The following Op-Ed was submitted as sponsored content, and paid for by the author. GMW has published election coverage guidelines and policies, including a schedule for election-related letters to the editor, candidate op-eds and endorsements. Candidates, campaigns or individuals that wish to publish other materials outside of our schedule are able to do so through sponsored posts. For more information, please refer to GMW‘s election coverage guidelines and policies.
As chair of Wilton’s Planning and Zoning Commission, I have followed recent candidate interviews and letters with concern. I must address significant factual and legal errors in statements from P&Z candidates Jessica Rainey, Michelle Saglimbene, Margaret Ritz, Trevor Huffard and incumbent Ken Hoffman. While I applaud anyone willing to serve our community, voters deserve accurate information about what the commission can and cannot legally do.
I am not on the ballot this year — I’m in the middle of my term — but as chair, I feel obligated to correct misunderstandings that could undermine years of strategic planning and expose Wilton to legal liability.
Understanding the Commission’s Dual Role
The most persistent confusion involves the commission’s two fundamentally different functions:
Legislative “Planning” Role: When we develop long-range plans like the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) or area master plans, we conduct extensive public engagement including town-wide surveys, public workshops and community visioning sessions. This is when we set the community’s vision. We completed this process for both our 2019 POCD and the Wilton Center Master Plan.
Quasi-Judicial “Zoning” Role: When we review specific development applications at our bi-weekly meetings, we are conducting administrative hearings. We apply publicly vetted regulations to individual cases. In this capacity, the application, all materials, testimony, reports and comments (written or spoken) create and constitute an appealable record. Connecticut law requires strict procedural rules to ensure fairness. In the same way a judge cannot discuss a case privately with one party, commissioners are prohibited from having conversations (written or oral) about matters concerning an application outside the hearing process.
When candidates promise “open mic” sessions during P&Z meetings, they’re proposing to violate due process requirements. The applicant has the right to have any comments about their application made on the record so that they may respond and so that they are included in any judicial review of the decision on the application. Our town attorney has correctly advised against such discussions outside formal public hearings. This isn’t the chair’s preference. It is established case law (Blaker v. PZC, 1988) protecting both applicants’ rights and Wilton from legal challenges.
Confusing these two roles leads to proposals that sound good but are actually illegal.
Recent Achievements Under Current Leadership
The claim that this commission “hasn’t done planning” ignores substantial recent accomplishments:
- Transparency innovations: Video-recorded meetings and online posting of all materials, implemented years before state mandate
- Architectural Review Board: Created to provide professional design guidance ensuring quality development
- Affordable housing reform: Eliminated sunset clauses so affordable units remain permanently affordable
- 2019 Plan of Conservation and Development: Completed through an extensive multi-year public process
- Adaptive reuse zoning: Reformed regulations to allow corporate buildings to be repurposed, addressing a key community goal
- Wilton Center Master Plan: Developed modern form-based zoning that regulates building design and street relationships, not just uses
Understanding the Strategic Vision
The POCD’s planning strategy is crucial context that candidates seem to misunderstand. Wilton’s two-acre residential zoning is a treasured community asset that honors our town’s agrarian history. However, there’s simply no room for significant new development in these established neighborhoods, nor should there be.
The publicly supported POCD recognized this reality and provided clear direction: protect what residents love about Wilton while being proactive about where inevitable growth should occur. Rather than allowing development pressure to encroach on residential neighborhoods, the POCD correctly guided us to focus on redeveloping underutilized and often vacant commercial properties along the Danbury Rd. corridor and greater Wilton Center area. This is strategic planning — directing growth to appropriate locations while preserving residential character.
This explains why the Master Plan’s core strategy was adding residential use to our center, which was previously prohibited, specifically to create a built-in customer base for the retail, restaurants and bookstores that candidates say they want. Residential development in the commercial corridor isn’t undermining our town; it’s protecting our residential neighborhoods while revitalizing and bringing vibrancy to underutilized commercial areas. This represents sound planning, economic development and faithful execution of the public’s vision as expressed in the POCD.
The next planning priorities — Cannondale Master Plan, Georgetown/Route 7 Corridor Plan, and the 2029 POCD update — are already identified in our current plan. These represent strategic continuation, not new ideas needing discovery.
Some candidates have incorrectly suggested the 2029 POCD update will be a major focus of the coming term. This misunderstands the timeline. A comprehensive POCD update typically requires 18-24 months of intensive work and includes community surveys, workshops, data analysis, draft review and public hearings. Given our current 2019 POCD doesn’t expire until 2029, this update is not imminent over the next two years. The immediate priorities for the coming term are completing the Cannondale Master Plan and Georgetown/Route 7 Corridor Plan, both of which will inform the eventual POCD update.
Legal Constraints That Cannot Be Ignored
Several candidate proposals conflict with Connecticut law:
On ownership type: Some candidates suggest requiring condominiums instead of rental apartments. Connecticut law (F.A.S.T. v. Waterford, 1987) explicitly prohibits this. Zoning regulates land use, not ownership structure. The commission cannot treat rental apartments differently from condominiums — they are legally identical “residential uses.”
On affordable housing percentages: Our incentive-based zoning regulations require 10% of units be affordable. The claim that “10% will never get us there” may be accurate but oversimplifies a complex mathematical reality that voters need to understand. Establishing a 10% affordable housing requirement addresses the issue of affordable housing, even if it does not prevent developers from using the state’s 8-30g statute.
At its core, the state’s 8-30g law allows developers to bypass all local regulations (except those linked to health and safety) if a town hasn’t met state affordable housing targets. Those targets include 10% of the total number of housing units in a town (single family, apartments, etc.) be affordable. If a developer makes 30% of units in a development affordable, 8-30g allows that developer to bypass height, coverage, design, parking and any other P&Z regulations. This allows more units in a smaller space. Additionally, the state incentivizes 8-30g developments by offering various grant programs to developers to offset the cost of building the developments.
Some candidates suggest we should simply increase the set-aside to 15% or even 20% to meet the target and avoid 8-30g buildings. That oversimplification fails to address the economic reality of the cost of building affordable units. The costs to build 15-20% affordable units would prevent most development in town, unless the project fell under 8-30g, removing virtually all oversight by P&Z.
For a temporary state moratorium, the requirements are even more stringent. Connecticut requires accumulating Housing Unit Equivalents (HUE) equal to 2% of our housing stock over a four-year lookback period — about 132 points for Wilton. To qualify for moratorium, roughly 60% of all units approved in the last four years would need to be deed-restricted affordable housing. Even with aggressive 20% set-asides, this standard is mathematically out of reach under normal development conditions.
The commission can and has approved applications with higher affordable percentages when appropriate and has acted to incentivize increased percentages.
The reality is that housing affordability is shaped by factors far beyond local zoning: commodity prices, labor costs, land costs and availability, financing terms, and broader economic conditions. Promising that different set-aside percentages will “solve” our affordable housing challenge without acknowledging these mathematical realities is misleading voters. Some characterize 8-30g as a “loophole,” but it’s actually the governing law. Understanding these constraints is essential to effective policy.
On “negotiating” with developers: One candidate repeatedly calls for the commission to “negotiate” during application hearings, suggesting a quid-pro-quo for approvals. This would constitute illegal contract zoning. The commission’s authority is strictly defined by state statute (C.G.S. § 8-2) and our Town Charter. We must apply our adopted regulations consistently and fairly.
Negotiation properly occurs during the legislative planning process when we create regulations. During quasi-judicial hearings, we determine whether specific applications comply with existing rules. Attempting to “negotiate” to avoid denials would be arbitrary, exceeds our authority, and provides grounds for immediate court reversal.
On administrative versus policy roles: Some complaints about permit delays for simple projects like garages demonstrate confusion about municipal structure. The Planning and Zoning Commission votes on regulations and major applications. The Planning and Zoning Department — comprised of town staff — handles administrative permits. Blaming the volunteer commission for potential staff-level processing issues reflects fundamental misunderstanding of basic town functions.
Concerns About Specific Proposals
Beyond general misunderstandings, some specific candidate statements warrant response:
One candidate claims we “spend too much time arguing about paint colors” and that “planning and zoning shouldn’t worry about” facade design. This dismisses a required duty. The Wilton Center Master Plan specifically mandates that we review building facades, materials and architectural details to ensure they meet standards created during the public planning process. This is the “good planning” that creates attractive, human-scale development rather than generic strip malls.
On hybrid meetings: While accessibility matters — and we’ve dramatically improved it through video recording and online materials — our quasi-judicial hearings require participants to view complex architectural and engineering drawings in real-time. Current town technology cannot reliably support this for all participants simultaneously while maintaining the legal record these hearings require.
Regarding fiscal impact: One candidate suggests the town hasn’t studied whether development is “accretive or dilutive.” This ignores extensive analysis embedded in both the Wilton Center Master Plan process and individual application reviews. Public records consistently show multi-family development contributes significantly more in tax revenue than it costs in services, while generating minimal school enrollment, which is dwindling according to the most recent Board of Education/Board of Finance analysis. The data exists, but it doesn’t support the conclusion some candidates seek.
A Concern About Incumbent Proposals
Most troubling are proposals from a current commission member who voted for regulations he now criticizes. Having been briefed multiple times by both commission leadership and Town Counsel on legal requirements, his public dismissal of attorney guidance on due process is particularly concerning.
His characterization of legal advice as an “excuse” and his repeated calls to “negotiate” during hearings suggest a troubling willingness to disregard legal counsel that protects both applicants’ rights and the town’s interests. This represents the opposite of good governance.
What’s at Stake
These aren’t mere technicalities. Legally flawed decisions get overturned in court, costing taxpayer money and eliminating local input. Violating due process exposes Wilton to lawsuits and can invalidate years of work.
Planning and Zoning is arguably Wilton’s most technical board. It requires working knowledge of land use law, state statutes, constitutional due process and municipal finance. Commission members must make difficult decisions that balance competing interests within legal constraints.
Wilton has been built by those who respected both community input and legal process. We face increasing pressure from state-level mandates on local zoning. The commission has been proactive, planning for inevitable development on our terms rather than accepting state-imposed solutions.
This requires commissioners who understand the legal framework within which we operate — not those who dismiss attorney guidance as inconvenient or promise solutions that sound appealing but are legally impossible.
Questions for Voters to Ask
I encourage voters to ask candidates:
- How will you navigate quasi-judicial due process requirements?
- What is your understanding of key Connecticut land use statutes?
- How would you balance community preferences with legal constraints?
- How would you protect Wilton’s local control while respecting applicants’ constitutional rights?
Wilton’s future depends on commissioners who understand that protecting our town’s character requires more than good intentions — it demands working knowledge of the law, respect for due process, and the discipline to make difficult decisions within legal constraints. The stakes are too high for on-the-job learning. Our community deserves leaders who will safeguard local control through sound legal practices while faithfully executing the strategic vision our residents approved.
Rick Tomasetti
Chairman
Wilton Planning and Zoning Commission
Detailed legal citations and planning documents available upon request.
A Model of Responsible, Informed Leadership
Rick Tomasetti’s op-ed stands out as one of the most thoughtful, detailed, and fact-based contributions to Wilton’s local election discourse this season. In a time when campaign rhetoric too often drifts toward soundbites and oversimplifications, Tomasetti offers what voters deserve most: clarity, substance, and a steady hand guided by both law and experience.
His essay performs an invaluable public service by explaining the often-misunderstood dual roles of the Planning and Zoning Commission — its legislative “planning” function and its quasi-judicial “zoning” authority. Tomasetti patiently walks readers through why these distinctions matter, grounding his explanation in Connecticut law and real precedent. Far from bureaucratic jargon, this is civic education at its best — giving residents a clearer understanding of how their government actually works.
Equally impressive is his balanced and transparent accounting of the commission’s achievements under current leadership. By highlighting specific reforms — from permanent affordable housing provisions to adaptive reuse zoning and modernized transparency practices — Tomasetti demonstrates that Wilton’s P&Z has been both proactive and responsive. He connects these accomplishments directly to community-endorsed goals in the 2019 Plan of Conservation and Development, reminding readers that sound planning is not about chasing slogans but about executing a coherent, long-term vision.
Tomasetti also shows a rare combination of legal precision and public-minded tone. His discussion of affordable housing laws, for example, is factual, nuanced, and grounded in the economic realities that most candidates gloss over. He doesn’t dismiss alternative views — he contextualizes them, showing respect for differing opinions while insisting on accuracy.
Perhaps most importantly, Tomasetti’s piece underscores a critical truth about public service: integrity requires discipline. His warning against illegal “negotiations” with developers, disregard for town counsel, or misuse of due process isn’t political — it’s principled. He defends the rule of law as the foundation of fair governance and community trust.
This op-ed is a model of responsible civic communication — clear, instructive, nonpartisan, and deeply committed to the well-being of the town. Tomasetti’s calm, informed voice reminds voters that good government depends not on slogans or ideology, but on competence, respect for process, and an unwavering dedication to the public good.
In an election cycle where misinformation and misunderstanding can too easily dominate, this piece exemplifies the kind of leadership and accountability every town should hope for in its officials.
As a prior chairman of the P&Z commission, I applaud the op-ed submitted by the current chairman. It excellently explains the different roles the commission plays.
One important point that people may not understand is that the commission does not have the right to concur or disagree with the intended use of property as long as it conforms with the existing laws. For example, a builder has the right to build a bank or donut shop right next to an existing one as long as the usage conforms to the P&Z and state regulations. Whether the project succeeds or fails or is a good use of funds or the town (vs some other business) is irrelevant.
The P&Z commission is not empowered to evaluate how someone chooses to use his property as long as they can satisfy the P&Z regulations. The focus of the commission when reviewing applications is to ensure that the project conforms to a site’s intended use and regulatory constraints.
If there are issues with the regulations themselves, then these concerns need to be addressed when the appropriate plan of development is under review or development. Personally, I do not like the fact that we now allow for buildings of higher heights to exist in the Wilton Center district, but a developer who proposes an application that conforms to the new height guidelines cannot be denied approval because we don’t like the height proposal. Fights on the height belong in the plan of development review, not in the application review.
Wilton is a wonderful town. I have lived here almost 50 years and have watched it grow and expand. It is up to all of us to ensure that our continued growth matches our strategic vision, while adhering to local regulations and other legal constraints.
Rick. You can’t lead or run a board or commission based on being scared of lawsuits. The suggestions that have been made do not violate P&Z rules. With regard to more public input I have repeatedly asked for us to hold in-person sessions where we can simply listen to what is on the public’s mind regarding planning in town. I have suggested we would not allow comment on active projects under commission consideration. It is simply foolish to think the public has read or participated in the development of the last POCD or sat through all of our subcommittee meetings. Many Wilton residents didn’t even live in town when the last POCD document was drafted. They are busy parents and business people as well as retired individuals. They simply don’t have the time for the level of attention you demand. And, things change. We should listen to the public. Similarly we have asked for a public comment period at the beginning of each session where people could again express their opinions on planning (not specific permits) related items. Other towns do this. Yet again, you had town counsel lecture us that this could potentially invite a lawsuit by a developer. With regard to negotiation, we could have asked Kimco if they intended to be a good citizen with regard to the mistake in the Downtown subcommittee regarding affordable housing. We didn’t even ask. They could still have said no. But they would have said no on the record. With regard to the approach to the developer who proposed the building that is now 8-30g, we made him wait, at his cost, until the new zoning work was done. Finally he ran out of patience due to P&Z’s significant delays and he invoked 8-30g. The 15% suggestion regarding affordable housing is a reasonable suggestion. Please show us your economic analysis where you can prove it’s not economically feasible. I doubt it would change the CapEx ROI return calculations on most projects in a meaningful way. I agree with the assumption that the new developments are accretive to the town budget. But that’s my belief, not a known fact. The only work that was done on those assumption was pre-pandemic and it was rather thin on data. It’s not complicated math. The BOS, BOF, and P&Z can do this work. The public deserves sound data as they make decisions about the future of Wilton. You can spout regulations to try to make your points but the fact remains: the public wants more input, and I, for one, am ready to listen.
My original letter set the record straight, provided factual information, and addressed concerns about planning, zoning, and land use expertise among those seeking office. Your response proves the point.
You accuse me of being “scared of lawsuits,” causing delays that led to the 8-30g development, and “spouting regulations” to avoid real solutions. Let me address each accusation, then examine your record – which shows the contrast between following the law and disregarding it.
I. The Commission’s Record
During my years serving as member, vice chair, and chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission, the vast majority of our decisions have been unanimous or near-unanimous. The record is public. The Commission has served Wilton faithfully through consensus-driven decision-making that respects both community interests and individual property rights.
When evaluating competing claims about leadership and judgment, residents should review the complete public record – not just voting records, but meeting minutes and other publicly available information about conduct and credibility. The facts speak for themselves.
II. Your Accusations – Addressed
A. “Scared of Lawsuits”
You accuse me of running the Commission “based on being scared of lawsuits.” The law constrains what we can do — protecting property owners from arbitrary government action. Constitutional protections, statutory requirements, and case law all matter. Ignoring legal counsel isn’t bold leadership — it’s recklessness that exposes the town to legal challenges and undermines our regulatory authority.
When decisions get overturned because we ignored legal advice, who pays? Taxpayers. Which property owners’ rights get violated? The ones who expected fair treatment.
That’s not “spouting regulations” — that’s defending due process and property rights.
B. “Transparency” and Public Input
You frame this as lacking “transparency” and “public input.” That’s false.
As I outlined in my letter, Planning & Zoning has a dual mandate: balancing public interest with protecting individual property rights. There IS public input — through public hearings, planning processes, and formal comment periods. Every meeting is public. Every vote is on record.
You’re demanding informal forums where crowds pressure the Commission outside legal process — stripping applicants of their right to fair treatment under clear rules. You want collective preferences to override property owners’ rights.
That’s not better transparency. That’s mob rule dressed up as public engagement.
You state: “We have asked for a public comment period at the beginning of each session…Other towns do this.”
The facts: We DID review this with Town Counsel. We reported findings. We had Counsel explain the legal concerns in meetings.
The salient question: Did you ever make a motion to implement this, have it seconded, and call a vote?
Not that I recall.
This shows your lack of procedural understanding. If you believed in this proposal, you could have made a formal motion. But you didn’t. You “asked,” then when Counsel explained the legal exposure, you now call following that advice fear rather than prudence.
And since you point to “other towns,” I can point to communities that do NOT allow open mike public comment precisely because of the legal issues Counsel identified.
Here’s the practical question you haven’t addressed: If we had an open mike session, would you restrict what the public can say? When someone discusses a current or pending application — which would inevitably happen — would you tell them to stop, constraining their free speech? Or allow it, creating the exact legal exposure Counsel warned about?
You can’t have both. Either you restrict speech to avoid legal problems — making your “transparency” forum less transparent than our current process — or you allow unrestricted comment and expose every decision to legal challenge.
The process we use works because it protects everyone — applicants’ due process rights, the public’s right to be heard at appropriate times, and the Commission’s ability to make legally defensible decisions. That’s not fear. That’s responsible governance.
C. “Ask Kimco to Be a Good Citizen”
You claim we should have “asked Kimco if they intended to be a good citizen” about providing affordable housing beyond regulatory requirements.
Government officials pressuring private parties beyond legal requirements? That’s extortion.
We regulate through adopted standards that respect property rights and provide clear rules. Property owners are entitled to know the rules and have them applied fairly. They’re not subject to ad hoc “asks” from government officials — that’s precisely the arbitrary government power constitutional protections prevent.
D. Delays Causing the 8-30g
You claim “we made him wait, at his cost, until the new zoning work was done” and that “he ran out of patience due to P&Z’s significant delays.”
What actually happened: The Commission was completing a comprehensive master planning process for Wilton Center — a $150,000 investment with extensive public input. First Selectwoman Vanderslice recommended waiting for the master plan before deciding. Residents spoke in favor of waiting.
YOU stated concerns about “the timing of the master plan as it relates to this project” and advocated for considering the master plan first.
So when you now blame “significant delays” for the 8-30g application, you’re blaming the very approach you advocated.
And when the 8-30g application came? I voted to deny. You abstained.
E. Affordable Housing Economics
You demand I prove 15% affordable housing isn’t economically feasible. That’s backwards — those advocating mandates should demonstrate feasibility.
But I’ll answer: Who pays? Either market-rate buyers pay higher prices, or developers accept lower returns and build less. Mandating below-market housing imposes a tax — on other housing consumers or on property owners.
There is no free lunch.
You demand others bear these costs. Yet nothing prevents you from deed-restricting your own property as affordable housing. But you don’t. And you won’t.
You want moral credit for supporting affordable housing without bearing the cost.
III. Your Actual Record
Now let’s examine your role in the decisions you now criticize:
Wilton Center Master Plan: During the Commission’s work session, you questioned street setbacks, staging and funding, wanted “stronger language” about “soul of the town.” What’s absent? Any concern about affordable housing percentages you now claim were obviously deficient. Then you were absent for the vote.
Wilton Center Overlay: Absent. No vote.
Original Lofts Application: You advocated delay — “concerned about the timing of the master plan.” The Commission instructed the planner to draft a denial. The applicant withdrew.
8-30g Application: When the applicant returned with an 8-30g application after the delay you advocated, you stated you wouldn’t favor approval. Then you abstained. I voted to deny.
The Pattern: “Ask” for things without making formal motions. Absent or abstaining when decisions are made. Then critical of outcomes you had every opportunity to influence.
You advocated delay you now blame for the 8-30g. You articulated concerns about 8-30g then abstained. You “asked” for public comment periods but never made a formal motion. You were absent for key votes.
Sowell wrote about people who advocate policies without paying the price. Your record is textbook.
IV. The Fundamental Divide
This debate is about individual rights vs. collective control.
I believe in classical liberal principles: individuals have rights that precede and constrain government power. Property rights are foundational. When someone invests in property, they possess rights that government cannot override because collective sentiment demands it.
You argue from a collectivist framework: property is subject to community control, government should enforce collective preferences, individual rights should yield when the group demands it.
When you dismiss legal constraints, you’re dismissing protections against arbitrary government action. When you advocate “asking” applicants to exceed regulatory requirements and informal forums outside proper process, you’re advocating government coercion over individual rights.
That’s the real debate. Everything else is camouflage.
V. Conclusion
Two fundamental questions:
Do individuals own property with rights that constrain government power? Or is property subordinate to collective preferences?
Should planning commissions decide based on adopted regulations through proper legal process? Or respond to collective sentiment through informal channels that bypass protections for individual applicants?
Your arguments embrace collectivism and informal pressure over individual rights and proper process. Mine rest on classical liberal principles.
Leadership means showing up. It means making formal motions when you want policy changes. It means voting on the record, not abstaining or being absent. It means defending property rights and due process even when collective sentiment pushes otherwise. It means taking responsibility for your positions, including delays you advocated.
Your record tells the story.
I showed up. I voted my convictions, including voting against the 8-30g application you now use as a weapon while omitting you abstained, were absent for key votes, advocated the delay you now blame for 8-30g, “asked” for public comment periods but never made a formal motion, and questioned setbacks and “soul of the town” but not the affordability requirements you now claim were obviously inadequate.
Wilton residents deserve the complete record — including who showed up, who voted, who made formal motions, who respects individual property rights, and who is rewriting history while advocating collective control over private property.
Rick Tomasetti
Chair Tomasetti’s synopsis is spot on. Parts of it should be posted as a FAQ.
Some history is helpful here. I was P&Z chair when the current POCD was done. Some may recall that the POCD process followed a particularly challenging time for the commission involving mistrusted procedures, controversial applications and several lawsuits stemming from issues similar to what Chair Tomasetti warns against.
The POCD process was a critical opportunity to take stock, check the public’s pulse and set a 10-year planning strategy for Wilton. It was a transparent, collaborative and comprehensive study of the Town’s planning goals performed over two years. It collectively involved thousands of hours and dozens of meetings, surveys and discussions with stakeholders, including nearly all town boards, major landowners, service groups and the public. And it created the strategic and tactical planning blueprint Wilton uses today.
The commission can only function well if it has a common understanding of the rules of the road. Everyone on P&Z needs to be conversant with the town’s basic planning documents (POCD and master plans), resulting town regulations and applicable state and federal law. This is not easy and it takes time, even for me, a commercial real estate lawyer, developer and prior P&Z chair. The steep learning curve is a testament to the time, discipline and dedication required of the current commission members and potential candidates in serving Wilton.
I also give the public credit, because it’s due. Everyone’s busy. They were equally busy when the current POCD was developed. Still, hundreds, if not thousands, of people found the time to participate meaningfully in the process. And they participated in the zoning applications that followed, including following rules about public comment on the record. Being new to town or busy may mean some additional learning curve or effort is required by both the public and commission in fostering public input, but it is not a gatekeeping issue, and it does not give license to dismiss existing planning documents, regulations or rules on public comment. More to the point: I think an “open mic” concept can work – with rules – in the context of a planning exercise, but it is ill-advised otherwise given applicable regulations and law.
That said, P&Z should always guard against becoming static or isolated. New ideas should be welcomed and processes can always be improved. Planning documents get stale over time. This is why this commission, following stated POCD goals, continued its master planning process for Wilton Center and has further planning targets for other areas of Wilton, all of which will require updated study and public input. This commission also accomplished some of the most comprehensive revisions to the town’s zoning regulations in the last 50 years, again following stated POCD goals with new public hearings and input. I’ll note that the commission could also do an early update of the POCD before the 10-year window accrues in 2029. We looked at doing an early update for the 2019 POCD, but determined it wasn’t the right path, because doing a POCD correctly takes time, and too frequent planning can be as unhelpful as too little planning – and it costs more in money, time and attention.
I thank the commissioners and candidates for their service, and I look forward to seeing how they work with the public on these important issues.
This letter provides a thorough, accurate, and balanced explanation of the complexities surrounding Connecticut’s 8-30g affordable housing statute and the broader legal framework that governs local land-use decisions. It makes clear why Planning & Zoning commissioners must fully understand the ramifications of 8-30g, as misunderstanding or minimizing it could expose the Town to legal challenges, loss of local control, and unintended development outcomes.
The author does an exceptional job of clarifying the dual role of the Commission—as both legislative planners and quasi-judicial decision-makers—and the legal boundaries that define each. This distinction is critical, as 8-30g operates within those limits and directly affects how Wilton can manage growth, affordability, and neighborhood character.
Most importantly, the letter underscores that responsible planning requires more than good intentions; it demands deep understanding of state law, due process, and precedent. For Wilton, where land is limited and community values are deeply rooted, the implications of 8-30g are profound. Commissioners who do not appreciate its power to override local zoning risk making well-meaning but legally unsound decisions that could reshape the town for decades.
In short, this letter serves as a model of clarity and civic responsibility—a reminder that informed, legally grounded leadership is essential to protecting both Wilton’s heritage and its ability to plan its own future.
Here’s what happened under your watch Rick.
1. You FORGOT to include minimum affordable housing in the new pocd for town center, allowing the proposed revamp of the Kimco properties in town to avoid having any. After years of delay on the pocd, no one on your board managed to notice that until it their lawyers brought it to your attention.
2. That current behemoth going up across from the Library? They brought you a smaller, nicer version. Their lawyer told you that if you didn’t approve it, they would come back with a larger building that falls under 8-30g. You denied it anyway, and they did exactly what they said they would.
That’s not leadership. That’s a disaster
Andy, The “smaller, nicer version” had an accompanying and required zone change to increase as of right height and density and lower parking requirements for every property of a half acre or more within a half mile of the Wilton Center train station. The impact to the half mile radius would have been significant-allowing for dramatic change as of right.
All of the half acre properties, not just this one, could have had a height of 52 ft-4 stories, density of 56 units per acre and a parking requirement of only 1.3 vehicles per unit. All as of right, with no public space requirements, no larger set back from the road, and no 10ft set back for the 4th fl. All elements of the overlay zone that were being discussed at the time and are now in the regulations.
The proposed zoning regulation changes are why the P&Z Commission was set to deny the application prior to it being withdrawn and the 8-30(g) application submitted.
I was on Zoom for those meetings and could see other half acre Wilton Center property owners in the meeting watching. Presuming hoping it would pass and increase their development possibilities.
One did subsequently file an application. That subsequently filed application and process was very different from what would have occurred had Granoff’s first application been approved.
The zoning change application is here: https://www.wiltonct.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif10026/f/uploads/application_64.pdf
Tom Reese in DPW can provide you with a map of the half mile radius. He prepared one that was on the FS webpage that appears to have been removed.
Andy,
I wrote a letter raising concerns about planning credentials based on public statements. I applauded candidates for stepping forward.
You responded with name-calling and factual errors. You call my work a “disaster” and blame me for votes I cast against projects.
Free speech reveals how informed opinions actually are. Your response demonstrates yours carry little weight.
The Basic Facts
You blame me for the 8-30g development. I voted against it. That’s in the public record.
Before building your entire criticism around this, you might check how I actually voted.
On Affordable Housing
Affordable housing was in both the POCD and the master plan. It wasn’t codified into the overlay regulations – a detail that went through formal review by professional consultants, town staff, the Commission, and public hearings. Not one person raised it during the entire process.
Where were you during those meetings?
On the Original Application
The initial application asked us to rewrite the entire Wilton Center zone for one project. No planning. No impact study.
That’s not how land use regulation works. We were completing a comprehensive master plan. The First Selectwoman recommended waiting. Residents asked us to wait. We moved toward denial.
When the developer returned with 8-30g, I voted to deny.
Your Contradiction
You support affordable housing but opposed the 8-30g project that provides it.
So which is it? You want affordable housing – just not that one, not there, not that way.
That’s not housing policy. That’s opposing everything while claiming to support the goal.
What You Don’t Understand
You don’t know which planning documents address what. You blame people for votes they didn’t cast. You advocate policies you oppose in practice. You don’t understand why we can’t rewrite zoning for individual applicants.
These are fundamental gaps in how land use regulation works.
Three Questions
1. Did you check my vote before blaming me? No.
2. Do you support affordable housing while opposing projects that provide it? Yes.
3. Did you participate in any of these processes? No.
The Real Cost
You’re entitled to criticize. But consider what it costs.
You participated in nothing. You contributed nothing. You got basic facts wrong. Then you called years of volunteer work a “disaster.”
This is why qualified people hesitate to serve on commissions. Not because the work is hard – it is, and that’s fine. But because critics who never show up, never do the homework, and never contribute anything feel entitled to dismiss the work of those who do.
Communities need people willing to serve. They need fewer people willing only to criticize from the sidelines.
I raised concerns about planning credentials because these decisions matter. You proved those concerns valid by demonstrating exactly the kind of uninformed commentary that worries voters about qualifications.
The difference between us is simple: I showed up, did the work, and voted on principle. You showed up afterward with criticism based on facts you never checked.
Wilton residents can judge for themselves.
Rick
Good afternoon. Let’s set the record straight. Rick, you invited town counsel to come and present to the commission that public comment could lead to legal actions. I asked specifically for case precedent showing we would be liable if we had public comments regarding planning vs. specific projects. Michael Wrinn limited the legal research to ten minutes and the attorney admitted real research was not done. An opinion that we could be swayed by hearing public opinion is also specious. Unless you are implying we are sheep and the public is a Border Collie that concept does not hold water. You, in a public hearing, told the 8-30g developer that we were on a short timeline for new zoning regulations. The actual timeline turned out to be more than twice your estimate and the final product had an error related to affordable housing. It is not your fault that the town underfunded the consultant and the planning process was delayed. What is at fault is choosing not to say to the developer “l don’t know.” I simply abstained from the vote because I was not going to vote capriciously against state regulations. I was told by you, among others, that such a vote would invite useless and expensive litigation. Your long diatribe on libertarian rights is your point of view. I have often sat through meetings where you rattle on about these values where you a conflate local economic market issues with national economic drivers. Although you regularly confuse macro and micro economics I let these mistakes pass as, in general, we eventually get back to discussing the issue at hand. Finally, the meeting I missed was because I had to attend a function for my family. Please detail the reasons you have also missed meetings. Finally, if you wonder if the public feels our process is transparent explain why we regularly get emails from members of the public that are confused about everything we do. I think it’s because P&Z does not communicate well. Best, Ken
Rick, Thank you for taking the time to lay all of this out. It’s very helpful information. While I disagree with some of the Commission’s decisions (allowing the 5th story to the River Rd project; approving the parking-related text amendment to the Ridgefield Rd building), I appreciate that this volunteer board does its work with Wilton’s best interests at heart. At some point, it would be helpful to know what, if any, impact public comments have and when the public could have an opportunity to comment on broader issues that are not project specific given that comment during the public hearings is restricted to the particular application before the commission.