With 131 Danbury Rd. appearing poised for approval later this month, eyes are on the next major multi-family development headed to Rte. 7: the eight-building 93-unit apartment complex proposed for 64 Danbury Rd. The project returned to the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 30 for a straightforward presentation that did not convey some of the issues at debate at the Inland Wetlands Commission. The two town commissions are reviewing the application concurrently.
The site poses some particular challenges that both Commissions will contend with. The parcel of land backs up onto a hillside and the layout of the eight buildings will require cutting into the slope, installing retaining walls and clear-cutting a heavily wooded area.
Background
Initially presented in February 2021 at a more preliminary design stage, the project was shelved for two years due to existing tenant issues at the site and the emergence of the developer’s nearby 141 Danbury Rd. site as a more immediate opportunity. However, before being withdrawn, that initial review yielded mainly critical feedback from P&Z on the architectural direction of the project.
Developer Samuel Fuller then returned with a new design in the summer of 2023 and went through several rounds of changes with ARB before heading for round two at P&Z last fall. The reactions again were tepid, with P&Z Chair Rick Tomasetti saying, “The other one looked like a Super 8. This one looks like marine barracks.”
Fuller agreed to revisit the design once more and returned with a final proposal, which is the one currently under consideration. Due to the shape of the site and the placement of the eight buildings, the project will require a zoning amendment to relax the town’s regulations that protect steep slopes from disturbance.
During the Mar. 25 meeting of P&Z, Fuller said he “took credit” for the creation of the steep slope regulation’s existence, explaining that it was adopted in response to his development of the Avalon complex along the hillside behind Wilton Center. He added that at the time “the town was trying to reduce density… and now the town’s goals have changed with the [Plan of Conservation and Development].”
Inland Wetlands Commission & Peer Review Firm Push for Greater Detail and Less Environmental Disturbance
On Thursday, Apr. 25, the Inland Wetlands Commission met with Fuller, the project’s engineering, landscape, and legal teams, and Cardinal Engineering, the peer review firm selected to weigh in on the proposal.
In his review and testimony that evening, Cardinal’s Roy Seelye outlined a series of details he felt were missing from the application.
“You need to show the impacts on the stream and the wetlands,” he said to the applicant team. “I think you’re going to need a water handling plan because that’s a significant amount of water you’re going to have coming through there.”
He then noted that the proposal should have included a staging plan that outlines what steps will be taken to minimize damage to the wetlands and erosion along the slope at each phase of construction. That comment kicked off a back-and-forth between project engineer Erik Lindquist and Inland Wetlands Chair Nick Lee.
“At the end of the day, it really comes down to the contractor, and how he plans on doing these things,” Lindquist said in response to Seelye. “I can put together a beautiful plan, but they’re going to go about it in a way that makes the most sense for building for them…”
Lee interjected, “It is very common, Erik, we almost always ask for a construction sequence on every application we get. We don’t wait for them to tell us — you propose it, we approve it, and they have to stick to it.”
“Understood,” Lindquist said. “I just don’t want to handcuff them.”
“Well, you may have to handcuff them. That’s what we ask for,” Lee said.
Wilton’s Director of Environmental Affairs Michael Conklin also questioned the applicant’s decision to only include trunks with a diameter greater than 12 inches on the map outlining the number of trees that will need to be cut down for the project.
“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. You’re saying that any tree that’s smaller than 12 inches [diameter] doesn’t matter.”
The most significant disagreement of the evening, however, involved the fundamental size and layout of the complex. During the prior hearing, the Commission had requested that Fuller and his team explore an alternative site plan that rotated the position of Building 7 and Building 8, in hopes of limiting the impact on the nearby slope and wetlands. That option was presented, although the applicant team made it clear the design was a nonstarter for them, due to issues with emergency vehicle access, among other concerns. They also argued that the change had a negligible environmental benefit.
Several other ideas were floated by the Commission and Conklin and met with increasing tension from the applicant team, who felt that the changes would make the project economically unviable. These included:
- Installing two taller retaining walls rather than four shorter ones in the alternative layout option that the Commission asked the applicant to explore
- Eliminating the pool and clubhouse and relocating one of the two buildings currently in the steep slope area to that section of the site
- Eliminating Building 8 altogether
On the final point, Lee and Fuller got into a debate about the approval of the Avalon project in Wilton Center, with Lee stating that the Commission was told then too that a certain number of units were required to make the project viable. However, he said, when the Commission pushed back, Fuller successfully redesigned the project with fewer units. He urged Fuller to reconsider eliminating Building 8.
Fuller said of the Avalon project, “That development came in as 102 units and we built 102 units,” meaning the proposal was not reduced in response to Commission opposition.
Commissioner Rem Bigosinski also asked if the applicant had ever considered more density on the site, such as 150 to 200 units. Fuller reiterated that other options were considered but the proposal being presented was deemed the best option.
In closing, he added, “We studied this site for two years and this is the most viable plan economically. So to simply take away six units and have no benefit to the environment, but just kill the project, that doesn’t help anyone.
The applicant team agreed to continue working with peer review firm Cardinal to fine-tune the proposal in response to the evening’s discussions.
At P&Z, Applicant Team Downplays Inland Wetlands Commission Concerns
The Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing for 64 Danbury Rd. on March 25 and it was continued (meaning, skipped) on April 8 at the request of the applicant. On April 30, the public hearing process resumed but has not yet reached the stage where public comment is accepted.
In the presentation to P&Z this week, representatives for Fuller Development alluded to matters being debated at the Inland Wetlands Commission, but he framed the issues as either matters already resolved or minor tweaks to the project.
I’m obviously not going to go line by line through 100+ comments. I will just say a lot of them had to do with just coordination back and forth with the third party review engineer, tweaking some comments, adding some details — high-level things that I don’t think the Commission will be overly concerned about. Erik Lindquist, Project Engineer
Lindquist referred to the issues flagged in Cardinal’s peer review of the project as “tweaks” and “minor details” several times in his presentation to P&Z. Of Conklin’s request that the map be updated to show all of the trees being removed, not just those over 12″ in trunk diameter, Lindquist said they were still coordinating but then showed P&Z only a zoomed out image of the entire site and said, “As you can see, a lot more detail has been provided as to where the trees are.”
A comparison shot between what was shown to Inland Wetlands and what was shown to P&Z this week appears to not have additional detail provided. The image shown to Inland Wetlands (below, left) vs. the one shown to P&Z (below, right) with “a lot more detail” about trees that would be cut down. Each X represents a tree but Conklin described the area as “heavily wooded” with many more trees than were depicted.
The formal presentation focused on drainage, utilities, and a series of renderings requested by Tomasetti, with no particular information on the steep slope at issue or the applicant’s request to loosen Wilton’s regulations to accommodate the project. Only when Town Planner Michael Wrinn asked the Commission whether they felt they had enough information to make a decision did the applicant team address the steep slope topic. Still, no direct mention was made of Inland Wetlands’ concern that the placement of Buildings 7 and 8 posed an erosion risk to the slope.
Attorney for the project Lisa Feinberg displayed the language of the existing steep slope regulation and said, “In the context of this site, we’re talking about just a small hill in the far eastern side of the site and without our ability to, as Erik said, nestle the project into that hillside, we lose those two buildings, 7 and 8. From our perspective, the community and the town have gone through a lot of change since the time that the steep slope regulation was adopted and the perspective has changed in terms of your goals.”
She added that generating more diversity of housing, especially along Danbury Rd., was a main goal of the 2019 Plan of Conservation & Development.
During the March 25, P&Z Chair Tomasetti had asked Fuller to prepare a more detailed set of elevation renderings of the project to depict how the development would look from various viewing angles nearby. These were presented as well.
With the presentation by the applicant team complete, the Commissioners had an opportunity to ask questions about the project but only two spoke up. Commissioner Anthony Cenatiempo referenced a comment he recalled Fuller making that the slope in question might actually be infill from a prior development, not a natural slope.
“Is there any way to verify that?” he asked. “If it’s a slope made of fill that’s been there for x number of years… I think that would be information I would like to know.”
Attorney Feinberg agreed to consult aerial photographs in an effort to confirm the matter.
Finally, Commissioner Chris Wilson asked for greater detail on trash removal and servicing of compactors, and seemed satisfied with what he heard.
Looking Ahead
Most public hearings at P&Z take place over multiple meetings, proceeding through a series of stages. The structure of Wilton’s P&Z public hearings is as follows:
- The applicant team presents the project to P&Z and the Commissioners have an opportunity to ask questions and engage in a dialogue with the applicant.
- When questions from the Commission are over, the public has a chance to comment on the project. Once public comment concludes, the applicant can respond to questions and topics brought up by the public if they choose to.
- The Commission then votes to close the public hearing, after which they can begin deliberations and discuss the project with each other.
- When deliberations are over, the Commission directs staff to prepare a resolution approving or denying the application. In some cases, a resolution or even two resolutions (one to approve and one to reject) will have been prepared in advance.
- The Commission will then vote for either a resolution of approval or a resolution of rejection.
P&Z is currently in Step 1 of the above list, which is generally the longest step in the process as it represents the main opportunity for the Commission to learn and ask questions about a project. Public comment was not taken during the April 30 meeting because the applicant may present additional information once the Inland Wetlands’ report has been submitted. Wilton’s P&Z requires applicants to conclude their presentation before hearing public comment, otherwise the Commission could be presented with information that the public never has a chance to weigh in on.
Public comment on the project is expected to take place at the next meeting of P&Z on Monday, May 13. The project will also be back at Inland Wetlands on Thursday, May 9.
The two commissions are reviewing the project concurrently, due in part to the time that has passed since it was originally submitted last December. P&Z will consider the findings of each group when it votes on whether to approve the project.
During the March 25 meeting, 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 decision totally independent of that. You just have to take the report into consideration after they submit it.”
Will these be apartments or condominiums?