Danielle Dobin is a current member of Westport’s Board of Finance, and the previous chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission. She submitted this opinion as a private citizen, and not on behalf of any board or commission.
Westporters don’t always see eye to eye — and that’s a good thing.
We are a community that cares deeply, thinks independently, and engages actively with each other and our local officials. Over the past few weeks we’ve seen spirited conversations around zoning decisions like the proposed Hamlet development, and debates relating to our schools, including the Board of Education soccer coach appeal and the possible implementation of a bell-to-bell cell phone ban at Staples.
But occasionally an issue comes along that is so consequential, so far-reaching, that it deserves our collective attention — regardless of where we stand on any particular local issue. Right now, that issue is House Bill 5002.
Just introduced in the state legislature, this massive omnibus “aircraft carrier” bill consolidates numerous housing and zoning proposals into a single piece of legislation — one that could be voted on as early as tonight or tomorrow.
Among its most impactful provisions:
- Density Explosion: Every single commercially zoned lot in Westport (400+ parcels) in every single neighborhood in town will be automatically re-zoned to allow the development of up to 9 units of “middle housing” (townhouses, cottage clusters, etc.) without ANY public hearing, and with no off-street parking required.
- Municipal liability for legal fees: Towns like Westport would be forced, at the court’s discretion, to pay developers’ legal fees when defending against 8-30g affordable housing lawsuits — even when we are trying to enforce reasonable land use protections.
- Off-Street Parking: This bill eliminates ALL off-street parking requirements for buildings under 24 units, and only allows a P&Z to require off-street parking for larger developments based on a developer’s own parking assessment.
- As-of-right office-to-residential conversions: This bill will allow the conversion of any office building in any zone to be turned into multifamily housing. The town will be prohibited from re-assessing the newly created multifamily or higher taxes for 3 years.
- Fair Share housing mandates: Westport would be required to zone for 1,495–2,461 affordable and deeply affordable housing units. If those units are built as part of developments with only 20% affordability — as is typical — this would mean up to 12,305 new housing units, or we both lose infrastructure funding, and we’ll face a tougher battle seeking our next moratorium from 8-30g.
- Work-Live-Ride transit district incentives: Towns that don’t preemptively create designated transit districts may lose access to critical infrastructure grants if they don’t allow high-density, as-of-right multifamily development with no off-street parking, especially where single family home zoning exists (Stony Point, Burritt’s Landing) near transit hubs like the Saugatuck station.
- Loss of state infrastructure funding: Westport will have limited access to essential grants — such as STEAP, Main Street, and Town Aid Road – which will be tied to compliance with state-mandated zoning changes required by Fair Share and Work-Live-Ride.
What does this mean for Westport? It means a potential tidal wave of development with no parking. It means the erosion of local decision-making. And it means the financial burden of litigation costs that towns will be forced to bear.
Westport relies on state Town Aid Road grants for a significant portion of our annual paving projects. Westport utilizes STEAP grants, such as the $1 million grant we are seeking for the Cross Highway culvert replacement, to fund critical infrastructure projects.
Whether you support mixed-use development or housing only in Saugatuck; if you advocate for preserving Westport exactly as it looks today or with changes; whether you favor or oppose the closing of Church Lane to vehicular traffic; whatever your thoughts on the high school cellphone ban, every Westporter should be concerned about the loss of local control and the scope of mandates being imposed without adequate consideration of infrastructure, schools, traffic, or environmental impact.
This passage of this bill will immediately transform our zoning to allow for THOUSANDS of new units (via the rezoned commercial lots and office conversions), with little to no parking for the new residents.
This is a moment for Westporters to stand together.
I urge you to contact our state delegation today and share your perspective — before it’s too late:
- State Senator Ceci Maher – ceci.maher@cga.ct.gov
- State Rep. Jonathan Steinberg – jonathan.steinberg@cga.ct.gov
- State Rep. Dominique Johnson – dominique.johnson@cga.ct.gov
We may not always agree — but we all deserve a voice in decisions that will shape the future of our town.
Hard to believe such a draconian land use bill even made to the floor of the House, but it seems unlikely to me (not usually an optimist) that a bill as destructive to every town in the state as it it to the few cities that can handle the demands, will pass a full vote.
If prayers are ever of value, now is the time.
I truly get there is a need, but am guessing many of these potential tenants have vehicles. So what would be the attraction to have a place to live with no where to park? Would there be a possibility to have underground parking ? That may make sense….
Boston! My #1 problem in finding a place to live was not lack of housing, but lack of parking.
Underground parking may be a better idea than my four story parking garage!
Susan, I suppose parking structures with four levels could be built, but my first thought was the massive amount of new taxes the town would collect lowering everyone’s taxes substantially. I’m not saying I’d be fully satisfied with this bill, I could see a trimmed version being beneficial.
How can you believe an influx of new taxable property would magically lower taxes for all?! Those new inhabitants will require town services so on a per capita basis alone, poor assumption. Now show evidence of how the town has lowered taxes for all in the past 20 years! Always more ways for people to spend the collective’s money and govt generally finds a way to spend available funds vs reducing its spend rate.
This is a warning and call to action to take seriously:
With the FSW and CTDOT determined to replace the Cribari Bridge with one that will handle I-95 overflow traffic including tractor trailer trucks from Exits 19 and 18, the Triple D zoned under-used office building on Greens Farms Road (for example) could become a key part of the high-population density, urbanization of Westport’s I-95 corridor transforming residential neighborhoods into access roads feeding our (potential) Hamlet.
I appreciate this state legislation being brought to our attention; thank you Danielle Dobin. The bill is disappointing on a number of levels, and I have written to our legislators.
The biggest disappointment however is the lack of engagement from our three elected state representatives. Where are these legislators when we need them? The second state issue in a month with no word from them. There are a ton of state issues engulfed in the Hamlet project as well. We need them to carry some water for Westport!
And there it is ….. if only P+Z had approved projects with one or two affordable units over the last 4 decades, we would be in a better position.
But we are not and it’s about to smack us in the face, and no “alliance” of misinformation can stop it.
Listening to commissioners make comments publicly like “I don’t care what comes next ” makes me think we deserve it.
500+ residential units in the area of the hamlet with ZERO parking will be on you commissioners! You might not be here to see it, but it will be this commission’s legacy.
I also implore Roan to find a way,….whatever it takes….. to adapt even more and get this mixed-use project passed and built. If not…. the next application will make Hamlet look small and have state law behind it, because who would go through this process after watching what transpired? Imagine giving parameters to design within and attempting to take it away mere weeks before the deadline.
There was a time when a Westport fireman with four children could live in town without his wife working. As a matter of fact, three of the children worked at the golf range in the summers. This was during the 1960s .
Respectfully Robbie, this legislation impacts every commercial parcel in town – not just Saugatuck – for automatic rezoning to multifamily without a hearing. And no, the town does not “deserve” this. In fact, the right of residents to engage in land use decisions – like the Alliance, like you do – is what’s at stake with regard to 400+ parcels of land. The whole point is that people in a town should have a say and this bill robs them of that. And no, this isn’t the fault of the P&Z. The P&Z approved a dozen mixed income multifamily projects with affordable housing over the last few years. The Gault project, Bedford Square, Belden Place, the Westporter, 785 Post Road East, the multifamily planned for behind the Clubhouse, etc. are all 20% affordable. Most Westporters have been very supportive with regard to diversifying housing in town. They deserve credit, not to be told Westport will be de-prioritized for state infrastructure funding.
I understand this is town/state wide and a huge overstep by Hartford. I intentionally made reference to decades of P+Z denials that westport is in fact known for. Luckily younger commissioners like yourself in the recent years have “loosened the reins”, hence the success you’ve had. But today….. right in front of us is the largest project in town ever and we have some control… for now. Hope you’re well. : )
In all fairness Danielle, permitting developers to build “top dollar” units and allowing the affordable component be shoved off in other areas and most assuredly not of equal standards, is hardly diversifying. It is also not enough of a financial penalty to the developers.
What should happen is a $ percentage of value of the units be spent on affordable, if in fact those deals continue.
In other words instead of 10 condos at 3 million each being let allocate 3 crappy houses to affordable housing somewhere else, they should spend 30% – $!9 million on affordable housing.
That seems fairer. Or how about they just have to put them all onsite.
I agree that this is a disaster of epic proportions for Westport, and other towns, and we should be all beating down the doors of Hartford to voice our displeasure.
It is however not going to happen in Saugatuck because those sites owners are looking for $$ far outside of the scope of 8-30g developers.
And like it or not since people drive cars and most won’t buy or lease an apt without parking, developers do tend to build in parking.
So this bill should not be used by anyone to create a false narrative, that it is the hamlet or affordable housing.
It is not.
Mr. Guimond
The Hamlet developers could probably incorporate some gorgeous affordable housing in a scaled down version of their development. I would love to see proposals from others on how they would incorporate affordable housing there on these highly prized and priced property lots.
The new state bill is bad, but equally bad is the town’s text amendment for Saugatuck Village. There is no 8-30g scare tactic that serves to allow the Hamlet as currently proposed.
The PZC should use every discretion in its power, including refusal to grant waivers, exceptions or any other side-winks on things such as setbacks, parking, flood and erosion, traffic, density, environmental remediation.
The text amendment, principally written by Mr. Bernheim, already allows more than it should. Only three of the sitting commissioners voted to approve it. Though RTM members did not vote to overturn it (except Sal Liccione), many are now speaking against the development as currently proposed.
The developers say they want to really “do something great” for Westport with their $400 million war chest. I have a suggestion: include some beautiful affordable housing, with adequate parking, onsite. And don’t require delivery and garbage trucks to play Twister in commuter lots.
Morning Toni,
There ARE affordable units, it’s part of the regulations.
If you’re still skeptical about the implications of this law, I suggest revisiting the above article , check out the P+Z archives from 11/21/22 at about an hour in, watch the next two floors go up on Post Road West,or have lunch at Fort Apache and enjoy the Wilton rd view.
These small setback Waivers(same as what built now) were not only discussed but also by design to enhance public space. While it may not include a garden or sports field, the focus has been on maximizing access to the River Front, which has successfully increased from 5,000 to 52,000 square feet—quite impressive!
The upzoning process involved collaboration with the P+Z and the community, not just the attorney, and it received overwhelming approval. Moreover, after thorough discussions, every RTM member signed off on it. (I see you Sal).
Please identify the RTM members who are now opposing this and wish to take risks, and we can meet at Haiwathia.
If this proposal is rejected, I suspect that future parking on the next application will be in a ground-level and second-level parking garage, along with railroad spots.
I’m not so sure Hartford approves of the “town sweeteners” to put affordable housing offsite. That’s a town deal, not a state deal.
I believe it came up at the meeting last Monday on Glendinning property, and sent Pete Redness into a total tail spin of defensiveness.
I’m not sure how many points the town will get for off site affordable housing. But that will soon be known.
As for this bill. It’s NOT going to effect Saugatuck because of the text ammendment which offers not far off the exact same “go around” of zoning, because it’s now been built into the text ammendment.
So as to not fear monger, no affordable housing 8-30g is going there in Saugatuck. The sites are too expensive now for any 8-30g. They will all be developed outside of 8-30g scope.
Let’s get that very straight so people are not misled or duped into submission.
As for no parking requirements.
No developer is selling anything even in an 8-30g unless people can park. So while they often don’t put in enough parking. That just means people can’t have a car I guess.
It is the egregious mixed use aspect of this hamlet and the irresponsible FAR which was PURPOSELY given in order to make it work for the developer which is screwing the traffic and parking for residents and commuters.
It is just more preposterous today than it was in 2022 as they figured out a way to squeeze even more density which PZ allowed for in the text ammendment, onto fewer sites.. thus having to buy and spend less money on as many sites, and come back and do a phase 2 on the sites not used in phase 1 equally as draconian as phase 1.
In my opinion this was the plan all along.. get the ammendment passed showing Godzilla and come back with King Kong when it’s d day.
Those of us, and again far more residents objected back then, than liked this.
A 1 bedroom apartment is 1 or 2 cars.
A 3,000 square foot restaurant is 150-200 cars, and under the “regulations “ of this text ammendment they need only count 3 cars. 🧐in what universe does that work ?
Do the math.
12 new restaurants, 30 plus retail, an event space with a food court. and hotel bars on rooftops etc.. it’s more than 3000 cars.
But the FAR allows for 277 underground stacker spaces total ? Come on !
So I believe I heard yesterday, a group is going to speak with the CTDOT, parking folks in Hartford ( who own the vast majority of railroad parking), on behalf of metro north users, commuters from not just Westport but surrounding towns.
They are proposing changes to the contract which will render the railroad parking to be for commuters using the railroad only, Monday to Friday 6-6.
That way the Hamlet will not be permitted to use the railroad parking during those hours. It will in 3 years likely be full anyway.
Nor will they be able to use their 24 hour valets to empty their parking garages in the middle of the night, into commuter spots before morning rush hour.
It won’t matter what gets passed down there with 277 parking spaces. It simply just won’t work after it’s built. Commuters WILL prevail in any pecking order.
Hamlet should come back with a less dense, less floors, project within its setbacks, with NO waivers, which has full approval for the marina, and waterside amenities.
After all a pre approval for a marina means absolutely nothing. They would be under no obligation to do the marina.
Also what will happen with the sites not in this phase should they be able to purchase them ?
A 200,000,00 dollar question.
Robbie, the affordable units are offsite- a gift to the developer. This I assume is why legislators in Hartford you’d think would never be in favor of the egregious 8-30g laws getting passed, are favoring them —- because they are in developers pockets.
Did you know according to state law, affordable must be onsite, and of equal quality and size. The definition of education and housing is covered in our constitution – I suppose for whatever that’s worth anymore… equal is not segregated. It’s patently clear.
None of this, oh let’s throw the affordable any old place. But god forbid in situ.
All to save the developer money..
it does not get us a better development it simply puts more money in their pockets.
Again should be a % of dollars.. not a % of units if they want it offsite..
Ok, next the overwhelming public back in 2022 was decidedly against this project.. I happened to be on all those conveniently ZOOM calls, AND, I’ve listened to them again.
There’s no 8-30g happening !the sites are too expensive for it !
This is all a big misleading lie !
Facts are facts.
And when Sal voted to overturn this travesty his vote represented 95% of this town.
On the other hand the cronies, ( the likes of Izzo and Tait and Mandell ) along with the police chief and PZ and most likely Tooker had been in non transparent non public meeting hashing this out unbeknownst to us, FOR 2 YEARS BEFORE WE EVER HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT IT.. since 2021, promising parking at railroad could be used, etc etc.. building them a dream text ammendment, then somehow persuaded 33 RTM to screw over the town residents BY REPRESENTING a handful of investors( lots of townies) and their family and friends.
NOT COOL.
5% of the town! Everyone else hated it then and it’s worse now.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER
SO PLEASE do not infer that the community was part of any of this text ammendment – we were NOT ! It was presented to us as a done deal ! Negotiated squarely behind our backs.
And we are still getting beat over the head with garbage about 8-30g in Saugatuck.
And how great the “imaginary” marina “might” be someday. Though it’s being sold as though it’s still there.
SAL was the only RTM with a pair of balls.
AND he was lobbied hard by the groups who so desperately wanted this. Called a liar.. etc.. I have not forgotten. Others too I hope.
So this bill, an absolute travesty, will NOT affect the sites in question down at Saugatuck.
But yes if it passes will destroy Westport.
We cannot blame the folks in need of affordable housing. It’s the politicians who are in the pockets of developers and their investors.
That’s who is to blame.
Robbie
There are NO onsite affordable housing units included in the proposal, unless there is another new update that I have yet to see. There are promises to have some somewhere else but not even these are documented yet.
So these tactics to find ways around the affordable housing “ask” is what got us into this mess in the first place. There is always a workaround, location-wise or demographically. Just do it.
Robbie. Do some math and come back with a fact-based point of view.
My point being, “one or two affordable units over the last 4 decades” is a drop in the bucket to get to the 10% (~1,000) affordable units. And ask yourself what happens when Westport gets to the 10%……My bet is that the state then raises it from 10% to 15%………8-30g has nothing to do with promoting AH. It is just a tool to give developers like Roan leverage…..
On top of which, units built before 1990 are not included in the calculation. Westport has a number of them … some in Saugatuck.
My point was, P+Z has religiously denied projects with one or two AH units up until recently years and not just westport, all the wealthy towns. Hell, we just got adu’s .. Why is that? but if you need a break down of how many approvals we would have needed to stop the development across from your home , maybe ask Ciara. Your frustration is just another example of state law abusing us, like on Wilton rd , Haiwathia and Post rd w. and it will continue, that’s why the map change was put in play, to keep some control.
From one “DD” to another, I appreciate Danielle Dobin’s contribution to the public discussion about this state legislative proposal encouraging affordable housing at the expense of any reasonable parking requirements and further erosion of the scope for local land-use policy decisions.
I worked (in a Midwestern state) for several years financing affordable housing. Affordable housing is a lifelong concern of several people in my family. The goal of the current proposal? Admirable. This prescription: Wrong. Go back to the drawing board to try again. That’s how it works in state legislatures across America. Sometimes the most important ideas have to cook for several years before finding the best prescription.
Commenter Dan Katz and others may be interested to learn that the concerns raised in this post by Ms. Dobin line up almost exactly with concerns expressed by the governing board of Connecticut’s largest city, Bridgeport.
https://onlyinbridgeport.com/wordpress/city-council-members-address-parking-requirements-at-state-capitol/
At the link above, you’ll be taken to “Only In Bridgeport,” published for more than a decade by Dan Woog’s community blogging colleague Lennie Grimaldi. You can read a letter to the Legislature from the Bridgeport City Council and statements made at the Capitol in Hartford by several councilors who participated in a news conference with leaders from other municipalities to oppose this proposal.
This is a rare case of near-perfect alignment between Bridgeport and Westport. Interchange “Bridge” and “West” in Ms. Dobin’s article and in the Bridgeport City Council’s letter and you’d be hard-pressed to know whether one or the other originated in which “port” community.
I am a Westporter who has lived for a decade in a downtown Bridgeport loft apartment. I care about both places.
To express your concern over this bill, you can also sign a petition organized by “CT169Strong” a grassroots organization. See here:
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
1) SEND OUR QUICK PETITION NOW – IT ONLY TAKES A MINUTE!
LINK HERE: http://ct169strong.org/petition-2025
NOTE: You can edit the petition to make it your own personal statement! If the petition doesn’t pop up in your email system, just cut and paste the draft language from the link, copy and paste your legislators and hit send! You also could see if there is an icon in your search bar at the top of your page that you can click on to disable the pop up blocker.
Where in the Constitution does it guarantee affordable housing for all? Either get a better paying job or move to a less expensive area.
This is what you get when you elect liberal “big government” politicians.
Thank you to Danielle for her diligence, her commitment to Westport, and for raising awareness about these important issues.
Thank you for sharing this.
Thank you Danielle Dobin for bringing this to our attention and all of your hard work on behalf of Westport!
disgusting that the legislators are still in the developers pockets… this looks like further expansion of 830g, especially with having to pay the attorney fees. 830g should be scrapped and something better that protects the towns/land be figured out.
Not reason to believe this isn’t an accurate summary. If correct, truly amazing legislation proposed. I’m sure a lot of lobbying time and $ went into this. Another example of where no one is well served by a one party state – regardless of which party. That’s one, if not THE one, root cause of such proposals. Opposing a bill is fine, certainly one as ludicrous as this one, but more will come so long as the Club in Hartford remains in power.
WHEN DO WE ADDRESS TRAFFIC!!!! Needs to be fixed. We added an affordable housing at a busy intersection already, which is ridiculous. We could have made another lane over the bridge in town where the Vita building is, and that was declined. Traffic is our biggest problem, and so far we have just made it worse.
Adam, It needed to be fixed before you were born. However, no more 18 wheeler trucks since 1958! Going from Maine to Miami? You’ll pass right through Westport center!
Jack although true and upsetting you just made me laugh out loud!
Danielle, thank you for always sharing pertinent information, being transparent, and staying engaged for Westport!
As a former Weston/Westport resident who lives in Darien, I stay in touch with your town through Dan’s blog. Thanks to Ms. Dobin’s letter, I’m now aware of HB 5002. Darien’s State Senator, Bob Duff, whom I otherwise admire, has his name on it, which makes me look dumb by validating what my Republican friends have been saying about him for years. Ironically, just this week Darien’s Republican First Selectman had lunch with the Governor and came away with the impression that he was impressed by the progress we have made with affordable housing. In addition to your State Reps and State Senator, let the Governor know you oppose this bill as overreach. Spread the word to friends in neighboring towns. Thank you Ms. Dobin!
Thank you Danielle and also Matt Mandell for his writings on this topic. To me, this legislation reflects a fundamental view as to what suburban towns should look like and function. The issues are legitimate. I only hope that any State legislation that is actually adopted does not destroy many of the underling and positive concepts that are present in how Westport has and will evolve. I do not know how to approach this, whether to object forcefully or to seek accommodations as to the interests of all CT towns, whether Stamford, Westport, Bridgeport or Stonington.
Thank you for this post. Please Westporters, we need to make sure that Westport is not vulnerable to permanent “flooding “ of cars and overdevelopment!! You cannot go back once the damage is done. Protect Westport.
Thank you for this heads up post. I just wrote to each of our representitaves.
Thank you Danielle (and others)!
Where are the environmental groups given that this must be impacting wetlands in some way/shape/form, not to mention traffic (cars idling in congested intersections), waste, etc.? In my former state of CA, it would take years of permitting and environmental impact studies to add a sink in your home, but as soon as a 2 million sq foot “multi-use” facility was contemplated, the wetlands were flattened, stripped, and built upon within months, without a peep.
That lawsuit component of this bill sure is suspicious too.
All this makes a person wonder: who IS benefitting from this?
Either way, not really interested in having beautiful New England towns (particularly Westport) transformed into Stamford, Juniors.
House Bill 5002 introduces provisions that would override local zoning decisions, effectively transferring control from municipal planning and zoning commissions to state-level mandates. This shift disregards the unique needs and characteristics of our 169 towns and cities, each of which has developed zoning regulations reflective of their individual communities. As noted by State Senator Tony Hwang, such legislation threatens the principle of “home rule,” leaving local land control “hanging by thread.”
The bill’s push for increased housing density without adequate consideration of existing infrastructure strains resources such as water, sewage, and transportation systems. Moreover, it risks altering the architectural and historical character of neighborhoods, as local authorities would have diminished capacity to guide development in a manner consistent with the community.
By allowing certain developments “as of right,” House Bill 5002 eliminates the requirement for public hearings and special permits in specific cases. This removal of public input denies residents a voice in decisions that directly affect their communities, leading to developments that may not align with local interests or needs .
Mandating higher-density housing without local oversight could lead to overdevelopment, threatening open spaces and environmental sustainability. Local zoning regulations have historically balanced growth with conservation, a balance that this bill jeopardizes .
While the goal of increasing affordable housing is commendable, it should not come at the expense of local governance, community character, and environmental integrity. I urge you to reconsider the provisions of House Bill 5002 that undermine local zoning authority and to work collaboratively with municipalities to develop solutions that respect and preserve the unique qualities of each community.
The above is my email sent to our State Representatives this morning. Hopefully they will standup to this huge overreaching legislation!
This bill is a direct product of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, sprinkled with a giant portion of one party progressives control a capped with a serving of greedy developers who lobby and influence their way through Hartford with well disguised gifts!
If most Connecticut residents and businesses wnat to really lift this failing State they had better stop eating the Spoiled Cake described above, place party politics in a dumpster and start quickly taking control of Hartford with a new population of non aligned, intelligent, and common sense individuals who will really Govern this State with foresighted efforts to replace the disasterous mess that runs this sick bakery in Hartford!
This sounds like a Trump move: “Do what I say, or I’ll withhold funding”. Disgusting.
HB 5002 is what happens when one party dominates a state for 30 plus years. The moderate Democrat is no longer in charge of Hartford.
Westport has always been a leader in forward thinking when it comes to affordable housing. We have received zero housing credits for our past projects like Hales Court, Trailer Park, and Canal Park.
The only people who can stop this hijacking of our state is the CT Moderate Democrat.
The same can be said about Washington. The Moderate Republican needs step up, and win.
This proposed bill is partisan politics, somewhat as bad as what we are seeing and living with in Washington.
The big losers are all of us who sit in the middle, regardless of our party affiliation.
Mr Izzo:
Exactly. Connecticut and the entire nation need to drag today’s political zealot forces back to the middle of good public benefit and throw the “Crazies” in both parties out of office and practice across the aisle equal and responsible governance!
We can and should start at the midterms and continue on until all the rats are off the ship! SUPPORT AND VOTE STUPID, YOU GET STUPID! PARTIES AND POLITICS SHOULD NOT MATTER!