In the aftermath of ROAN Ventures’ announcement yesterday that they plan to file an 8-30g application, to build 400-500 units of housing — 30% of them affordable, under a state formula — following the Planning & Zoning Commission’s rejection of their Hamlet at Saugatuck multi-use proposal, “06880” asked town officials for their reaction.
P&Z members said they could not comment, due to a pending lawsuit. On Thursday, ROAN went to court to appeal the Hamlet decision. Town attorney Ira Bloom reacted to that news, saying, “The Planning & Zoning Commission spent a tremendous amount of time on this application, and I feel very comfortable defending the resolution denying the application.”
An early rendition of the proposed 8-30g affordable housing project.
Democratic Party-endorsed candidate Kevin Chrsite says, “The future of Saugatuck is critical to Westport’s future. Is this forthcoming application really what’s best for Westport, the developer, and the developer’s investors?
“What’s best for Westport is a solution that addresses the needs of our community. So much dialogue and effort has been invested to meet the town’s needs for mixed-use development in Saugatuck through The Hamlet. We should build on that foundation. It is in everyone’s best interest to come together and deliver a solution that works for Westport and all involved.”
Republican Party-endorsed candidate Don O’Day says, “This application was certainly not unexpected. Town leadership, both now and in November, must work with ROAN within the parameters of the current 8-30g law, to ensure the best possible outcome for Westport. While we all know that 8-30g significantly limits local zoning controls, we will have no input unless we are willing to engage.”
Independent Party candidate David Rosenwaks says, ‘The majority of people in Westport want some development. But not to the extent of what was proposed. How did we get here, held hostage by a developer that doesn’t connect with what most people want?
“I am not pleased that Westport has been put in this position. Having just launched my campaign yesterday, I’m continuing to review the 8-30g proposal in light of the voices of our residents. In an ideal world, we would be able to come back to the table with the developers and try to find a middle ground.”
Is this a race for some U.N. post?
Those creepy little thugs are suing us.
Never mind “engaging” them.
Defeat them.
Hey guys..I would be willing to bet that MOST of the folks in Westport don’t really care “what’s best for the developer and the developers investors”. As Mr. Boyd noted, they are suing us. Screw them…
“Engage” with a snotty developer who mocks 3000 petitioners by threatening an “Alliance for Saugatuck” 8-30 g massive over-development as a vindictive threat? O’Day needs a reboot. Better we should travel to Venice and “engage” with the pickpockets.
I get that it’s a tough problem, and I certainly don’t know the solution, but for ALL THREE candidates for First Selectman to speak in such banal generalities is pretty disappointing. Too many abstract nouns make this a tasteless word salad.
How about a concrete idea using words that don’t fly away into the upper atmosphere? Worried about offending some voters by answering with a solid idea? Then get out of the race.
We can’t take three months of a delicate ballroom dance that gives us no information about who you are or what you’ll try to do.
Pick it. Be it.
Tom,
Thank you. Perfectly put. 👏🏻👏🏻
This is a well worn path, don’t take it personally.
1) Get the zoning changed. Check.
2) Submit an overly aggressive plan the locals hate more than love. Check.
3) Float the 8-30g threat. Check.
4) Have your overly aggressive unpopular plan denied. Check.
5) File an appeal / Sue the town. Check.
6) File the 8-30g plan. Check.
We are here….
7) 8-30g is reluctantly approved because they’re nearly impossible to stop.
8) Negotiate a revised original compromise.
Happens in every town, always the same process.
“Go ahead and build it. Good luck.” If this is not a candidates response, then they are clueless.
Actually both O’Day and Christie have already modeled how Roan should be treated. Like the gardeners, Don. Like the soccer coaches, Kevin.
I agree with Morley and Dave, they’ve alienated most of the town, with the exception of their investors, and while the threat of 8-30g that big, is definitely not desirable at all, nor is succumbing to the bribery and threats of a tantrum throwing developer.
It sets a “scaredy cat” tone in town, and developers, even those with no intention of building an 8-30g will propose it as an either or, take your pick.
The biggest issue here is they could not conform without conditions, so looked for conditional approval, and those conditions were just too big of a risk. The text amendment already, purposely was very carefully “crafted” giving away the farm. Their greed is why they could not make it work.
I believe the PZ is very aware now that using railroad parking is a non starter.
And offering them lots, which at the minute might be underutilized is not happening, so say the majority of the residents.
Neither the PZ nor the selectman can do that according to our railroad contract with the state, and especially since we the residents do not want that to happen. Nor do residents of surrounding towns who are fully entitled to use that railroad parking to access metro north.
This is not a “free for all”., Just because it is beside a train station.
Not enough care and thought was given to what this massive addition of retail and even more restaurants in an area of town with 22 existing restaurants would do.
Most of the ground floors of those buildings should be parking, and the few buildings without parking can be shops that are for convenience. Ground floor parking does not look ugly. But they didn’t want to lose their highly profitable retail spaces. They’d rather poach railroad spots.
Hardware stores, hair salons, a grocery, dry cleaners, a gym, pharmacy, that is the mixed use needed there.
There was never a reason to create a retail area full of shops in what I’ve heard from supporters of the hamlet was with a view to “killing”the downtown. Their words not mine.
I’m not sure why town administration and PZ overlooked this essential concern when they were crafting this with the developer 3 years ago.
I can only presume they simply didn’t care.
Retail in the USA has been increasingly difficult for years.
Creating retail the size of Main Street in Saugatuck is a disaster for the downtown. Or a disaster for the Hamlet, maybe it’s a combined disaster- either way it is a woeful idea.
Especially doing so with no parking.
That should have all been part of the planning, and it was not.
It seems the developers came with their excessive wish list and got all of it, with no thought about the effect on the rest of the town.
The non emotional fact based point you made recently is why the 8-30g mess will never get built. It’ll get passed, which will incite social media panic.
But with the Hiawatha apartments and whatever that other Hiawatha apartment threat is, and this debacle, the market can’t absorb it. Not by any stretch, even though there’s always the attraction of Westport schools, divorced Dads with easy train / bar access, etc.
It’s way too much too fast, they’ll never get the funding and even if they do, they’ll all lose everything in the massive bankruptcy.
So eventually we get to “compromise”.
I’m not sure I’d be so sanguine about an 8-30g project not working. If anything can support density, it would tend to be apartments built next to a train station which, I believe, is the theory behind transit oriented development. Would be relatively painless commute to Stamford and workable commute to NYC, particularly for folks with young families attracted to the Westport school system (vs say NYC, Stamford or Norwalk).
I would imagine that the 400-500 units would be built in phases rather than all at once and would be coming on line after Hiawatha Lane which would help smooth absorption. Certainly Stamford has absorbed the several thousand units constructed near their train station.
The good news is that sort of thing would not particularly add to Westport traffic except perhaps on weekends or if one of the parents insists on driving their kids to school like other Westport parents.
Let’s put on a critical thinking hat for a moment… What might be two of many key constraints… Hmmm.. oh right roadways and parking. Stamford is way different and has plenty of room for roadways and parking garages. I am actually not sure how bad traffic is there on a regular basis , but it’s an much larger commerical city. so you are suggesting little old saugatuck become Stamford? And there does the space for the huge parking garages and roadways come from? Please enlighten us.
Why wouldn’t it add to traffic. 500 units? If implying low-income tenants own cars are a rate lower than typical Westport residents, remember only 30% need to be low income units. That’s 350+ other tenant units with probably 1-2 cars each.
I believe you and Mr Stein are thinking from a traditional Westport car centric, multiple cars per household mindset. Turns out many folks that live next to train stations aren’t as car centric, often commuting via, surprise, train. That’s often why they choose to live there.
In that context, roadways, parking and traffic aren’t necessarily the constraints for those residents that you think they are. Sure, they may have a car for weekend activities and/or shopping but they don’t necessarily add to traffic during commuting times nor need space for multiple cars.
I regularly read on 06880 about folks wanting to make Westport more walkable. Density does just that. Does that “change the character” of Westport? Sure, but for better or worse, that is sort of the point of 8-30g. If you don’t like it, elect state officials that will fight the law.
keep telling yourself all that. they will have cars, they will add to traffic, and you are forgetting about all of the staff.
Transforming the area between the RR station, Exit 17, and the William F Cribari Bridge into a Transit Oriented District is the last thing the ROAN development venture team seem to have in mind… and it is so far from the reality of today’s Westport as to seem as feasible as the Jetson’s Orbit City.
They would need to work with town and state agencies to narrow streets, develop bicycle and walking areas, eliminate truck traffic on local roads, establish freight remote drop off areas, transform parking lots into plazas, get commuters to use e-bikes and public transit, enforce traffic laws, and actually have local, state, and federal representatives and officials work together.
What happens next?
The Roan developers do not deserve engagement by the town; their scorched earth approach wiped out any respect or trust we might have otherwise had for them.
The housing project that resembles a maximum security prison is not assured. The state law has many flaws, but it does not allow developers to run roughshod over local entities with reckless abandon. The developer must first work to address local concerns before they can appeal.
1. The developer must come before the town with their affordable housing proposal, which must include 30% deed-restricted units that are designated for low- to moderate-income households. The developer is required to address the town’s legitimate concerns about the project’s impact on the health and safety of the community, or if it is not truly an affordable housing project. The developer must be prepared to modify their proposal.
2. If the local authority denies that plan, the developer can then appeal the decision to the Connecticut Superior Court. In this appeal, the town has the burden of proof that the denial was based on substantial public interests related to health and/or safety that outweighs the need for affordable housing, or other legally permissible zoning concerns.
3. In some but not all cases, the courts have overturned denials of 8-30G projects. In other cases, town decisions have been upheld. Finally, some developers end up withdrawing their proposal.
4. The state has a role here: its criteria for affordable housing are explicit.
This is really welcome news. Westport is a charming and beautiful town, but unaffordable to anyone whose income isn’t at least six figures. The town’s government seems to be determined to keep it that way, and many public statements about this project gives me the impression that any amount of development would be called “overdevelopment” by its opponents, so turning to the state to sidestep these obstructionists is really the only way to move things forward.
6 figures is not the issue.
Norwalk always available to accommodate those who can’t.
Simply making non-wealthy people segregate themselves in a few cities (Norwalk, Bridgeport, New Haven) so that they won’t ruin the town with their presence after their shift ends at Nomade is not really feasible in the long run.
Comment of the day….reading between the lines of some of these comment, , listening to the dog whistles of Westporter’s ‘elite’…they are who we thought they are.
Fingers crossed Roan gets their 8-30G approval.
Steven, I could not agree more.
I’m an advocate for affordable housing- always have been.
I don’t happen to think building what looks like a prison is prudent, but I fully support more affordable housing.
Sadly for staff in the restaurant business, I’m not sure the majority would qualify. I believe most earn over the threshold. But others will and deserve the opportunity.
I have several friends living in affordable housing in Westport, and in a 1 bedroom( not sure if 60/80% Ami) they must earn less than 68,000 to qualify.
I believe in a 2 bed that number is around 80k.
As to Toni’s comment. She is correct. 30% of 8-30g appeals are successful.
Not a great batting average when trying to fight something utterly inappropriate in size and in appearance( prisons look better) but in the case of this one, and as hostile as it is, I imagine the town will prevail.
No ladder truck close by, health and safety due to overcrowding in schools, etc.. and lots of other objections which could very well win an appeal when voiced together.
The state will undoubtedly have an opinion on what had been planned for there with Hamlet and that the pathetic 15 affordable units were to be offsite.
Not a good look for the developer.
Time will tell.
PS. I still maintain it is a huge bluff
Westports roads and infrastructure absolutely cannot support these extra huge housing complexes!! The town is already overly congested! I don’t care how much money that builder will make it will be devastating for the town.
The 8-30g monster will be approved. Sure there will be some minor edits, but P&Z can do little to stop it. Maybe don’t vote for 8-30g proponents next time, this time it’s too late.
Then you hope for the best with The Hamlet. Hopefully there are some compromises during their appeal process.
That’s where this process is. Eminent Domain is an idiotic idea. And trying to argue about “busy streets” only gets the Cribari Bridge replaced faster.
The evolution of Saugatuck is unstoppable in 2025, many of the social media arguments are decades too late. Will be an interesting Fall.
Might be idiotic as I had admitted I am normally against taking property away from an owner, but other towns have done it, and with Roan’s dirty tactics why not play on their level?
I don’t recall this aspect having been mentioned: Roan claimed they would build affordable housing off-site (not on Hamlet site) on neighboring streets. What is the Roan intent for their original affordable housing claim? Does their proposed 8-30g monstrosity also include the off-site affordable housing and precisely what are their plans for those sites?
Off site meaning another town? Or some residential neighborhood.
Satisfying the affordable housing requirement offsite is pending with P&Z but should and hopefully will be denied.
I certainly presume it means in another Westport neighborhood. Otherwise, developers would negotiate with Town to maximize profits on McMansions and high-end commercial development, under the condition that they would build a 100% affordable slum in Bridgeport.
One can question the logic of 8-30g, but the whole point is to share the burden of affordable housing, not to allow rich communities to fund ghettos elsewhere.
Good question Elizabeth.
The reason these developers do affordable housing “offsite” is because the state is very clear about the size, standard and location of affordable housing.
The idea is to have mixed communities, not to behave like the folks in affordable housing need to be sequestered together far away from the elites.
The state just as importantly insists on the market rate and affordable units being of the same size and quality, within the same development.
The town of Westport on the other hand when they allow offsite affordable, most certainly do not, and some of the affordable housing done offsite here is in very simple, not remotely equal to the market rate.
2 great examples.
The mill – was meant to set aside 6 units in the development for affordable. But they had a brainwave of buying a house on riverside Ave from the town for 900k doing a bit of a Reno, and housing 6 units in that 1 house.
Beneficiary – the contractor ! Who spent maybe 2million ( educated guess) on the purchase of a home the tax payers owned, and the renovation on riverside.
And they get to sell the 6 ( should have been affordable units) at top dollar, no deed restriction, and off to the races. Probably meant an extra profit of 5 million.
The other example-bankside house.
2.5-4.5 million dollar market rate.
The affordable offsite on church lane in a very humble 2 family house.
Again, 2 affordable units offsite which bear no resemblance to what is on site. And maybe that building on church lane is worth 1.2, maybe.
The 2 units onsite would have been worth an average of about 7 million total.
It’s hard to really fault the contractors when this has been allowed to go on.
I’d say encouraged even. From the top.
This practice must end.
Think about the Hamlets proposed 15 offsite affordable which were TBD.
I believe they said they were going to be marketed for 2.5-3.5 million..
let’s call it 3 million average per unit.
That’s 45 million dollars.
Do any of us believe they were going to spend 45 million on the offsite.. do we think they were going to be of the same standard and size as the onsite market rate ?
Most certainly not.
Offsite affordable is shameful.
A great defense against builders using 8-30g projects as a weapon is to do away with all off-site options in our zoning regs. Without the offsite option, 8-30g becomes a much less viable weapon for the developers. Build 30% onsite with affordable units the same size, construction standards, etc as the market price units. Exactly as the 8-30g laws are written. Then see how the economics pencil out. Go ahead and build it. Good luck.
You and others have said the affordable units in 8-30g developments have to be the same as market price units but I haven’t been able to find that requirement in the 8-30g statute or regulations. I easily could have missed it but when I asked Google AI, it responded with:
No Requirement for Identical Design:
While 8-30g units must be deed-restricted for affordability, they don’t necessarily need to be identical in design or construction to non-8-30g units in the same development. The focus is on meeting the affordability requirements and adhering to the 30% set-aside.
Does anyone have a source or reference in the 8-30g statute that says they have to be the same?
Hi, Bill. Here’s what I’ve found:
Westport adopted regulations creating an inclusionary housing zone several years ago, to provide an alternative to 8-30g that worked for the town. The idea was to create an opportunity for developers to build denser housing projects WITHIN the town regulations (including height, setbacks, design and number of units), so long as 20% of the units are deed restricted affordable, for a minimum of 40 years, at rents set for people qualifying at 80% of state median income. The Inclusionary Housing zone is an overlay over much of Post Road East & West as well as some other areas, including downtown. Belden Place is an example of an IHZ development. https://www.marjennings.com/realestate/the-belden-place-2/
Thre are others too.
Yes – Westport’s regulations require affordable units to be identical regarding the finish, appliances, etc.
8-30g units are not subject to local zoning rules at all, and therefore are not subject to any of the requirements in the IHZ regs (or any local regs) including height, density, setbacks, design, parking, number of units, or the requirement that affordable units be of the same finish/design as market rate units. The IHZ also requires a retail element on the ground floor (unlike 8-30g) — for example New Beauty Wellness, Lyfe Cafe, Studio45 Yoga, etc., which are all located in IHZ approved projects.
It is expensive for developers to set aside 30% of units, and 8-30g requires that a percentage of units be deed restricted at the 60% state median income. So compared to Westport’s regulations, 8-30g requires more affordable units, and that some of those units rent for far less. As a result, 8-30g projects are generally much much bigger than an IHZ type project because more market rate units are necessary for the deal to work. Compare 1177 Post Road East and 4 Morningside North to see the difference between what can built pursuant to 8-30g vs. Westport’s IHZ.
Thanks Dan. Educational.
So not a 8-30g requirement. The only other info I could find suggested that they needed to be real apartments (i.e. not 200 sq ft hovels to jam people into) but that was more commentary than anything official I could find. Thanks for digging up the info Dan!