New headaches continue to develop for 118 Old Ridgefield Rd., the four-story 20-unit mixed-use project in Wilton Center that has generated an unusual degree of public outcry in its journey with the Planning and Zoning Commission. At the prior meeting on Monday, May 27, the Commission sent the application back to its advisory panel, Village District Design Advisory Committee, when P&Z’s requests for architectural changes resulted in a building almost unrecognizable from the one VDDAC had weighed in on earlier this year.
Time is of the essence: legally, the public hearing on the project must conclude in the next few weeks, followed by an up or down vote from the commission. If not, the application would need to be withdrawn and resubmitted by the applicant.
However, the Monday, June 9 meeting of P&Z turned up yet more challenges for the project.
A Mis-Delivered Report
The instructions to the VDDAC last week were clear: do what you can to improve the over-tinkered-with design for 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. — and do it fast, because the applicant team would need to turn around any changes in time for Monday’s P&Z meeting. On Monday night, we learned that VDDAC did its part, turning around a detailed, five-page report less than 24 hours after hearing the presentation.
Unfortunately, as Town Planner Michael Wrinn explained to the commission, “ARB [technically, VDDAC] was kind enough to get it to us at the end of the day Friday but for some reason it went to spam, and we did not cover spam until this morning [Monday].”
The applicant team would later mention that they did not receive the report from town staff until mid-day on June 9, hours before they were scheduled to present to P&Z. As such, they were able to produce only a bare-bones 2-D rendering in time for the meeting.
Several commissioners, starting with Anthony Cenatiempo, expressed hesitations about proceeding to a vote without a more complete picture of the new look of the building. Chair Rick Tomasetti explained that the commission could vote to approve the project but stipulate that 3-D renderings be submitted to P&Z staff to review on behalf of the Commission.
“I wouldn’t be in favor of that,” Cenatiempo said.
Commissioner Chris Pagliaro later pointed out that the new brick façade suggested by VDDAC makes a full 3-D picture of the proposed building particularly relevant.
“Brick scares me in this area,” he said. “I don’t think we do it well. The quality of the brick and mortar isn’t what you get in Washington, DC. It’s thin brick or veneer.” He also pointed out that the 2-D rendering showed the building from a head-on perspective, when realistically the site is approached from either the north or the south. Those views will expose how the masonry facade relates to the materials on the sides the building; the quality and thickness of the brick may be visible.
The applicant team agreed to produce more detailed renderings now that VDDAC’s full report was available. Meanwhile the parking debate around the building simmers on.
A Mistaken Interpretation of the Underlying Zoning
Commissioner Ken Hoffman asked for clarity on why the applicant had submitted a new draft text amendment allowing a parking reduction that, at the prior meeting of P&Z, the applicant team had suggested already complied with the town’s underlying zoning.
“After discussion with Wrinn,” Suchy explained this week. “We determined that the 20% [reduction] is not something we could take advantage of in addition to the overlay. We were advised that that is not how the regulation is interpreted.”
The underlying zoning for the area is the regulations that applied to Wilton Center prior to P&Z’s new form-based code being passed in 2023 at the conclusion of the master plan process. P&Z opted to pass the new regulations as zoning overlays, rather than re-zoning downtown. This means that all property owners have access to either the zoning that existed prior to 2023, or the new code.
The issue here appears to stem from the fact that, while the underlying zoning for Wilton Center does allow for a parking reduction for lots of this size, that reduction applies to the much-higher parking requirements that were in place prior to the form-based code being passed. In essence, 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. was told it could not follow the smaller parking requirements of the form-based code while requesting the parking reduction allowed by the underlying zoning.
According to the underlying zoning, properties in Wilton Center must provide one parking space for each studio or one-bedroom apartment and two spaces for any units with two bedrooms or more. Retail establishments must offer one parking spot per 200 square feet of retail space. Using this calculation, 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. would have been required to provide 50 parking spaces on site, if not for the form-based code.
The underlying zoning also allows P&Z to approve a 20-30% reduction in parking to mixed use sites where the applicant argues that the different uses (e.g. apartments and retail on the same site) could effectively “share” the spaces. The planning concept of shared parking is grounded in the theory that retail customers visit a site during the day-time hours when residential tenants are more likely to be away from home.
The form-based code requires just 1.35 spaces per dwelling unit of any size. Non-restaurant retail establishments on the site are required to provide one additional parking spot for every 333 square feet of space. This is the calculation used to arrive at the 36 parking spaces required for 118 Old Ridgefield Rd., from which the applicant is now requesting a 20% reduction.
The form-based code currently only allows P&Z to approve a 30% reduction in parking for mixed use developments on “large lots” over 1.5 acres, a zoning exception that was created specifically to apply to Kimco’s unusually large lot. The application for 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. asks the commission to extend that reduction at a sliding scale to properties between half an acre and 1.5 acres throughout Wilton Center.
If P&Z chooses to approve the text amendment proposed by 118 Old Ridgefield Rd., the final total would be 29 parking spaces for the 20-unit building with two retail establishments. The change would also allow 18 other lots in Wilton Center to apply for the same parking reduction should they be redeveloped using the form-based code in the future.
Note that this development is an update to our earlier reporting, which stated that the application currently complies with the zoning overlay and underlying zoning. This misinterpretation of how the underlying zoning and zoning overlay relate to each other when it comes to parking reductions means that 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. is no longer the slam dunk for approval that it appeared to be just a few weeks ago.
The applicant now needs P&Z’s approval for its proposed zoning amendment in order to move forward with just 29 parking spaces. That parking total seems motivated by a need to fall below the 30-space threshold that would require the project to provide an electrical vehicle charging station on site. In addition to the expense and siting challenges of EV chargers, the flooding conditions on the site itself would make safely providing an EV charger a challenging proposition.
On top of that, Monday’s hearing turned up yet another apparent issue.
And A Mis-Read of the Zoning Overlay?
In his questions, Commissioner Cenatiempo drew the group’s attention to the rest of the shared parking requirements outlined in the zoning overlay. He noted that the parking reduction for large lots in the form-based code requires applicants to submit a parking study to inform the Commission’s decision.
“In public letters, a lot of people are concerned about parking,” Cenatiempo said. “As I look at the overlay code for shared parking for large lots, it refers to a parking analysis showing estimated parking demand by each use by time period. I’m wondering if there is something in the materials. And if there isn’t anything, is there an argument for why it is not necessary?”
“One of the reasons why we did not provide that is the text amendment we suggested didn’t include a shared parking analysis as necessary,” said Suchy. “At this point, I don’t know if there is enough time to come up with a shared parking analysis when we’ve had a couple months that we’ve been working with this and moving forward with this suggested text amendment.”
Cenatiempo pointed out that the text amendment being proposed only changes language in the preamble section to make mid-size lots eligible for a reduction as well, in addition to large lots. With the change proposed, mid-size lots like 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. would still be obligated to meet the application requirements that follow in the overlay, excerpted below and found on Page 18:
Applications for Shared Parking Plan approval shall include:
(i) A shared parking analysis prepared by professional engineer or planner estimating the parking demand of each use by time period. This analysis will identify the critical time period with the highest total parking demand that represents the number of shared parking spaces to be supplied. The time periods analyzed need to include all periods that could represent high parking demands. They typically include weekday mornings, lunch time, weekday afternoons, evenings, night time, and Saturday middays. However, depending on the uses, other periods may need to be analyzed as well.
“If you’re asking at this stage that you want us to evaluate parking usage, that’s a different question,” Suchy said. “I don’t know if we have individuals on this team who could provide that within the next two weeks before you have to close the hearing.”
“I understand what you’re saying, but the text says what it says,” Cenatiempo replied. “So if you have it, supply it. If you don’t have it, please do what you can to supply it.”
When prompted by Tomasetti for a response, Engineer Craig Flaherty stated that the request was clear.
The commission ultimately opted to leave the hearing open for one more meeting, scheduled for Monday, June 23. Before moving on, Tomasetti explained that he would decline to hear public comments this evening because the public had only had a few hours to review VDDAC’s feedback and the new rendering. Public comment will be allowed at the June 23 meeting.
Looking Ahead
That June 23 meeting is shaping up to be a long night for P&Z. At the suggestion of Pagliaro, the commission agreed to invite State Senator Ceci Maher and State Representative Savet Constantine to the meeting to discuss HB 5002.
On Friday, June 6, a bi-partisan group of 12 Wilton officials, including the chairs of three main boards and several P&Z commissioners, signed a letter asking Gov. Ned Lamont to veto the housing bill, which was just passed by both houses in Connecticut’s state legislature. Maher voted in favor of the bill while Constantine voted against it.
“I just don’t think that our residents are all that familiar with the impact that this could have — judge it yourself, positive or negative,” Pagliaro said. “I don’t even really want to have any feedback from them [Maher and Constantine]. I just want to hear what they have to say, and maybe ask a few questions.”
The bill has ignited a significant debate over balancing the state’s housing needs with local autonomy. The joint letter sent by Wilton’s officials listed specific concerns with the bill on the following topics:
- Conversion of Commercial Lots to “As-of-Right” Middle Housing
- Arbitrary “Fair Share” Mandates
- Elimination of Parking Requirements
- Linking Infrastructure Grants to Zoning Compliance
- Unfunded Legal Costs for 8-30g Lawsuits
- Erosion of Local Planning
These objections are explained in greater detail in the letter itself, which has been reprinted in GOOD Morning Wilton’s earlier coverage.
The commission is also expected to hear a special permit application for relocating the Starbucks in Wilton Center and review bids for the RFP to modernize the town’s zoning regulations.