Two Danbury Rd. Apartment Projects Ask Permission to Skirt Zoning Regs

Two more multifamily residential developments proposed for Danbury Rd. moved a bit closer to approval during the Planning and Zoning Commission’s Monday, Mar. 25 meeting. Both projects have appeared before the Commission several times before at various stages of design. This week, they each came with new requests to tweak some of the most basic elements of Wilton’s zoning regulations.

P&Z regularly hears from developers of large-scale projects looking for waivers, exemptions, and new zoning text amendments to accommodate their vision for a site. Individually, no single project that might be granted permission to sidestep some element of the zoning code may seem significant. However, left unchecked, this approach creates a system that borders on spot zoning, where virtually every large parcel in a town has been granted special zoning rights. Instead of being driven by the town’s own comprehensive planning goals, the area becomes a patchwork of zoning alternatives shaped by the piecemeal vision of individual developers.

The master plan process and new zoning regulations created for Greater Wilton Center sought to update Wilton’s zoning in hopes of heading off custom requests like these. However, this portion of Danbury Rd. is not included in the master plan area. Furthermore, the first development proposed using the new regulations — the Toll Brother’s project near Wilton train station — has already asked about P&Z’s “appetite for a text amendment.”

Should 131 Danbury Rd. Be Allowed to Develop Near its Property Line?  

First up was 131 Danbury Rd., a 4.5-story 208-unit apartment building. The project came to P&Z as a non-binding preapplication hearing last month, but at that time, approvals from the Inland Wetlands Commission, the Fire Marshal, and the Water Pollution Control Authority were still outstanding.

By Monday night, the project team had secured the approval of Inland Wetlands and the Fire Marshal — but the latter required changes to the parking lot that opened up a new issue for P&Z to contend with.

In order to ensure that emergency vehicles would have enough staging space to safely operate fire trucks and rescue ladders on the site, the applicant team relocated a series of parking spaces away from the northern boundary of the site. They also eliminated two feet from the footprint of the building itself. However, even with these changes, the addition of the widened traffic lane bumps the sidewalk and landscape area along the northern border of the site too close to the neighboring property. The applicant team, led by Craig Flaherty of Redniss & Mead, requested a waiver from P&Z to exempt the project from complying with Wilton’s setback regulations, which require a 10-foot buffer along property lines.

The property next door is none other than 141 Danbury Rd., the 173-unit multi-family complex proposed for the former site of the Melissa & Doug corporate office. The owner of 141 Danbury, Sam Fuller, was in attendance at the meeting as well to present the next item on the agenda — 64 Danbury Rd. He raised his hand to speak during the public hearing portion of the evening.

“I hate being in this position,” he said, calling the 131 Danbury Rd. project an amazing, well-designed proposal.

“I understand they’re trying to comport with the Fire Marshal,” Fuller continued in his comment about his project’s prospective new neighbor. “But I’ve done a number of developments in town and I would never in a million years consider reducing that buffer. We need to find another way to solve the Fire Marshal’s concerns.”

Commissioner Chris Pagliaro expressed a similar desire to find different solutions for the issue and Flaherty seemed open to other options. The two discussed whether the encroachment into the buffer zone could be split between the north and south property lines — yes — and whether Wilton’s regulations give P&Z the ability to instead grant a waiver for a smaller buffer between the building itself and the parking area — no.

Three more members of the public made public comments as well. Evan Rudnicki, representing the Wilton Hills Community situated across Danbury Rd. from the site, challenged the traffic study’s assertions that the project would not significantly affect local traffic. He said he already waits as long as five minutes to turn out of his property, even without the addition of 141 Danbury Rd. (already under construction) and now 131 Danbury Rd.

Mike Gagliano of Village Court asked what the town budget implications would be of the project, especially given any increased pressure on the schools with 200 new households in place. Flaherty would later reiterate earlier analysis that he said shows the project would add only about 20 new school children to Wilton schools.

Barbara Geddis, a local architect, expressed disappointment in the placemaking within the site and argued that P&Z should be requiring applicants to show designs in the context of the surrounding neighborhood. In the case of 131 Danbury Rd., this would mean depicting the project with 141 Danbury Rd. in view just to the north and the other surrounding developments.

“We have to look at these things in macro,” she said.

Flaherty agreed to grant an extension until the Commission’s next meeting, which is scheduled for Monday, Apr. 8. The Commission will pick the matter back up then for deliberation on the waiver issue as well as the special permit and zone change that were part of the original application.

Should 64 Danbury Rd. Be Allowed to Build Along a Steep Slope?

Fuller was back for the second major agenda item of the night, a three-part public hearing to allow the development of 64 Danbury Rd. into an eight-building 93-unit apartment complex. In addition to two more standard applications for a special permit and zone change to allow the project, Fuller requested a zoning amendment to relax the town’s regulations on development along a steep slope.  

Fuller recalled the origin of Wilton’s steep slope regulations stating, “I think I can take credit for that.” He explained that it was adopted in response to his development of 15 River Rd., at a time when “the town was trying to reduce density… and now the town’s goals have changed with the [Plan of Conservation and Development].”  

P&Z Chair Rick Tomasetti requested that Fuller return with a series of cross-section views and renderings of the proposed signage for further review.

Commissioner Anthony Cenatiempo asked Fuller follow-up questions about what changes would be made to the existing sloped area, which is currently home to a large cluster of mature trees. Fuller confirmed that trees will be removed from the slope for part of the development but that new trees will be planted elsewhere on the site.

“This is our land and to develop land, you have to cut trees down,” Fuller said.  

Vice Chair Melissa-Jean Rotini expressed concern about the turning radius that emergency vehicles will be expected to perform. Fuller confirmed that he would discuss it during the Fire Marshal and Fire Department review of the project.   

The project has not yet received approval from the Inland Wetlands Commission, which is currently awaiting the results of a peer review similar to the one 131 Danbury Rd. completed earlier this month. Tomasetti asked Town Planner Michael Wrinn at the outset of the hearing whether it was appropriate for P&Z to hold a public hearing on the project without knowing what Inland Wetlands’ judgment would be.

“The report they have coming back to you just has to be considered,” Wrinn explained. “That’s a key phrase — it does not mean that if [Inland Wetlands] denies [the application], you can’t do anything with it. You don’t relinquish any powers to them. You make your design totally independent of that. You just have to take the report into consideration after they submit it.”  

Fuller added that he submitted the application in December and given the months that have already elapsed, he wants the application considered by the two Commissions on a parallel timeline. Fuller agreed to an extension and the public hearing will be continued to the next meeting on Monday, Apr. 8.

Looking Ahead

Both projects are also still waiting on final approval by the Water Pollution Control Authority, where they have been caught up in a broader debate over Wilton’s dwindling sewer capacity. On Mar. 14, the WPCA effectively paused commercial development in town until these issues can be resolved. The teams representing 131 Danbury Rd. and 64 Danbury Rd. agreed to an extension of their applications. The WPCA is scheduled to meet next on Wednesday, Apr. 10.

Editor’s note: an earlier version of the article included an outdated rendering of 64 Danbury Rd. The image has been updated.