“06880” intern Katherine Phelps reports:
It took another 5 hours. Over 80 people joined the Zoom call.
When it was over, there was still no resolution on the Hamlet at Saugatuck proposal.
But the controversial retail/residential/hotel/marina plan took another step forward last night, at another Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
The proposed redevelopment between Riverside Avenue, Railroad Place and Charles Street faced a complex mix of support, concerns, and outright objections.
The revised version of the plan is significantly scaled down from the initial 2022 proposal. But residents and commissioners say questions remain about density, environmental impact, traffic, and architectural fit with Westport’s coastal New England character.
Proposed buildings on Riverside Avenue.
P&Z chair Paul Lebowitz praised elements of the plan, including the waterfront access, event barn, and environmental cleanup efforts.
“I appreciate the drainage aspects, because now they’ll exist. Before that, everything would go into the water,” he said.
However, he expressed concern over the hotel’s size and the overall density, echoing sentiments of residents who feel the new version still overwhelms the character of the area.
Lebowitz also raised logistical issues like access and drop-off near the barn, sidewalk safety, and parking, particularly for Black Duck customers. The Hamlet team countered that customers would park under the I-95 bridge.
Aerial renderings of the Hamlet project.
Commissioner Michael Cammeyer pushed for collaboration and transparency, expressing particular interest in Hamlet’s plans for the marina and dock access.
ROAN Ventures — the developer — referenced the successful example of Rowayton Seafood in terms of marina management, and stressed the need to ensure that transient slips are used effectively.
Cammeyer also voiced concern over potential traffic congestion during events, especially given the timing of evening trains and rush hour.
Much of the discussion focused on traffic flow, loading docks and delivery logistics, especially given Westport’s heavy commuter culture.
Commissioner Bre Injeski questioned how daily deliveries and waste management would function. The Hamlet team said a more detailed report would be submitted next week, including plans to restrict larger delivery vehicles to the street, and limit on-site access to smaller Sprinter vans. Deliveries would be managed during specific time windows, with on-site staff ensuring compliance.
The view on Railroad Place.
“There’s still a lot we don’t know,” Injeski noted. “And deliveries near pedestrian crosswalks during commuting hours are a real safety concern.”
Amy Wistreich flagged concerns over building setbacks, sewer capacity, and the potential floodplain issues surrounding the event barn. However, the Hamlet team assured the commissioners that sewer capacity was more than sufficient by citing underutilized land areas.
Commissioner Michael Calise questioned the quality of the proposed public spaces, stating that what Hamlet is presenting as “open space” is more akin to setbacks.
“A sidewalk is not a gathering space… An open space is where 25-30 people can congregate,” Calise said.
He expressed concern that the barn’s placement could disrupt the floodplain and raised a legal question about the stone wall the town owns that may have to be relocated.
Meanwhile, P&Z director Michelle Perillie and attorney Patrizia Zucaro pushed for clarification on what approvals the project still requires, particularly those tied to infrastructure and right-of-way usage.
Hamlet’s legal team noted that certain bridge and roundabout designs require special approvals, but reassured the commission that state and local compliance remains a top priority.
Traffic improvements, suggested by the ROAN Ventures team.
Fiona Flynn of SLR, representing the traffic planning side, said the first step in the approval process with the Office of State Traffic Administration — traffic volume approval — had already been completed. However, P&Z must give the green light before submitting step 2, which involves more detailed drainage and safety plans.
Flynn also detailed pedestrian safety improvements, such as reducing the walking path’s exposure by 8 feet and ensuring that 13-foot travel lanes are utilized. She emphasized that a full state review is pending and will involve detailed coordination with the Department of Transportation, including hydraulics and drainage.
Commissioner Neil Cohn voiced support for ideas for a courtyard and green space where children and families can gather, emphasizing that this project should make people feel like they are a part of the community.
But obstacles remain. Many residents and commissioners feel the project, despite being scaled back, still clashes with Westport’s identity.
Officials now await Hamlet’s follow-up reports on loading logistics, traffic management, and environmental compliance. Commissioners will continue to listen to public concerns.
Hamlet representatives maintain that they’re complying with all required regulations, and are open to reasonable modifications.
“We’re not asking for favors,” one said. “We have traffic experts who believe our design will improve the current conditions.”
No decisions were made on the proposal. The current plan — to render a P&Z decision by June or July — may not be met, Lebowitz said. Other town bodies must still weigh in too, before P&Z renders its verdict.
As an fyi, Rowayton Seafood has had ongoing issues with cars/parking/traffic that blocks Rowayton Avenue for cars driving through.
It’s a nightmare on the summer weekends in particular.
And it’s been an ongoing issue from the time the restaurant opened til the present. Citing it as an example of good stewardship is questionable at best.
The reference to rowayton was regard to the marina only.
It’s all of a piece.
The traffic issues are due to the restaurant patrons that block the street as they wait for parking attendants to take their cars away; turning the road into a single lane or no lane through access.
The “marina” refers to what aspect? How a few boats can dock and dine? It’s a relatively small dock space. Don’t see the relevance to a larger marina space.
If we are to have some Nightmare on the Saugatuck forced on us regardless, perhaps we’d do better to actually encourage 8-30g development. There would at least be some benefit to people other than the developer, and — let’s be honest — affordable (oops, I mean “affordable”) housing makes more sense near the train station than a hotel/luxury destination in the armpit of I-95.
Careful! 830g is a real option. As of right state sponcered program which bypasses town p&z
State does not require remediation
No waterfront development rather chain link fence.
2 stories of structured parking with 6-8 stories of 600 low income apartments
600 more families sharing compo beach and longshore
1200+ more kids (many with special needs) in our schools
Billy- can you please give me an example of a waterfront 8-30g??
You are either completely ignorant or you are fear mongering liar. Show me an 8-30g project where 100% of the units were affordable, or “low income” as you call it? I’ll wait……It looks like you are an EVP and Principal at Newmark, the commercial real estate broker. So you probably aren’t ignorant…….Find some place else to suck up to Roan. Despicable
In the interest of accuracy, I will supplement my comment with the below from ChatGPT……My comment on fear mongering stands, A for-profit developer will not build 100% affordable. The developers all know that the only reason 8-30g exists is to give them leverage against towns in situations exactly like this one. Our P&Z can’t succumb to this fear mongering….
“Yes, Connecticut has seen 8-30g projects where 100% of the units are designated as affordable housing, although such instances are relatively rare. These projects are typically initiated by nonprofit organizations or housing authorities aiming to maximize affordable housing stock without the inclusion of market-rate units.”
No it is not !
2 years ago the biggest giveaway to a developer by way of a text ammendment has rendered that site of zero interest to a developer of 8-30g.
8-30 g developers do not over pay for sites, and they don’t need to because by using an 8-30g application they can pretty much build whatever they want. They have no need for text ammendment changes.
They can basically circumvent all zoning regulations. Kind of like the text ammendment allows Roan to do.
So most assuredly not. There will be no 8-30g going there. EVER.
It’s now unaffordable for affordable housing
No 8-30 g developer would touch this site with a 40’ barge pole.
How do I know this ? Because I’ve spoken with several 8-30g developers.
This site will undoubtedly be developed but not by 8-30g
But here’s what the states affordable housing might do.
They could go to the States DOT. They could suspend the parking contract ( being abused, in my opinion) at the train stations, and they might hand a developer one or two of their railroad lots, and say have at it. Build affordable housing on them and don’t worry about parking. We can give you another 2 lots to park all the cars.
That will leave the train station in Saugatuck with a few hundred parking spaces.
The state can do whatever they want with that parking contract.
They can also make it explicitly for commuter parking only.
So you see be careful what you wish for because state can send Karma our way. And there’s nothing we can do to stop them.
Your comments are pathetic
For a moment Toni, I thought you were referring to my comment as pathetic, and then realized that you were responding to William Cohen. As was I.
Yes his comments are elitist and at a minimum hurtful regarding special needs children. They certainly do not reflect the views of the majority of Westport.
He also accuses me of being the money behind the saugatuck alliance( who I wholeheartedly support) but I am not funding anything here. Although I’d be happy to give a donation.
His rationale interestingly is because I have businesses in town.
I along with hundreds of others have businesses in the downtown.
I have heard that defense more than once.
“Oh you hate the development because it will kill the downtown”.
Not exactly but certainly, the more that is said, it is becoming more of a thought that the developers of this are planning on killing the downtown.
I assume that PZ are patently aware of this threat, which seems more like an intention/mission now, and amongst PZ responsibility is to not facilitate in any way that coming to fruition.
I plan on making sure to have that on the record by way of an email.
The facilitation of a second and directly competing merchant zone especially one which I have now heard on multiple occasions, is planning to ”take out” main street and the downtown is downright rude and quite frankly would be a dereliction of their duties as commissioners of PZ in Westport.
I am confident that the PZ will carefully assess the risk.
I also happen to live in Saugatuck and have lived in Westport for over 20 years.
A more accurate statement above in the article as opposed to the misleading
The plan has been substantially scaled back since 2022, well not exactly, they have just squeezed more, a lot more onto a smaller site.
In other words they stand to make the fewer sites more profitable, by increasing the density from 2022.
I have no doubt there is a phase 2, coming next.
They also have no marina planned in this phase, no waterside amenities.
And who knows if that will ever come to fruition.
So let’s deal with the NOW.
No marina
– and pre application means NOTHING !
No waterside amenities ( because no marina)
No cudgel of any 8-30g developer because the properties are priced out of that market.
Even with new Hartford legislation which may be forthcoming and delightedly touted by the fear mongers. That might effect inland Westport and areas without this developers dream text ammendment which was so irresponsibly passed.
It will NOT affect saugatuck.
This development is perfect..for Stamford. ROAN needs to take a page from the Gault playbook. And if it doesn’t make sense financially, then too bad that you didn’t do your due diligence. Quite honestly if it’s a choice between the Scamlet and leaving it as is, I’ll take the latter. If L. DeMace Kosut and G. Boccanfusco are reading this, please don’t sell to these people.
Do we need three luxury hotels right next to each other? How does this benefit the folks who live in town, aside from when they have out of town guests who may still stay in Norwalk for better prices.
It is only 57 high end hotel rooms. Norwalk hotels are not an option for these guests
Norwalk is not an option for “ these” guests. Who is coming for the rooms then? Tech bros or kings and queens?
As someone with extensive experience in both retail and hospitality, I want to emphasize that parking and ease of access are absolutely critical to the success of any mixed-use development. Unfortunately, these issues appear to be consistently overlooked in our local planning process.
Saugatuck already suffers from a significant parking shortage, especially in the evenings. Despite this, we continue to add capacity without adequately addressing infrastructure — particularly parking. This oversight negatively impacts both residents and visitors who simply want to enjoy all that Saugatuck has to offer.
When I opened Rizzuto’s in 2009, I had to go through the process of securing a variance because our lot didn’t meet the required parking ratios — and that’s on a fairly large parcel. That experience illustrates how serious the parking requirements were then, yet they seem to be less of a priority now, despite the growth in density.
Consider the case of Blue Back Square in West Hartford Center. I operated a restaurant there for over a decade. Despite initial promise, the development has struggled. It changed ownership twice, with the last sale closing at roughly 25% of its original development cost. The core reason? Paid garage parking. It created a major barrier to access and turned customers away.
These are not abstract concerns — they are grounded in real-world outcomes. If we want mixed-use developments in Saugatuck to thrive, we must put parking and access at the forefront of planning discussions. Ignoring these fundamentals risks undermining the long-term success of any project before it even begins.
That hotel looks ridiculous! It takes away the charm of the area!
Good grief!
Your opinion
I sat through the entirety of last night’s meeting and found it helpful on two fronts. First, it gave us a glimpse of the many concerns P&Z commissioners have; second, it reinforced the enormous challenges Roan faces in finalizing and submitting this application within the P&Z’s permitted timeframe. I was especially encouraged by the big-picture issues raised by commissioners Lebowitz, Wistreich, Injeski and Calise. Mike Calise said something last night that resonated again for me. It’s hardly a new concept. Roan and its attorney tout how the Hamlet is what the town wants and needs. The project (if ever completed) may be what its developers and investors want but it’s hardly what most Westporters want. We like to speak for ourselves. We know what we like and need, and you’ll hear from us accordingly. Joined by well over 1,000 residents who have signed the Westport Alliance for Saugatuck petition and are equally shocked by the size and density of this proposed project.
Bill Rizzuto and Rick Leonard are right on the money. I have also learned to always listen to Mike Calise as he knows of what he speaks. BTW just the construction aspect (3-5 years?) of this project will absolutely crush the existing businesses in Saugatuck..
The project is too big and dense for that area…period. All the other problems with this development would be reduced or eliminated if it was scaled down SIGNIFICANTLY!
Scaling down is simply not an option.
The design currently does not meet setback requirements. The footprint must be scaled down. The heights are another matter; while in conformance the obstruction views and degrade quality of life. The density lacks open space of nearly anything but sidewalks. Again, poor design .
This is all notwithstanding safety issues (fire and police), traffic congestion, and hampering the town’s main transit hub.
These are all what I believe could be the PZC’s discretionary areas for health and wellbeing criteria to be ascribed to special permits.
The Hamlet will get scaled down a bit due to the usual political issues AND financial as the $ usually isn’t there to complete the original plan as proposed. But the Hamlet will & should happen. Won’t be perfect as such developments rarely are but it’ll transform an area in need of invigoration and beautification despite the usual Westport NIMB community outrage. Matter. Of. When. Not. If.
Lets bring back the ferry that crossed the river on ferry lane many moons ago to help people get across. Better yet, lets ensure it can carry vehicles too. Will make us all feel like shelter island or something because the area will become an island with all the gridlock. Rizzuto and Leonard said it well and Calise’s point is a good one. This project just does not pass a sniff test. Let the developers prove themselves regarding traffic. The other week it took me over 20 minutes to get from one side of the train station to the other and I didnt even see a train arrive/let off passengers the whole time.
So a few important takeaways from last nights public session.
1. There is no point in getting a “pre application” on the marina part of this which is NOT included in this application.
A pre app counts for absolutely nothing whatsoever.
It is not binding and could lead the public to believe something might happen that quite likely will not happen and if it does could be years away. So an absolute waste of time.
2. At this point and I’ve spoken with lots of real estate developers including some who build affordable housing projects, the text ammendment is so juicy and gave away so much, allowing the developers to do almost anything they please, this project will NEVER, EVER be contemplated by ANY affordable housing developer.
It’s time for people to stop inciting fear of affordable housing as the alternative. It is misleading to say the least.
The numbers simply do not come close to making it viable.
So while it may not be the Hamlet who does this project, it most certainly will never be affordable housing. It is ironically now not only “unaffordable” to do so but it is also not a project a developer needs the cudgel of being able to get around zoning regs. Who’s going to build affordable housing when zoning regs when changed 2 years ago mean not having to use affordable housing as an excuse.
They basically got everything they wanted written into the ammendment.
Their ENTIRE wish list.
3. Interesting to hear that Bill Rizutto who has a massive private parking lot for his 1 restaurant had to secure a variance for parking because it did not meet requirements. And let’s remember he is also plagued by patrons of other restaurants trying to park in his lot because I suppose the rules were different in 2009.
Since then plenty restaurants got permission to open with hardly any parking.
Now imagine 12 new restaurants with patios (75% extra added seating) and an enormous event space, with outdoor seating, and a food market, and 28 retail spaces.
Those spaces are required to provide 1 parking space per 1000 square feet.
To put that in perspective and I’m guessing Bills restaurant is about 5000 sq feet. Rizuttos.
So he under these new regulations would need to have 5 parking spots total.
Anyone think that would work ? Clearly not.
So how then will the hamlets numerous I believe 12 restaurants plus hotel bars, roof deck party space, and 3500’sq foot restaurant beside hotel buildings, and add to that the patio permission of 75% extra space outside allowed, how is that going to work exactly outside of weekends when it just might be manageable.
It’s NOT, and we told them this 2 years ago, we told the RTM, who did not listen when petitioners pleaded with them to look at the facts.
It is so frustrating that their numbers have been based on empty train stations which are full.
4. Shared off street parking etc..
this is shared with 23 existing restaurants. And countless retail.
The patron and staff count on a good day down there with staff and an event going on in the massive barn, ( disguised as a community area,) as a selling point to residents- done because they encroach on the park, and it should never have been allowed, coupled with the 23 existing restaurants and retail space is 4000 to 5000 people.
So just call it 2000 – 2500 cars !
Where will they park ? And whatever about weekends, what about midweek when the train station is full.
5. What was our first selectwoman doing today at a real estate talk with roan developers and roans attorney at the SONO mall ?
What indeed !
Boycott Nomade. You’re embarrassing yourself, your staff, your business, and Westport.
Wow just wow. Calling for a boycott because someone is sharing facts as well as their perspective/opinions ? Sure you can disagree and not give her business as a result , but calling for a boycott is low.
Who do you work for?
Everyone knows you are personally funding the opposition group for your own business reasons .
Excuse me ? I have nothing to do with any funding of the alliance. Nothing at all.
I’m suing the town over parking at Parker Harding alright.
But you are mistaking me with someone else on this one.
So I guess you and “everyone” ( like I care) are all dead wrong ! lol.
But yes I wish whoever is funding it well.
You stand to gain financially which is why you are so butt hurt that it may end up in court.
That would make a potential flip difficult now wouldn’t it.
And as for your disgusting comment about special needs kids above.
That was very unkind and disrespectful.
If you are the kind of scary dude that talks like that about special needs kids, Westport beware of what hamlet “might” bring.
As for my businesses it is the job of PZ to safeguard and not screw over the downtown so let’s see how that goes.
Mr. Cohen,
I also read your comment implying that people who need affordable housing also have children with special needs and that what? you don’t want more children with special needs in westport? would you like to clarify your comment?
I am a special needs para, and I would choose to hang out with the kind people I know with special needs more than most adults I know.
Also there are so many people with expertise in this town, Ciara Webster is one of them. She has transformed with integrity many buildings in town, keeping with the character of this town. As some of you seem to wish ill will for her and her business, I say think about all of her employees that are lucky to have an employer who advocates for them and who treats them with respect. I for one am grateful for her attention to detail every time she makes a comment. Even if you don’t like her no nonsense bluntness, her opinions are from the heart and FOR the people and for good of this town!
And Mr. Cohen ,Ms. Webster lives in Saugatuck so she like me has a dog in this fight.
100%! Ciara is a treasure to Westport.
It’s simply unimaginable that elected land use controllers in Westport would allow anything remotely resembling the behemoth hotel structures posited in this blog. Further, the very size and urban design in the renderings demonstrates, beyond doubt, that the developers have nothing but distain for the area of town they plan to destroy..
Thank you Mr. William G. Cohen for using an unrelated forum to unintentionally raise awareness for the special needs community.
As the sibling of a special needs individual who benefitted from Westport’s public elementary, middle, and high schools, I’m hopeful that other families facing similar challenges have options in town like the ones available to my sister.
In honor of the much needed attention you’ve raised, I’ve donated $1,000 to two incredible organizations that have had a profound impact on my sister’s life.
For anyone interested in learning more about the amazing work these groups do, I’ve included links below.
With Love,
Ben
https://www.chapelhaven.org/chapel-haven-schleifer-center-east/
https://www.soct.org/