Westport Alliance for Saugatuck

Special Permit Application of Roan Development Ventures LLC [link]

[NOTE:  Since this letter was submitted, the applicant has withdrawn the request to use Lot 7]

To: Planning & Zoning

March 30, 2025

Dear Westport P&Z Commissioners: 

I write as a concerned Westport resident in response to Eric Bernheim's letter to the Commission dated March 25, 2025 regarding the proposed use of Westport's commuter railroad parking spots to meet the needs of The Hamlet project. 

Specifically, Mr. Bernheim asserts that the Lease Agreement between the State of Connecticut and the Town ofWestport (which governs the use of the existing Railroad Parking lots) does not limit parking access only to commuters and therefore does not prohibit his client from (1) purchasing parking permits for all of Lot 7 to provide overflow offsite parking for the Hamlet and (2) utilizing the other lots at off-hours and weekends for various private events. 

Mr. Bernheim's proposal misconstrues the plain meaning and intent of the Lease and would violate Westport's own Parking Regulations. 

While Mr. Bernheim is technically correct that the Lease does not expressly preclude the proposals listed above, and that permits must be provided on a non-discriminatory basis that is hardly surprising given that such extensive private commercial use would never have been even remotely contemplated by the contracting parties. 

The preamble in the Lease Agreement states: 

WHEREAS, the State and [the Town] have a mutual interest in encouraging use of mass transportation services and, under this Lease, the parties seek to make the most effective use of railroad property, to encourage and attract additional rail patrons, and to make rail facilities more convenient, attractive, and compatible with the public interest; 

This clause makes clear that the Lease Agreement is designed to ensure that the parking lots are used for "mass transportation." Mass transportation means moving large numbers of people from place to place by buses and trains. In other words, commuters. 

Ignoring the language about "mass transportation" (which he selectively omits when quoting the Lease) Mr. Bernheim instead claims the "primary goal of the Lease" is to "encourage and attract additional rail patrons." He then creatively argues that the Hamlet actually would further this goal by bringing more "rail patrons" into the area to frequent his client's facilities. 

There are at least two flaws in this argument.

First, as noted, the overarching purpose of the lease, by its terms, is to ensure access to mass transit which is plainly different from what The Hamlet proposes. Second, the notion that people from "adjacent" towns will take the train to The Hamlet in large numbers is a lovely idea in concept, but totally inconsistent with our common knowledge and experience with existing traffic patterns in which the vast majority of visitors drive to Westport to frequent our restaurants and stores. 

Common sense dictates that while some may come by train, if anything The Hamletwill draw more cars, which in turn will take away coveted spots for mass transit rail users who rely on the lots. Indeed the very fact that the developers seek to take control of all of Lot 7 reveals that they are obviously expecting a lot more cars, not just pedestrians coming from the train. 

Lastly, the Hamlet's proposal -- to "purchase parking permits for the entirety of Lot 7" (and presumably assign or lend them temporarily to transient Hamlet visitors) is contrary to Westport's Parking Regulations. 

Specifically, as any commuter in town knows, parking permits are issued to specific vehicles (delineated by license plate number on the permit). The Regulations state that "If a permit is registered in a name other than that appearing on the [permit] application, acceptable proof of spousal connection or other proof of authorized use of the vehicle must be provided." The Regulations mandate that "said permits shall be non-transferable." Finally, the permits give the holder access to any ofthe parking lots, not a specific one like Lot 7. 

The Hamlet's proposal to "purchase parking permits for the entirety of Lot 7" is thus plainly unlawful and unworkable. It's also contrary to the spirit of the Parking Regulations which, like the Lease, properly give priority to individual train commuters and their family members, and not the grandiose designs of a private developer seeking to profit off our public assets. 

Sincerely, 

Evan T. Barr