The end of the line seems near for the Hamlet at Saugatuck — the controversial project in and around the Westport train station.
“06880” reporter John H. Palmer writes:
And then there was one ….
One more week, that is, before Westport finally finds out if the Hamlet development in Saugatuck will be approved, or if the developers will follow through with a promised 8-30g affordable housing development instead.
The Planning & Zoning Commission Monday night came one step closer to making a decision about the embattled waterfront development that could bring a multi-use development of 11 buildings, including retail, hotel and residential buildings between the Saugatuck River, Charles Street, Franklin Street and Railroad Place.
A final vote on the application by ROAN Ventures will take place next Monday, (July 28). Based on a straw count taken last night, the Hamlet application likely will be denied by a vote of 4-3.
Commissioners Paul Lebowitz, Michael Calise, Amy Wistreich and Patrizia Zucaro voiced disapproval of the project. Neil Cohn, Breann Injeski and Michael Cammeyer voted in favor.
Aerial rendering of the Hamlet project. Railroad Place is at the bottom; Riverside Avenue and the Saugatuck River are on the right.
The night began with a motion by Zucaro, seconded by Calise, to flat-out deny the application. Chairman Lebowitz, on advice from town attorney Ira Bloom, steered the meeting to focus on discussion of why the project should be denied.
Feedback gained will be used by P&Z director Michelle Perillie to draft a final resolution that will be voted on at next Monday’s meeting.
Much of Monday night’s evening focused around final discussions about why the developers did not meet the requirements of the 2022 text amendment, which was passed to steer the development of the project.
Lebowitz said several times that he felt that developers waited until the last minute to address concerns about the application regarding traffic, parking, waterfront access, building density and architectural issues.
“It’s a terrible way to do an application. This whole thing has been a terrible way,” he said. “It almost seemed like we were creating the application, not them.”
Cohn, who has publicly announced that he will not seek reelection, said he had reservations about denying the application. He would have preferred to see the application withdrawn to give the developers more chance to address public concerns brought up during hearing process.
“When we asked for something, they were responsive,” he said. “I care about doing the right thing, more than I do about my political career. Legally, we’ve been told they comply. After 3 years of this process, I don’t know how we can deny it.”
Earlier this year, ROAN officials showed how the Hamlet’s height would compare to National Hall downtown.
He added he is worried that a denial will affect how developers view the way that Westport handles development, and how that may affect the way the town attracts future development.
The P&Z has been in a 65-day, legally mandated deliberation period since closing the hearing portion of the application June 18, with a final decision legally required by August 20.
ROAN Ventures has said they would come back with a 500-unit affordable housing development if the Hamlet is denied.
Three massive buildings, 8 stories tall – 6 floors of housing, above 2 for parking – would be constructed on the Hamlet footprint. As an 8-30g development, the town would have far less say regarding parking and other issues surrounding the development.
(“06880” has followed the long Hamlet debate — and will continue to report on Saugatuck’s future. If you appreciate our coverage, please clikc here to support our work.
So the options are the Hamlet project or 500 affordable units at the most prized real estate in town. Hmmmmm
So you can enjoy parroting back extortionists without employing critical thinking skills. Helpful.
If P&Z vote against the Hamlet project then they will have little to no say about a 500 unit affordable housing structure that would be more massive and create more traffic and not be as nice. Hmm… is that really the best for Westport? I have to drive thru this area every day from Saugatuck shores and while the traffic is already bad, I would prefer the lovely hamlet multi use situation than a busier affordable housing structure which will create much needed housing, but be even more traffic and not as conducive for people who live nearby to benefit from. Having the hamlet built will bring more commerce to the area and varied times of busy traffic. Having the 500 residences will add much more traffic mostly at commuting times for everyone.
Dan..You seem to feel that that is an either or situation. To the best of my knowledge the Hamlet folks don’t yet own any of these properties. I assume that they have options to buy if they get all their ducks in order? I’m pretty sure that so far their only purchase has been two small islands off of Norwalk. I seriously don’t think that they would exercise those options to build affordable housing as it would not be economically feasible. Am I wrong?
Dave, I believe (not positive) they have said that a 500-unit housing complex would be MORE financially viable, given that only 20% need to be 8-30g affordable.
Dan,
Are we now living in a world where it is acknowledged that real estate developers are the most honest and trustworthy people out there? Without an independent review of their financial projections (which would never happen), simply parroting back what they say is not helpful. It is just an opinion.
I appreciate the work here of John H. Palmer, and all of 06880, but it would have been great to have read the sentence “This reporter asked to review the underlying financial projections used to make this assertion, but was denied access to their projections.” Without that, any statement ssuch as “a 500-unit housing complex would be MORE financially viable” is simply repeating of an opinion.
And 8-30g requires 30% affordable, built to the same size and construction standards as the Market Price units, not 20%.
It’s 30% not 20% and no, it is not more financially viable.
The threat also shows EXACTLY who ROAN really are and what this was all about. The Benjamins $.
Good luck to them building almost 1000 parking spots when they can’t come up with 300 presently.
And every one of the market and affordable rate units must be identical in size and fit and finish,share the same entryways and mixed throughout, not relegated to some dark corner of the development like the great unwashed.
Same access to parking, same access to amenities, same granite countertops, and bathroom tile.
Or Roan can take another look and come up with a lovely New England style far smaller development, with enough parking for owners, visitors and staff.
They can trim their profit. Integrate the waterfront.
Had they done this to begin with it likely would have passed.
Unadulterated greed is why this appears to be likely to receive a NO vote.
Ciara,
Are you aware of the antisemitic trope that you just used here, or worse, do you not care? Are you aware of how many Jews live in Westport and eat at your belived Nomade? I will be sure to screenshot and share this one.
Ms Frankel..I just reread Ciara’s comment(s) a couple of times. What are you talking about?
wow….educate us or dial this one back…
Very curious to know what I said that was anti semitic. I see others are equally confused. It was certainly not deliberate.
I am the least antisemitic person in this town. I, in fact go out of my way to share posts ON A DAILY basis about the hostages, and my unwavering support for Israel, and Jews. I’ll bet far more often than you do.
I am a true supporter and go out of my way to share the injustice especially since October 7th.
If I used some phrase that you consider to be anti Jewish then I sincerely apologize and please do educate me. As for threatening my business, grow the f up !
I am not remotely antisemitic. Far FAR from it.
Italians claim “great unwashed” so perhaps it was a comment about parking?
I have gone down a rabbit hole…
(Having also been befuddled by the strange accusation.)
Edward Bulwer-Lytton first used “the great unwashed” in his 1830 novel “Paul Clifford,” which even more famously began with the phrase, “It was a dark and stormy night!”
Bulwer-Lytton also was the first to write, “the pen is mightier than the sword” in his 1839 play “Richelieu.” (I’d have thought it was Shakespeare!)
Anyhoo, the person who made the same claim likes asking a BOE candidate about their position on the ADL (in comment sections). When I first saw that, I thought she meant DEI. It seems like an odd BOE concern to me, but seems on-brand to me, now. (And I don’t even support said candidate.)
When the masks came off Dave, the threat of 8-30g began, mostly to fear monger some support for their monstrosity.
There is undoubtedly a profitable way forward for the developers to build something shorter and less dense, and with a lot less mixed use.
Less profitable yet still profitable.
But now we all know the truth, that it was all about $$$$. All of it.
It doesn’t comply. No waterfront use, not enough parking x1000 plus.. nowhere to load and unload, and what appears to be a “bypass operation” for parking. Which means taking parking in the railroad from commuters. “Conditions” do not have to be allowed. ESP unreasonable ones.
market units and affordable units are unsellable without parking spots. Permits aside, anybody buying an apt wants a guaranteed parking spot, and guest parking.
It doesn’t matter what 8-30g “allows”, no developer is selling units without adequate parking, no matter what they threaten.
Threats and reality are 2 very different matters.
Vote FOR the Hamlet, already! I live here in Saugatuck within a five minute walk from this proposed beautiful little village. what will we say in the future when we go to dinner at one of the great restaurants in the area and have to look at hundreds of block apartment complexes blighting the area? Have some guts and vote for The Hamlet!
Mr Dodig..By now we are all aware that you live within a five minute stroll of the Saugatuck area restaurants. However 98 percent of the town needs to navigate the area by automobile. Many of us feel that this is anything but “a beautiful little village.”. As far as “hundreds of block apartment complexes blighting the area” none of these properties have yet been purchased. I don’t see any developer buying these properties to build affordable housing as it does not make economic sense…
Y E S
This pending decision should come as no shocking surprise to ROAN as many of the investors I understand are Westporters.
Nor should ROAN be surprised that Westporters have reacted to
affordable housing alternative—- Westporters have always supported a diverse community and affordable housing is needed to keep this thriving town diverse!
My understanding is that ROAN already owns the properties in Saugatuck and can pursue an 8-30g development in lieu of the Hamlet if they want. Is that incorrect? Presumably ROAN could sell the properties to another developer that has no ties or loyalties to Westport that could do the same? Why this overwhelming distrust of ROAN?
how do they own them when the town records do not reflect any ownership changes? you can see for yourself online. use the GIS tool or vision appraisal.
I understand that ROAN is under contract to acquire the intended parcels, but I haven’t seen evidence yet that they have exercised purchase options or completed purchases—at least as publicly reported.
Thank you to the P &Z. This is the right outcome for the right reasons. The job of the P&Z is to vote on the application in front of them. Not to speculate ,and not to vote about “what if’s…”. Roan had every opportunity to produce models. They did not. The architectural Review Board unanimously voted against it. Things in Hartford change all the time. An election is coming up and 8-30g is a hot potato for many towns, not just Westport. But to vote based on threats and fear about what could happen, while possibly with good intentions, is not doing the job of an elected P&Z official.
Whether affordable housing is built is not relevant or applicable to P&Z’s denial of the Hamlet application. P&Z correctly identified the many problems with the project (traffic, valet parking, loading, overall mass and size) and denied the application based on the negative impact it would have on, not just Saugatuck, but the entire town in perpetuity. I also appreciate that P&Z Board member Amy Wistreich pointed out that the images and renderings that ROAN presented and were then attached to the text amendment were completely different from what they subsequently sought approval to build. A classic bait and switch tactic. Kudos to P&Z for all of their hard work and for making the right decision.
i agree that roan will not want to do 830g and that any threat of such as borderline extortion/bullying/just not a good look. i will reiterate other ideas: 1) a development like the gault one done nearby with some retail space and some apartments, much more fitting and palatable but won’t make Roan and their investors the benjamins, 2) town eminent domains the land and makes the whole area into open space/town stuff, 3) Roan actually acts like good partners and someone does independent assessments of traffic, parking, safety, and the alike, then works from that point to see what can fit, versus the random proposal of some behemoth of a development that just doesn’t work or pass any sniff tests. All viable options. Just been getting the sense that people want to roll over and be strong armed (or may be helping out their buddies pushing it through – no i dont have any evidence).
It is no harm for developers to be wary of investing in Westport as a result of this outcome.
We don’t want any Tom, Dick, or Harry sauntering into our town and doing land grabs to build oversized massively profitable developments, especially down by the water in Saugatuck, but quite frankly anywhere, and to the utter detriment of the residents.
I think this potential No Vote tells developers, Westport is not a pushover. We are wide awake.
Threats will not work, and are disrespectful.
It is also a message to Westport residents who are investors in this kind of development.
And let it be a very clear message to the Rtm ‘ers who voted for it.
I believe with the exception of Sal Liccione who educated himself on every aspect of this, and was a NO vote, and Matthew Mandell who either abstained or recused himself, every other rtm’er voted for this text amendment.
SMH
All I can say is – see what you did !
That vote did NOT represent constituents.
Stay wide awake for the latest text amendment being asked for by the developer of the Gables.
It’s currently being looked at and it’s another DISASTER.
It has no place in our zoning laws.
It’s a GIMME GIMME GIMME for developers and a shafting for affordable housing.
Interesting that, more or less the same commissioners who appear poised to vote against the Hamlet are also relatively speaking against this other amendment.
And the commissioners who are for Hamlet are also pushing for a yes vote on this new text amendment.
Please do not forget about this important topic.
It is vital that it be denied.
Ciara, This is a great point
“I think this potential No Vote tells developers, Westport is not a pushover. ”
I am not sure what world Neil Cohn is living in when as “he is worried that a denial will affect how developers view the way that Westport handles development, and how that may affect the way the town attracts future development.”
A denial should never be made to Send a Message, and the defects in this application have been well documented during the hearing. But if this denial sends the message that you can no longer take advantage of Westport, that is an amazing side benefit.
First, I want to commend the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Committee for their thoughtful and diligent work in reviewing the Hamlet proposal. This was no easy task. They worked closely with the developers in an effort to create something that would serve the interests of all stakeholders. In the end, the proposal fell short – but the P&Z commitment to the process and to the town of Westport did not.
They took the time to listen to residents, homeowners and commuters, ensuring that our voices were heard and considered. For that I am grateful.
In response to the question, “What will developers think about Westport?”- the answer is simple: they will know that Westport has a strong and principled P&Z Committee that understands the town’s values and will not yield to external pressure. Unlike areas such as East Norwalk, where development appears to be driven more by outside interests than by community needs, Westport can take pride in a P&Z that stands firm for what the town truly wants.
This moment presents a valuable opportunity to pursue the right kind of development in Saugatuck – development that reflects the character and vision of our town. With more time and thoughtful planning, we can achieve that.
The John Palmer?
Erstwhile Westport Journal correspondent?
First ever Journal/06880 segue?
Former Journal editor. And thank you for the reference, as if I’m actually important!
I and many others sought changes to the zoning change that was approved several years ago, changes that would have resulted in a far better project. We were unsuccessful, but now, it appears the P&Z Commission will re rejecting this application. I am delighted and pleased that over time our Town has realized that the prior action was faulty. I am not sure why the Commission changed its view, but am pleased.
Hey, Everybody!
Let us posit that the proposed Hamlet development (HA) is faulty for a lot of reasons. (Hold your nose.) The developer’s fall back plan –the Soviet-style block (HB) — is way way worse and will reap them more Profit as it is simpler to build. (Hold your nose, cover your eyes & ears & mouth.) Which one will add to the Quality of Life in Saugatuck?
HA. That the developers are deliberately blackmailing P&Z and The Town into approval is a sadness but a political Fact of Life — until 8-30g is repealed or modified at Hartford. Every CT town/city is as vulnerable to this legal blackmailing as Westport is now. Failure to approve HA will mean taking ROAN to court over HB and — as a common wisdom previously expressed here has it — losing.
If the Unnamed Zoning Board attorney has no plan to offer the commissioners on how to defeat the 8-30g building, then he must advise a yes on the current plan’s approval. Sad as that is. He also needs to advise P&Z on what measures to implement NOW based on this experience to prevent another Hamlet-like mess. (Something is indeed rotten in Denmark.)
Also, Unnamed Attorneys to town boards need to be NAMED & their backgrounds made part of the reporting. They have this UN-elected power, and, as we know, with great power comes great responsibility.
As another fictional character of note says : That it should come to this.
Presumably the unnamed attorney is “town Attorney Ira Bloom” who was referenced in the article advising the Chair of the P&Z. And, presumably he is the one that provided the advice that led to the comment from one P&Z member “Legally, we’ve been told they comply”.
Attorney Bloom is not hard to find on the Internets. Apparently well respected.
Of course, I suppose, there could be someone else not referenced in the article.
Robert — While the threat of an 8-30g fallback with Roan after the expected P&Z denial becomes official on 7/28 is certainly a possibility, it’s hard to decipher just how viable this second option is for Roan. The jury is out on how many, if any, of the parcels in the planned Saugatuck development zone Roan actually owns. I believe they were in several options to purchase situations, though even this status is murky. I think it’s a risky leap to think that if the developer’s option A fails, option B of an 8-30g becomes a de facto reality. I’m not saying that couldn’t happen, it’s just not a lay-up. Like so much of Roan’s misadventures with this application, the lack of transparency as to where things stand . And I disagree, the Hamlet never passed the sniff test and would severely impact the quality of life in Saugatuck and Westport overall.
[sorry, incomplete second to last sentence, now corrected]
Robert — While the threat of an 8-30g fallback with Roan after the expected P&Z denial becomes official on 7/28 is certainly a possibility, it’s hard to decipher just how viable this second option is for Roan. The jury is out on how many, if any, of the parcels in the planned Saugatuck development zone Roan actually owns. I believe they were in several options to purchase situations, though even this status is murky. I think it’s a risky leap to think that if the developer’s option A fails, option B of an 8-30g becomes a de facto reality. I’m not saying that couldn’t happen, it’s just not a lay-up. Like so much of Roan’s misadventures with this application, the lack of transparency as to where things stand is stunning. And I disagree, the Hamlet never passed the sniff test and would severely impact the quality of life in Saugatuck and Westport overall.
The most important acknowledgement to make upon reading this article, is, that whether or not the commission has been told by Attorney Bloom, or someone else, the Hamlet complies, it most certainly DOES NOT.
And not by any stretch of the imagination.
To say they comply would be indefensible in a court of law.
They do not. NO new marina, nothing like the parking requirements etc.. as dictated clearly in the already ludicrous and unrealistic text amendment.
This is a bluff plain and simple.
It is an enormous conflict of interest for our elected town boards, and RTM, to not have their own legal council. Not tied in any way to the administration.
I sincerely hope that this will be addressed going forward.
in my opinion the “town attorney” should represent only the administration.
Every candidate running for election should be questioned hard on this topic. It is vital this changes.
It is impossible for our elected town boards to operate as a check and balance, when the one attorney is giving his/her point of view, and that point of view always supports the administrations view.