very opaque about a lot of the project, and the old “but we are within all the regulations” tactic is getting old. Just answer many of the concerns that have been expressed on these pages and others.
I am not one of those folks bemoaning that Westport “isn’t what it used to be”. I have no idea what it used to be. I only know what has been for me and my family for the past two years. Really, really great.
But if this project (as currently planned) proceeds, it will make the blocks around the main commuter hub for thousands of people look like something out of Blade Runner.
Downscale it and I’ll bet you most people opposed to it will support it.
Michael Chaney
To start – I am not an investor in the project, but I am a life-long Westporter. The area in question is an embarrassing eyesore and has been for decades. For those of you that are confused about laws versus subjective opinions, the proposal meets the zoning requirements, which means it should be allowed to go forward. It will bring a new and vibrant area to town and generate significant tax revenue. It seems to me that there is a basic misunderstanding of economics among the naysayers. The area will never be developed at a smaller scale because it doesn’t make financial sense to do so. There is nothing wrong with the developers and investors looking to make a profit on their project – it’s called capitalism. Alternatively, the naysayers are welcome to contribute their own funds to purchase all the property in question and develop a money-losing alternative project to propose. Short of that, get onboard with improving our town or get out of the way!