Don O’Day is a former Board of Education chair. He led the Coleytown Middle School renovation, and currently serves on the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) and Long Lots School Building Committee.
Andrea Moore is Westport’s 2nd selectwoman. She is a former Board of Finance vice chair and former RTM member.
They are running on the Republican ticket for the Board of selectmen. In the wake of last night’s Planning & Zoning Commission decision on The Hamlet at Saugatuck, they say:
ROAN Ventures’ proposal to build a mixed-use waterfront development called The Hamlet was denied by the Planning & Zoning Commission last night.
This has been a long and difficult process — for Westport residents, the P&Z, and ROAN Ventures. But make no mistake: Last night’s decision by the P&Z is not the end of the road. Far from it.
The Hamlet plan was denied last night. But discussion of what comes next for Saugatuck will continue.
Westport’s leaders, property owners and residents must now consider the next steps. The O’Day–Moore campaign for selectmen sees two:
The applicant withdraws and resubmits a new Hamlet proposal.
This is our preferred outcome.
Very often, a denial — however frustrating — is simply one step on the road to a mutually agreeable solution. Come November, Westport will have new members and leadership across our local government. With new faces may come fresh thinking, and new ideas should be on the table. Thoughtful suggestions recently offered by several respected members of the community deserve serious evaluation.
Let’s also acknowledge that developers seek a return on investment. Investor profitability isn’t about greed; it is a basic reality of business — but by no means guaranteed. It is why people risk personal capital.
The O’Day–Moore campaign views this moment not as a final rejection, but as an opportunity to move forward constructively, with the knowledge that development in the Saugatuck area is a positive outcome. Importantly, the O’Day–Moore pledge is that all development must consider the myriad concerns raised by residents during the many hearings held on this issue.
The applicant moves ahead with a large-scale 8-30g project.
We hope this does not happen.
First and foremost, threats — explicit or implied — make resolution harder. We urge a tone of collaboration, not confrontation.
As we all know, Connecticut’s 8-30g statute allows developers to bypass local zoning regulations in towns where less than 10% of housing is considered affordable. A massive 8-30g development in Saugatuck could place significant strain on Westport’s infrastructure—particularly our schools, roads and other vital services.
One possible 8-30g proposal for Saugatuck.
ROAN Ventures’ Hamlet proposal was not presented under the terms of the 8-30g statute. Therefore, it went through a robust local process where zoning protections applied.
Losing local control through a state override is not in our town’s best interest.
Let us be clear: Affordable housing must be part of Westport’s future. If elected, the O’Day–Moore team is committed to working with the Planning & Zoning Commission to promote an affordable housing provision in town and a cohesive zoning plan for Westport.
On Traffic: Let’s Try Solutions — Now
Traffic in Saugatuck is a known and daily frustration. Commuters rushing to or from the train experience it. So do parents, business owners and visitors.
Interestingly, the Hamlet proposal included ideas to reduce congestion while adding density — something that may sound counterintuitive but merits exploration. Proposals such as smart traffic-light management (via remote monitoring), converting one-way streets to two-way, or other design tweaks deserve immediate consideration.
If we can implement even a few of these ideas and they help — why wait?
ROAN Ventures offered several ideas for traffic mitigation and improvement.
A Path Forward
Reopening this discussion will require a willingness to begin again — by both sides. A reassessment period makes sense. Then let’s return to the table with a shared goal: smart planning for Westport’s future.
Let’s find a collaborative path forward.
Pathetic to hear from these two now, AFTER all the heavy lifting has been done by the brave souls on the PZC (including their challenger Amy Wistreich), and, importantly, the citizens of Westport, the Saugatuck Alliance, and the Architectural Review Board.
When it comes after the fact, this OpEd by The Republican ticket for Selectmen is cowardly political campaign pap. Where were they when it mattered?
Where was the collaboration for the Community Garden by either Moore or O’Day? Where was the collaboration on the O’Day tax of $110 million? Where was the collaboration in the O’Day outcry over his alleged “purloined” financial data?
Bleh.
I could not agree with you more Toni.
In 2023 on January 18th the Westport Journal reported:
“Bucking public input, RTM upholds Saugatuck rezoning”
Don O’Day, among others was quoted. His words, not mine.
“The majority of my district 3 constituents made it clear to me that they are against this proposal. But my job is to do more than read and respond to emails. It’s to make the best decision I can make with the facts as I know them”.
https://westportjournal.com/government/bucking-public-input-rtm-upholds-saugatuck-rezoning/
Don was amongst 33 RTM who chose to ignore the wishes of majority of their constituents.
IMO, that’s like asking your plastic surgeon for a pair of C’s and waking up to DD’s because he/she chose not to listen, or thought they knew better.
The very least we should demand is that in a democracy our elected officials listen to their constituents, whose votes they solicit, and then do as they are asked.
Sal Liccione, district 9, was the sole RTM who listened to his constituents and respectfully voted to overturn the disastrous text amendment.
That text amendment should be repealed immediately.
No more need be said.
Thank you, Toni.
Good start 🇺🇸
In his clumsy, arrogant mishandling of the Long Lots school process , Mr. O’Day demonstrated an utter disregard for inclusion, collaboration and/or due process. I see no reason to believe that he’s had an epiphany since then.
For a ticket where their party is currently in power and the second selectperson is running for re-election this response is very passive. Is Roan just doing these things to the town or is our leadership working closely and exerting all of their power to getting to a better Saugatuck for citizens, developers and workers? Most people aren’t saying that Saugatuck should see no changes, but town leaders should be playing an active role in the process. While I appreciate the O’Day ticket making some comment (unlike the current administration’s plan of waiting until there is a photo op), the content of the message seems like a continuation of the passivity we’ve seen on development and traffic issues for the past 4 years. “We hope this won’t happen”? Ok, so what are you planning to do about it?
Thank you, O’Day & Moore, for your thoughtful response. It’s a perspective that deserves continued exploration, and I appreciate your ongoing efforts to find a solution.
The redevelopment of Saugatuck—the Hamlet—was a well-conceived plan and a tremendous opportunity for the Town of Westport. Beyond revitalizing a long-neglected area, it would bring new businesses, create jobs, and generate revenue that could help support the town’s future without resorting to steep tax increases.
I believe the majority of residents would favor a thoughtful redevelopment over an 8-30g project—an option that ROAN only introduced at the final hearing, as part of its fiduciary duty to investors. Throughout the process, ROAN has been transparent and collaborative. The P&Z had an opportunity to help shape a more constructive outcome. Hopefully, the door remains open, and as you noted, a fair and equitable path forward can still emerge.
Mr. Katz..ROAN has been anything but “transparent and collaborative”..Let’s not forget that they (ROAN) never existed prior to this endeavor. Quite frankly I don’t trust them and haven’t from the get go..
Thanks for the reply — and please feel free to call me Marc.
It’s disappointing to hear you feel this way, especially given how open and accessible ROAN has been throughout this process. Their doors were always open, and they consistently invited anyone interested to come down, review the plans, and discuss concerns. From the beginning, they intended this to be a community-driven effort.
Full disclosure: I’ve been an investor since the outset and am also a long time Westport resident. Before seeking any outside investment, the ROAN team — all local residents themselves — spent significant time discussing their vision with people from all corners of town, including informal conversations with local board members. They offered site tours upon request and shared their evolving plans repeatedly, incorporating feedback directly from the community and the boards.
It’s hard to argue they haven’t been transparent or collaborative. This was a long-overdue investment in an underutilized area between I-95 and the train tracks — a part of town that deserved something meaningful. And it had the potential to be just that: something truly special.
I only wish more Westporters had taken the time to learn about the full scope of the project and the many thoughtful revisions made over the years. If they had, perhaps more people would have recognized the value, the effort, and the spirit of collaboration behind the Hamlet — rather than being swayed by the noise and misinformation.
At the end of the day, we’re all Westporters — whether we’ve been here 70 years, 40 years, or new to the town. Regardless of where this all ends up, it’s important that we continue to treat each other with respect and civility. You never know — the next person you share a beer with at the Duck might be me.
Marc, Really? This makes me wonder if you and the rest of the ROAN investment team have been paying attention.
The vast majority of people who spoke up at public hearings and have commented here have simply said: Too big and not appropriate. And the P&Z denied it with their justifications clearly outlined.
And in the end you and the rest of the ROAN investment team decided that the 8-30g Threat Hail Mary pass in the final seconds was your final best option. The P&Z did not succumb to this extortionist tactic, and now you want to play the civility card. Nice try. This whole process should have been stopped by the last P&Z and RTM at the text amendment stage.
John, It seems you may have missed the intent of my initial response. I was replying to the O’Day and Moore post in an effort to keep a constructive dialogue open—not to draw a hard line or say “no.”
I believe the majority of Westport residents support a thoughtful redevelopment of this area and would not favor an 8-30g outcome. That was never ROAN’s intent, nor the basis of our investment. However, given the site’s location and the many challenges—remediation, conservation, infrastructure—it cannot simply be a “fit for purpose” project. It needs to be something special and well-conceived to transform the space into a true destination, rather than a transient corridor anchored by a dry cleaner, mechanic, and a few surviving restaurants.
I’ve attended all the hearings, either in person or via Zoom, and I’m well aware of the concerns that have been raised—as well as the extensive measures ROAN has taken, including engaging consultants, to address those concerns. The question is whether those efforts were genuinely heard or if the narrative has been shaped by recycled talking points.
I remain hopeful that P&Z, along with other town officials and consultants who once supported the Hamlet but have since changed course, will stay open to a fair and balanced path forward. To date, I haven’t seen a more thoughtful or viable alternative.
I commend O’Day and Moore for continuing to engage with maturity and a spirit of collaboration.
That said, if a well-executed 8-30g is ultimately what satisfies the state’s mandate and protects more suitable neighborhoods from bearing the burden, then it may prove to be the most practical outcome.
Again, you throw up 8-30g, as the either/or option.
This is not a position of someone who is seriously interested in negotiating in a “civil” and “mature” manner.
It is the smooth language of bullying developers with $1,500 an hour attorneys. This is page 79 out of their playbook: ride into a town and use fear-based language to convince the cowering population to acquiesce to the perceived lesser of two evils. You picked the wrong town.
John, it’s okay to agree to disagree — after all, we’re all neighbors and longtime residents. As for me, my family moved here from Norwalk in 1985, and I’m confident I chose the right town to call home.
I’ve supported progress in Westport, including the lights at Staples, the tanks on North Avenue (both near my home), the pickleball courts, and the restroom facilities. I’ll continue to support initiatives that help move our town forward.
I appreciate your service to the community and sincerely hope there’s still room for a constructive dialogue to avoid an 8-30g outcome. If it does come to that, however, it’s clear the town will have lost control of the process.
I am not disagreeing with you. I am saying that I think what you and the other ROAN investors were trying to do bad. And that your tactics are reprehensible.
Maybe I’ve been asking the wrong people, but no one has been able to explain to me the Town’s strategy with respect to 8-30g. Do we know what the magic number is to get us over the 10% hump? Does the number continue to grow with each 8-30g project approval, considering that these projects add “regular units” to our stock, with only a small percentage of the new units being deemed affordable, thereby decreasing our percentage deficiency meaningfully? Is there any plan to be more proactive about this? Or are we just hoping that this law will change someday?
Should be a “not” in front of “decreasing” and probably a period to break up that clunky sentence.
It’s about 600 more affordable units. That’s a lot for both the town and the market to absorb.
Every multi-family development is required to provide 20% affordable units, and if it’s specifically an 8-30g project, it’s 30%.
So while the numerator continues to grow with each and every unit, the goal does get slightly closer because it’s 20% or 30% and not just 10%.
Will be interesting to see after denying The Hamlet if P&Z pushes back on the developer’s requested amendment to allow for affordable units to be warehoused off site.
You are right David, we are probably 160 units away from a moratorium.
As for affordable offsite, the only winner is the developer and their investors because instead of having to do same size and same quality finishes on offsite ( as mandated by the state) the town governs off site affordable housing and it is nothing like the state standard- in fact it is in some cases disgraceful, the standard the town allows.
Here are 2 perfect examples,
The development at the mill which was going to have to do 7 onsite units ( 1.5-2 million each unit)
Developers did a “deal” – hailed god only knows why as a screaming success.
The deal- in lieu of 7 onsite units at the mill- along with the amenities, like a pool, those affordable housing recipients would have benefited from, the developer purchased a “town owned” property for a fraction of its worth !
It is on riverside Avenue beside the school. They renovated it, and put 5/6 units into the 1 house.
FREEING up 7 units at market rate.
A shocking decision. The town should have renovated that house on Riverside themselves and we’d have 7 more affordable units at the mill !
Financial benefit to the developer of at least 5 million extra profit !
But the real shocker is the officials in this town consider that a “coup”. I guess if you say it often enough people believe you. Basically the tax payer subsidizes the offsite units by selling them a building we owned.
Next up !
The units which are offsite for the bankside house condos on Wilton rd facing Parker Harding.
Those 2 units in lieu of putting them onsite amongst the 2million to 4 million dollar condos, are the red 2 family building/house, beside Mrs. Londons.
They are very small, very dark, pretty crappy, and when I say a far cry from the size and quality of bank side house, that would be an understatement.
I have been inside the downstairs unit.
Redniss is looking for affordable offsite for the gables which “owes” 3 units of affordable onsite.
The text amendment he presented would effect many many future builds and absolutely handcuff PZ. Redniss called it “tools in the toolbox” for PZ- it is tools in the tools box for lots of future developments for developers.
Kicker – Redniss is suggesting buying a 2 family home recently renovated, close to Haiwatha, clearly already from housing stock deemed as affordable.
It’s on the market for 1 million.
So an extra 4 million in the developers pocket.
The same commissioners who abstained on the hamlet, were hard selling this to the other 4 commissioners including Chairman Lebowitz, who, quite rightly did not like it. That decision was continued to August.
Affordable housing offsite if it is allowed( and it should not be) should have to be of the same size and quality as onsite would have been with the same amenities, and a dollar $.
If the onsite “burden” is 5 million.. the offsite burden should also be 5 million.
It should not be a benefit to the contractor. That misses the point.
As for the Hamlet, with all the giveaways in that text amendment, there was zero reason to allow offsite affordable also.
That text amendment should be repealed.
And ASAP
With the village at saugatuck-aka Haiwatha 157 units available, and the Hamlet if it does 600.. that’s 757 units.
That is a huge saturation of the market.
Toni, Larry and others make good points in their criticisms of the silence or shortcomings of Andrea Moore and Don O’Day as to The Hamlet, The Community Gardens and Long Lots. Andrea’s silence possibly reflects her commitment to do only what First Selectwoman Tooker pursues, Don’s is less obvious but Don voted in favor of the Hamlet Text Amendment when it came before the RTM. . Both, however, should acknowledge their silence on The Hamlet, apologize for that silence and pledge, with specifics, to address the many up front issues which require attention, e.g. The Hamlet, 8-30g, Baron’s South and Golden Shadows, Downtown, our Fire Stations and Equipment, a new Police Station and the disparity in funding for Town versus School projects.
I thought we moved to Westport to get away from low income housing… and the Hamlet development would be an improvement over what’s there now.
Translation: Affordable housing is so super gross. All those teachers and firefighters and town employees and retired people walking among us! The Poors! Hurl. We’re not here for diversity. No mixing! We’re here because we’re the cream that has risen to the top. Let’s keep things tight, white, and far, far right. Sound good? MAGA!
First salvo in what will undoubtedly be a battle of politics and $. Perhaps there’s an opp for the sides to negotiate a more mutually acceptable outcome but don’t be surprised – or complain – if ROAN plays the 8-30g card as advertised, and the town loses some control over what is inevitably built. The area needs a makeover and unless the town is stepping up with $, there’s a limit to what can be blocked for those who do. Change is coming.
This isn’t rocket science, two things happen now:
1) ROAN sues P&Z and tax payer $$ goes to Ira and others to defend the lawsuit. That’ll take 18 months.
2) ROAN files the threatened 8-30g project. That’ll take 9 months but will ultimately be approved because those things are harder to kill than Freddie Krueger.
Then the real negotiations begin.
Between now and then, there’s an First Selectman election and if this isn’t the core issue, I’m not sure what else would be.
Westport is filled with brilliant minds, would be nice to see this mostly neglected corner of town to be thoughtfully evolved.
You lost me at, “Westport is filled with brilliant minds.”
ROAN can certainly sue, but they still may see that a scaled back venture is a more profitable one than the 8-30g project. If they really planned to build Co-op City Saugatuck, I don’t think they would have made such heavy-handed threats. IMHO, that was all about getting P&Z to cave and it didn’t work.
Oh c’mon, you’re on my brilliant minds shortlist. Bill, Ciara, John – thoughtful but critical.
I want something to happen there, but this was gluttony.
The first impression most people get of Westport is exit 17, and that train station. Our entryways have been neglected forever. The best ideas are to get the State involved because of the highway and the train line, and its lack of leadership that lets this get so far down the line.
I am glad that the O’Day-Moore campaign chose to weigh in on the fate of the Hamlet project (albeit not until news of its demise). But let’s keep this in mind: on the RTM, Mr. O’Day voted to uphold the very text amendment that led directly to the Hamlet fiasco… and may lead to other monstrosities yet to come. And Ms. Moore, as our Second Selectperson, has been totally silent on the issue of Saugatuck (and virtually every other issue of consequence), offering no vision or leadership whatsoever over the past four years.
I do believe Roan will do an 8-30g application.
But here is why once we stick to the letter of the law and give zero concessions, it will not work.
1/ it’s not sexy enough for them to stomach the headache
2/ if it’s 500 units, 150 of them must be affordable, at either 60% of 80% of SMI( state median income and not AMI)
The town can argue based upon our affordable housing needs and the infrastructure and school spend ( and we might prevail), that all affordable be at 60% SMI.
This is rents of 1300-2200.
If they sell the units the mortgage payments based upon 30 years must be no higher than the rental number including utilities and property taxes. So if I were to guess they must sell for $ 250-300,000.
I don’t see much profit there.
3/ market saturation.
Haiwathas Saugatuck village ( far nicer looking than the H block will all sell first.
That’s 157 units.
So 157 + 500 – 657 units.
The prices will tank.
They won’t be able to give them away.
4/ all units must be the same size and finish as market rate.
I’m not sure how happy market rate buyers will be knowing their neighbor is paying a fraction of the asking price.
So while I think they will continue to bluster about an 8-30g, it’s simply not profitable or practical.
The uglier and larger they make the development the less likely any are to sell or hold a decent price. Less likely they get a loan from an institution.
My belief is they have to come back and negotiate, and now from a point of total weakness.
It should be 2 floors lower, with more housing on the ground floor and far far less retail. Basically necessary retail. Pharmacy, grocery, that kind of thing.
It’s the retail/staff-customers, that pose such a parking problem.
It could still be lovely and very profitable.. just not as profitable.
But yes they will be back, and I hope we have a PZ commission who, as they did last night fights for the residents of Westport.
Thankfully whoever is selectman, really has nothing to do with any negotiations or otherwise pertaining to the Hamlet.
This is a planning and zoning issue.
And so I’m not sure why ODay and Moore even came out with this opinion piece.
The decision will be made by the PZ in the end.
You can just feel the powerful urge to overdevelop this town oozing out of these words from O’Day and Moore.
A reminder that as a member of the RTM, Don O’Day voted to suppress the rights of all Westporter’s to petition the RTM. He silenced my voice and your voice. And Andrea’s role in the Tooker administration was highlighted with her silence as Jen mocked those who spoke out as “obstructionists.” Nice people, but their actions show that they are a big part of the problem.
This coming election is not about The Hamlet, or coaches, or parking. It is about rebuilding a town government that obeys the law and recognizes that it answers to the people of Westport. At a time of lawless behavior and a stripping of rights at the federal level, we must protect the rule of law and the rights of citizens in our town. This is something everyone with a vote and voice in Westport can be a part of.
Thanks to Westport P&Z, who stood tall and offered lengthy and indisputable proof that The Hamlet application didn’t comply with their zoning text amendment. They demonstrated leadership by not bowing to ROAN’s threats and focusing on the merits of the application before them.
Don O’Day and Andrea Moore’s call for ROAN to withdraw their application recognizes the earlier efforts of P&Z Commissioner Amy Wistreich, who, along with her repeated calls for traffic and safety concerns to be addressed, proposed that ROAN withdraw its application months ago. O’Day and Moore are a day late and a dollar short. That ship has sailed. The application has been denied.
One wonders why they didn’t call for this earlier, allowing the town’s and the commission’s precious time and resources to continue being spent on an incomplete and failing application.
ROAN squandered a terrific opportunity for themselves and their investors by choosing not to listen and pushing even beyond the text amendment they wrote. If they do reapply, they will face an uphill battle to win the town’s trust and prove they are capable developers.
The election this November presents an opportunity to explore new ideas and for new people to take over the mantle, who will listen to and respond to residents’ concerns and help structure a more transparent government.
In January 2023, Don O’Day sat on the RTM and admittedly voted against the express wishes of his constituents to overturn the Hamlet text amendment. He said, “The majority of my District 3 constituents made it clear to me that they are against this proposal.” He voted to keep it in place.