To the Editor:
September in New England is a time of new starts — and hopefully a fresh start for the Belden Rd. property. Despite moving through several town agencies, including the Inland Wetlands Commission and the Water Pollution Control Authority, this proposal has never had an official channel for public comment before now.
To be clear at the outset: I support the Sisters, or any religious community, in seeking the maximum value for their land to secure their mission’s future. That is not in question. What I do not support is this particular use — a continuing care community structured as a highly lucrative, ongoing arrangement for the developer.
In practice, a continuing care community is an institutional use rather than a residential one. I have decades of architectural experience with this type of building. It looks “residential,” even “hospitality,” from the outside, but functions as a light-duty institution as residents age in place: food service, medical support, workers of many types, and round-the-clock ingress and egress from staff, aides, visiting families, maintenance crews and emergency vehicles. That is a lot of intensity for a 35-acre site with significant wetlands and two historic buildings, sitting in one of the last large single-family zones in town — a zone our own Plan of Conservation and Development identifies as worth protecting.
The density is too high for the site. The buildings are too tall. The coverage — the ratio of building to open space — is crowded, even urban. The proposal also includes one of the first underground garages in Wilton, and it remains unclear which entity, if any, claims authority over its impact on groundwater.
Over 900 residents have signed objections to the current concept. Separately, the WPCA approved an unusual sewer allocation that had originally been granted, under a previous selectman, for a different use involving the Sisters’ property. And while the Wetlands Commission approved the project, at least two commissioners raised concerns during the hearings that were not reflected in the final vote. Taken together, these facts are worth the Planning and Zoning Commission weighing carefully, rather than treating this application as a formality.
Some worry that without this proposal, the alternative is five-story apartments under the state’s Section 8-30g statute. But this proposal’s height and density are not meaningfully different from what 8-30g would allow, and the cost of this land will keep most such quick turnaround developers away.
I believe there is a better path. I know this site firsthand: years ago, I was the architect for another group of nuns who temporarily occupied one of these buildings after selling their own property in Ridgefield. What Wilton actually needs in this residential area is smaller homes on smaller lots — a genuine “village within the town,” on roughly one-acre lots, suited to residents 55 and older who are downsizing, and to younger first-time buyers. I can envision something like 20 to 25 single-family homes on 25 acres, under 3,500 square feet, with first-floor primary bedrooms, shared amenities, sidewalks, trails and bikeways. At least one of the two historic buildings could be retained as a community house. There is no product like this in the Wilton market today, and demand for it is real: many buyers do not want two-acre lots and $1.5-million-plus homes over 5,000 square feet, and I know of three Cannondale-area neighbors this year alone who have left, or are planning to leave, Wilton because it is no longer the town they moved to.
This approach would let the Sisters secure real financial value for their land, put the property back on the tax rolls, and give back to Wilton’s own residents rather than to renters of an institutional retirement community. It would mean a village cluster of owner-occupied homes at attainable prices — the kind of housing our town is missing.
I am asking Planning and Zoning, and my fellow residents, to look closely at whether this is genuinely the right use for this property, not simply whether it merits a rewrite of the zoning code. There is a far better land use, a far better zone change, and a far better outcome available here — one where the Sisters, the town and Wilton’s own residents all come out ahead.
Barbara L. Geddis, FAIA
