The applicant team behind 64 Danbury Rd. — the eight-building, 93-unit apartment complex proposed for a wooded hillside within Wilton Corporate Park — returned to the Inland Wetlands Commission on Thursday, May 9 with unexpected news. After previously stating that there was “no reasonable and prudent alternative” that might mitigate the project’s impact on nearby wetlands and trees, the 64 Danbury Rd. team came ready to last week’s meeting with two alternatives that may do just that.
Two New Options Emerge After All
Attorney Lisa Feinberg set the stage, explaining that the team had met with Wilton Director of Environmental Affairs Michael Conklin and peer review firm Cardinal Engineering to work through a series of outstanding questions raised about the project.
“We’ve digested feedback from the Commission and Mr. Conklin regarding the impact of Buildings 7 and 8 on the northeast corner of the site,” Feinberg said. “And we’ve submitted two new alternatives for your consideration, which would result in less disturbance of these trees than the current proposal.”
Engineer Erik Lindquist of Tighe & Bond went through the two new alternatives:
- Alternative 101-B combines the current Buildings 7 and 8 into a single Building 7. Eliminating the space that had been between the two buildings allows the single building to sit 10-12 feet further to the east away from the wetlands on site. It also eliminates the need to level and grade approximately 20 feet of wooded hillside, saving several trees.
- Alternative 101-C keeps the current layout with Buildings 7 and 8 as separate structures but moves both buildings approximately 25 feet down off of the slope/hillside. This is achieved by eliminating one row of 14 parking spots.
And 163 Additional Trees Found
The feasibility of alternatives wasn’t the only concern the Commission had identified last month. During the Apr. 25 meeting, Conklin had flagged concerns that many trees on site were being omitted from the diagram showing which ones would be cut down as part of the construction process.
“I walked this whole hillside and I was walking through a really wooded area,” he said. “On the plan, it doesn’t look like there’s that many trees.” The 64 Danbury team had explained that they had chosen to only include trees with trunks larger than 12 inches in diameter in the original diagram.
Conklin and the Commission asked to have the diagram re-made to show all trees with trunks larger than 2.5 inches. In response, landscape architect Kate Throckmorton returned with an updated diagram with 163 additional trees that had been previously omitted. However, she noted that approximately 75% of the trees were Norway maples, which Feinberg later called an invasive species.
Looking Ahead
The presentation on May 9 brought the options and impacts of the 64 Danbury proposal into greater focus, but procedurally it remains in virtually the same place. Peer review firm Cardinal Engineering received the updated alternatives and is currently reviewing them, but representatives of the firm were not able to attend the meeting itself. Chair Nick Lee asked Conklin to make sure Cardinal was aware of the review timetable, which is nearing its conclusion in a few weeks.
The public hearing for the project remains open and comments from the public are welcomed by email or in person at the next meeting of the Inland Wetlands Commission on Thursday, May 23, at 7 p.m. (the meeting will be held hybrid — in person at Comstock and online via zoom.)
The project is also expected to begin the public comment stage of its public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission this evening, Monday, May 13. The hearing comes after a meeting in which the applicant team appeared to downplay the significance of the discussions underway at the Inland Wetlands Commission.
Before closing, the applicant team pushed for guidance from the Commission on which alternative they were leaning towards, a request that Conklin objected to given that the alternatives had not been fully presented, the peer review firm had not weighed in on the alternatives, and the public hearing was still open. Nonetheless, the Commissioners offered some preliminary but inconsistent reactions to the three alternatives.
Commissioner Frank Simone, said, “My personal feeling, being less knowledgeable than others on the Commission, is I would go with the alternative that the developer likes best of the three [the original proposal], with the understanding that we would get as many goodies [additional native plantings] as possible. I’m hearing a lot of reasons from a commercial perspective why the alternatives aren’t as attractive in terms of filling it up with tenants.”
Commissioner Kathy Dhanda, who was appointed in January, declined to offer a position stating, “It’s a little too confusing for me.” She also abstained from voting on 131 Danbury Rd. in March.
Commissioner Mike Whitted, who was appointed just last week, asked Throckmorton and Lindquist whether there is a significant difference from an environmental perspective between the original proposal and Alternative 101-B. After both responded that there would be minor if any environmental benefit to 101-B, Whitted echoed Simone’s preference for the developer’s original proposal.
Commissioner Rem Bigosinski seemed disappointed by the options being presented. “Typically the alternatives are a bit more significant in terms of what you’re trying to achieve,” he said. He questioned whether a more significant change to the building placement or orientation could be considered, and also offered as a suggestion to use boulders for the retaining walls rather than manmade material. Fuller responded well to the boulder suggestion and seemed to indicate that they would pursue that as a feature.
Finally, Lee expressed a preference for Alternative 101-B. “I don’t see that there’s any negative to that, pulling [the building] further away [from the wetland] and creating more area for planting. I don’t see any downside and only a plus.”