Commercial Development is Put on Hold While Wilton’s Sewer Authority Resolves Capacity and Priority Questions

In yet another marathon meeting (March 14), Wilton’s Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) continued to wrestle with complex questions about Wilton’s sewer capacity.

Under Wilton’s contract with Norwalk, whose water treatment facility receives Wilton’s flow, the town’s contractual flow limit is 650,000 average annual gallons per day.

With commercial development on the rise in Wilton, requests for sewer allocations from a variety of commercial interests — including new multifamily housing, existing business expansion, and commercial redevelopment — are mounting, while Wilton’s available sewer capacity is dwindling. With four additional new applications received since its last meeting, the Authority is feeling the heat, as the threat of nearing or exceeding that contractual limit has become very real.

The consequences for exceeding the sewer capacity limit under the contract with Norwalk are unclear, and the WPCA is facing a quandary when it comes to making decisions on new applications. What’s more, those decisions are being made within the context of the ongoing discussion over just how much and how quickly development should happen in Wilton.

Capacity Needs

The March 14 meeting began with an update on the Town’s efforts to assess the situation. DPW Director/Town Engineer Frank Smeriglio reviewed the latest data on the Town’s sewer flows and the possible methodologies for estimating flow from various projects.

In the hopes of unlocking available capacity, the WPCA has been scrutinizing the standards used to estimate flows. The generally accepted standards — 150 gallons per bedroom per day — may be overly conservative, especially when applied to multifamily developments. Recalculating flows with lower standards — as low as 55 gallons per bedroom per day — could hypothetically yield more capacity.

But as Smeriglio demonstrated in his presentation using two alternative scenarios, reducing the standards won’t solve Wilton’s capacity needs.

“We’re definitely going over [the limit] in either one of those scenarios,” Smerigio told the members.

“Either we have to say no, or we’re just going to assume the risk,” Smeriglio told the members.

While Town officials will continue to explore whether and how to refine the standards used to estimate flow, Smeriglio emphasized that focusing on the standards is “too granular” for the broader issues facing the WPCA, and only complicated by:

• whether applications previously approved under a higher set of standards would have to adhere to a reduced estimated flow
• the unknown impact of projects under appeal or whose approvals may expire
• the possibility that partially occupied or vacant buildings could return to higher flows in the future
• the limited upside potential Smeriglio expects from “inflow and infiltration” (I&I) remedies (after earlier testing of Wilton’s sewer system showed where excess inflow was entering the system)

As First Selectman Toni Boucher announced in her newsletter to residents, Town officials have reached out to Norwalk’s leadership to initiate discussions about increasing the contractual limit.

Smeriglio emphasized the importance of “coordinating” with Norwalk before the WPCA makes any significant new allocation decisions. He reported that Norwalk officials have been informed of potential new projects in Wilton and requested their input. (As of the March 14 meeting, formal talks had not been yet scheduled, but Smeriglio said he was hopeful an initial meeting would be arranged within the next week.)

“Since the flows are approaching our contractual limit, we wanted [Norwalk’s] input on the theoretical flow options so that we can use it as guidance” in reviewing new applications, Smeriglio said. “We need to be open with them, because whether we’re at 90% or 105% or 110%, we want to know what the consequences are going to be… should actual flows inadvertently exceed contractual limits.”

Smeriglio also advised the WPCA that new policies might be needed going forward, such as a new requirement for the Town to receive water meter readings from sewer users, and fees for users whose meter readings exceed their allocations — even for pending or approved projects.

“A Period of Time” — and a Warning about Tax Burden from a Developer

“There’s an awful lot of important information that we need to get before [we can] move forward with applications,” Boucher said at the conclusion of Smeriglio’s presentation. “Hopefully those [applicants] that are listening in understand that.”

Boucher said “a period of time” would be necessary for Town officials to gather the information needed.

On the agenda following Smeriglio were representatives of a half-dozen projects at various points in the application pipeline to speak about what their sewer needs might be.

Two major multifamily developments currently in the application process — 131 Danbury Rd. and 64 Danbury Rd. — were in attendance at the meeting and agreed to a time extension. (Applicants for two other multifamily developments — 15 Old Danbury Rd. and 21 River Rd. — were also in attendance, but are only in the preliminary stages of project planning.) The WPCA members also heard from ASML representatives about significant future expansion plans at 20 Westport Rd., including a new cleanroom and a third building planned at the site.

Sam Fuller, who has proposed a 93-unit, townhome-style community at 64 Danbury Rd., addressed the WPCA. He is also the developer of 141 Danbury Rd., currently under construction.

“We [will be] one of the largest taxpayers in Town once we’re complete and occupied,” he said, noting that 141 Danbury Rd. is expected to generate roughly $1.2 million in tax revenue plus additional revenue from tenants’ motor vehicle taxes.

Fuller explained that delayed decisions from the WPCA represented “real dollars” in carrying costs for property owners, which ultimately are passed on as higher rents for tenants, and result in lost tax revenue that could be generated from an improved property.

“When Wilton stifles economic development, that impacts all the taxpayers in the Town in a number of ways. It makes the existing land worthless if it can’t be developed,” he said.

Fuller argued that if the Town doesn’t have adequate sewer capacity to allow redevelopment of “obsolete” office buildings to a higher use, a “substantially larger” tax burden would necessarily fall on residents — contrary to the goals of Wilton’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD).

Fuller also addressed a common perception that multifamily housing puts a strain on municipal resources, including schools.

“The economic cost to the Town is very, very small,” Fuller continued. “People often mistakenly think apartments generate a lot of school kids. That’s not the case.”

Rather, Fuller said multifamily developments like 141, 131 and 64 Danbury Rd. would “contribute substantially” to Wilton’s economic development goals, with a target market identified as “new entrants” who don’t have school-aged children yet and older residents who are downsizing from a family home.

More to the sewer issues at hand — and echoing Smeriglio’s earlier comments — Fuller said the “marginal differences” of the standards used to estimate sewer flows were beside the point.

“The idea of constraining or delaying development is of grave concern to me as a taxpayer, and it should be to all taxpayers in Town,” Fuller said. “I encourage you to get as much capacity as you can from Norwalk… All of these properties pay very huge sewer hookup fees and huge flow use fees, so it’s not like the money isn’t there to buy the capacity.”

Boucher responded that higher capacity is the Town’s intent.

“We’re going to ask for as much capacity as we can. That is what we’re seeking,” she told Fuller.

Priorities, and Questions Raised by 131 Danbury Rd. Attorney

Last October, after realizing how rapidly Wilton could be approaching the contractual flow limit, the WPCA agreed to establish priorities for the areas where remaining sewer capacity would be allocated, with the transit-oriented district (TOD) surrounding the Wilton train station as top priority, followed by Wilton Center and Danbury Rd.

In February, the WPCA added another layer of priority for the expansion of existing businesses like ASML.

Joseph Hammer, the attorney for the 131 Danbury Rd. applicant, sent a letter to the WPCA highlighting that a negative decision on his client’s application would be “arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable” given the WPCA’s February decision to approve an ASML application — which, he noted, was submitted after the 131 Danbury Rd. application and in the same Danbury Rd. area the WPCA had prioritized at the time.

Hammer objected to the Town’s new policy of “selectively approving an application based on the identity of the applicant” and “applying a new allocation preference policy retroactively.”

Hammer was not the only attendee to raise questions about the WPCA’s priorities. The Danbury Rd. priority area came up several times during the meeting, revealing some confusion among WPCA members and applicants about precisely what it meant.

“I would suggest the WPCA put the priority list back on the agenda for further discussion,” said WPCA member Bas Nabulsi, highlighting the need to, among other things, further define “Danbury Rd.” in terms of its priority status relative to other priorities as well as for consistency with P&Z zoning distinctions between east and west locations along the route.

Boucher agreed with the suggestion to clarify the priorities and said the language pertaining to Danbury Rd. “wasn’t clear” in the policy that was adopted.

“Hopeful” for Progress

While some of Boucher’s comments during the meeting seemed to reinforce the notion of prioritizing some sewer users or some areas over others, she also commented that perhaps tough choices could be avoided by resolution of the capacity question.

“I’m still holding out hope,” Boucher said. “I think that Norwalk does have a substantial amount of capacity. The question is how much more would they give us? I’m hopeful that they will give us enough that we can address a number of the items that we have on this list.”

Boucher said that decisions on the various applications would best be made after discussions with Norwalk, “when we have the ability to make a good positive decision.”

“We do want you all to succeed and to move forward,” she told the applicants at the meeting. “But right now you’re hearing that we’re in an untenable position” with the current contractual flow limit.

In advocating for his client at 131 Danbury Rd., Hammer noted the WPCA is free to approve new allocations before renegotiating the current contract with Norwalk.

“The contract does not include a provision applying a penalty in the event that the Wilton flow were to exceed the current contractual flow volume prior to an amendment of the agreement,” Hammer wrote in his letter.

Boucher responded sharply to Hammer’s suggestion, saying “the ultimate penalty would be canceling our contract for something [that] didn’t meet the terms” of the contract.

“I doubt that [Norwalk] might do that, but nevertheless, we do not know that,” Boucher said.

The WPCA has received several letters from residents in support of or opposed to the applications the WPCA is currently considering. Residents may email the WPCA members via the contact form on the Town wesbite. The WPCA’s next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 10.