The following is both the text of comments written and read by Wilton resident Bob Kettle at last night’s Planning and Zoning public hearing about development plans for 44 Westport Rd., as well as other unscripted remarks he made during the meeting. The comments are republished with permission of the author.
Dear Chairman and Members of the Commission,
I want to echo the point about electronic submissions. It would be a huge help. We had to in many, many times to go in to see–[documents] should be distributed effortlessly and inexpensively, and should be a requirement for future submissions. It is so inefficient, most people are frustrated; please make it easier to know what’s going on and to critique it constructively.
I commend and thank you for the time and energy that you have devoted to discuss and plan Wilton’s current and future development.
I ask you not to forsake all those hours by throwing your Town Plan aside altogether and surrendering your planning function to Mr. Healy’s client.
Instead, I encourage you to stand up for yourselves, your Plan and the Town of Wilton. The implications of approval of the proposal for 44 Westport Rd. completely contradict and undermine the development pattern for southern Wilton which is represented in the Town Plan.
The developer is using 8-30g to develop the Town of Wilton in an entirely different manner than your careful thinking envisions. This proposal puts into play the entire corridor between Wilton Hunt and Lamberts Common. A transformation of lower Westport Rd. to include multiple apartment buildings is wholly in conflict with the Town Plan – and would present a serious hazard to public safety.
The Dudley/33 intersection traffic pattern is already treacherous. The larger traffic implications of this proposal will reach from Exit 41 to the 33/7 junction, from the office park to Spoonwood Rd. and upper Dudley Rd. The proposed development will make an already-unsafe traffic pattern — one which has already become measurably more dangerous over the past 17 months – a great deal worse.
Accident statistics starkly document deteriorating traffic safety in the lower Westport Rd/lower Dudley Rd. area. On the basis of the accident reports filed at the Wilton Police station, reportable accidents occurred in this proposal’s immediate vicinity at twice the rate (i.e., accidents per year) over the most recent 17 months — when compared with the 2010-2012 period cited in the report by the developer’s traffic consultant. One wonders why they stopped at 2012, as it has doubled since.
Where exactly will the children in this project play? On the periphery? What is going to prevent a child from being hit by a car while chasing a ball into Dudley or Westport Rd.?
When one of the tenants holds a large party, where will their guests park? Dudley Rd. is not an option. If they cross Rt. 33 in the dark to reach their parked cars on Ridge or Clover, they’re a safety hazard.
Public safety is already at risk from traffic in the lower Dudley/lower Westport Rd. neighborhood. Please don’t make the danger much, much worse by allowing high-density apartments at 44 Westport Rd. Right now, you cannot step into lower Dudley Road without risking being hit by a speeding vehicle. If you add large numbers of children playing after school, you’re simply inviting tragedy. Accidents are going to happen.
Even adult residents of 44 Westport Rd. could not walk safely in any direction. Cars and trucks turn left into Dudley Road at such speeds that no resident could cross Dudley safely even to reach Orem’s Diner. This site shares absolutely no characteristics with Ridgefield’s Main St., where Mr. Downend has previously built.
There are so many omissions and untruths in the traffic analysis filed with this proposal that our neighborhood group felt compelled to hire a professional traffic consultant, Nat Parish of Parish & Weiner Inc., to submit an opposition report. Mr. Parish will provide that report to you in advance of your next meeting, by June 23. We ask you to keep your minds open until at least that date to allow your review.
Allow me to suggest that your adopted Town Plan fairly represents the public interest. Your adopted Plan represents the Town’s well-developed thinking about where higher-density housing should go.
Debate about where Wilton’s additional higher-density housing goes should be conducted through your planning process, not reactively through petition.
8-30g empowers you to reach a decision that is “necessary to protect substantial public interests in health, safety or other matters which the Commission may legally consider.” The phrase, that’s in the law, I urge you to look at it: I contend that your Town Plan is indeed one of those “other matters” that you may legally consider.
The P&Z’s decision seems an opportunity for Wilton to explain to a Court, if necessary, how its Town Plan represents the public interest.
If you approve apartments at 44 Westport Rd., similar proposals on adjoining parcels will follow in short order, by any developer. Approving high density at this location would be a precedent enabling petitions for two parallel rows of apartment buildings along Lower Westport Rd. — a scenario that completely disregards public safety.
Allowing a developer to throw up a barracks that he could use the next day to justify another and another and another right next door, would be just like throwing your Town Plan out the window.
It seems that a Court will inevitably be asked to evaluate the safety of high-density development along lower Westport Rd.. Deny this proposal now — and force this critical safety question to Court now.
Better sooner rather than later. It serves the public safety better if that Court decision is made before construction of apartments at 44 Westport Rd., rather than afterward.
Do the right thing. Don’t evaluate 44 Westport Rd. in isolation. Don’t surrender your Plan. Explain to a Court your Plan’s conviction that high-density housing is safe primarily along Rt. 7.
It cannot be in the public interest to destroy the safety and sanctity of the Huff family’s home. The disruption to the Huffs – a young family with very young children – will be massive and irreversible. Other young families on several adjoining parcels — will also be negatively affected by this huge apartment building and those that will surely follow.
If planning and zoning can’t protect innocent homeowners like the Huff family, if the public cannot rely whatsoever on your plans or your zones, what is the point in serving as P & Z Commissioners? I say that with utter respect for what you do–I’m a professional planner, I worked with three planning commissions, I’m aware of the time you put in. But think about it: Help a Court to recognize that Wilton has found, can find – and will find – alternative locations for higher-density housing that do not damage families or create horrific traffic safety hazards.
Say no to Mr. Healy’s client. Tell Mr. Healy’s client that you’ll make the decision on how to develop lower Westport Rd., not him. Then explain to the Court how your Town Plan represents your well-conceived thoughts about how best to protect public safety and your definition of the public interest. We trust the Court will embrace it.
Wilton doesn’t need to compromise its carefully-developed planning goals by approving an unsafe and precedent-setting proposal.
We ask you to emphatically reject this proposal for 44 Westport Rd.
Bob Kettle
25 Dudley Rd.