Redevelopment Commission rejects Sloan Group offer for Westport parcel; directs further wetland review and possible reappraisal

The Redevelopment Commission voted to reject the Sloan Group’s offer for the town-owned Westport parcel and directed staff to pursue additional information on wetlands and valuation before considering future offers.

Commissioners and members of the public discussed whether the town or a prospective buyer should pay for environmental reviews and updated appraisals. Staff said the next federal step for the southern portion of the site is to request a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers “letter of no objection” (sometimes called a letter of no jurisdiction), which would confirm whether federal wetland jurisdiction applies to that portion of the property. Staff described that federal administrative changes mean the Corps now expects permit documents rather than routine site visits for initial reviews.

Commission debate focused on three points: (1) whether appraisals should be updated to reflect new wetlands information; (2) who should bear the cost of Army Corps or permit work; and (3) whether the developer would proceed with additional spending after the commission rejected the offer. One commissioner recommended tabling the RFO discussion and having the property reappraised using the updated environmental information. Another commissioner and at least one resident argued the town shouldn’t pay for studies a buyer should fund.

Staff said the no-objection review being proposed would apply to the southern section because evidence indicates the southern portion likely falls under state, not federal, jurisdiction; the northern portion likely needs a formal permit application because wetlands there appear to be federally regulated. The staff presentation included a recommended next step: submit a Corps “no permit” application for the southern section while continuing a separate federal permit process for the north.

Public comment included a resident, Mister Weeks, who said property buyers should pay for wetland studies, and Connie Sikora, who questioned paying additional engineering fees on an unrelated trail project. Commissioners referenced prior appraisals cited in the packet: one appraisal at about $677,000, another from May 2025 at about $435,000, earlier appraisals of $205,280 (from 2016), and the town’s acquisition price in March 2019 of $242,500. Commissioners discussed the cost already incurred — roughly $3,600 for earlier appraisal work — and whether to incur further appraisal or Corps-related costs.

A motion to reject the Sloan Group offer was made and seconded; the commission approved the motion. Staff noted that the developer had previously agreed to absorb Corps/permit costs as part of their interest in the site but cautioned that, with the offer rejected, the developer may not proceed with those expenditures. Commissioners asked staff to follow up with estimates for Corps permit costs and to research options such as reappraisal using updated environmental information, temporary agricultural leases to hold the land while issues are resolved, and cost ranges for Soil Solutions or similar consultants to evaluate mitigation or remediation options.

Next steps identified by commissioners and staff: obtain a scope and cost estimate for the Army Corps letter-of-no-objection/permit work; decide whether to order a new appraisal once updated wetland information is available; and consider future RFOs once the town has clearer appraisal and environmental data.

The vote to reject the Sloan Group offer moves the parcel back to a status of further study rather than immediate disposition.