At the Monday, June 10 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission green-lit one multifamily complex and ushered another into the pipeline to begin its formal review. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the seven-building, 93-unit apartment complex at 64 Danbury Rd., with Commissioners Chris Pagliaro and Jill Warren recusing themselves.
However, the bulk of the meeting was devoted to the newest apartment complex proposed as part of Wilton’s current boom in multifamily rental development. After 2.5 years of pre-application hearings, Kimco has officially submitted its application to redevelop 15-21 River Rd. into a five-story, 169-unit mixed-use complex.
The team representing Kimco outlined the project over the course of an hour-long presentation. At the outset of the hearing, Chair Rick Tomasetti explained that public comment is accepted during the final stage of a project’s public hearing process, and given that Kimco is still awaiting approvals from several town authorities, the hearing would not reach the public comment stage that evening.
Attorney Casey Healy, representing Kimco, agreed and offered the following updates on where the project stands in its various reviews. According to Healy:
- Inland Wetlands Commission: Opened its public hearing last month and the applicant hopes the commission will complete their review this week. [Editor’s note: the Inland Wetlands Commission was scheduled to meet again on Thursday, June 13; however, that meeting has been canceled.]
- Water Pollution Control Authority: Application will be heard this week (Wednesday, June 12); Healy said that Wilton Director of Public Works Frank Smeriglio told him that the goal is to get Kimco, as well as 131 Danbury Rd. and the Toll Brothers development at 15 Old Danbury Rd., approved by July.
- Fire Marshal: Plans have been submitted to the fire marshal and are under review.
- Wilton Police Department, acting as traffic authority: Met Monday to review the parking and driveway plans and will follow up with Town Planner Michael Wrinn on one comment.
On this last note, Tomasetti requested a third-party peer review of the traffic plan. Commissions have the right to request third party review of project elements that require deep subject matter analysis beyond what a volunteer commission can offer. The third-party reviewer is selected by the town and paid for by the applicant.
Later in the evening, Vice Chair Melissa-Jean Rotini reiterated an instruction that she often emphasizes with applicants, that in addition to the fire marshal, they should have the plans reviewed by the Wilton Fire Department. She also asked for a broader review by the Police Department, beyond its narrow role as traffic authority.
As for the proposal itself, not much has changed since P&Z saw the project in a pre-application review in February. During their own review around the same time, the Architectural Review Board/Village District Design Advisory Committee had some fairly critical comments for the project on a variety of issues, including:
- Shadows: “I want to re-up my comment that this is the north side of the building and the south is opposite so that 60-foot building is going to cast a shadow pretty much all day long on this road we’re looking at. I always feel like we’re not getting the true sun-path when you show us these images.” — ARB/VDDAC Member Kathy Poirier
- Height: “I definitely think 60 feet is going to weigh heavily. For me that scale is just too high.” — ARB/VDDAC Member John Doyle
- Aesthetic Design: “The detailing is a little generic for me. It’s searching for character.” — Doyle. “I am concerned about the back of the building, that you give it a fair amount of attention so that it’s not so cold and blank.” — ARB/VDDAC Member Sam Gardner
However, after discussion at a special meeting on May 15, in which the ARB/VDDAC worked through a checklist of topics to inform its recommendation to P&Z, these concerns seemed to fade. The final report that was delivered to P&Z largely omitted the group’s initial concerns, instead calling the project well-conceived, well-planned, and “extremely well-designed.”
Feedback from P&Z itself was broadly positive as well, although the Commissioners requested several additional pieces of information. Tomasetti requested more explicit diagrams and depictions of how the proposal conforms to the different elements of Wilton Center’s new form-based zoning code and which areas are being counted as civic space. Commissioner Anthony Cenatiempo asked for numbers on max occupancy, to better understand how many people the project would be bringing downtown. Rotini requested a clearer breakdown of units by number of bedrooms and detail about the project’s affordable housing component.
Commissioner Mark Ahasic said the project conceptually “really meets the spirit of what we’re seeking for Wilton Center — additional residential, additional dining, all to get additional vibrancy downtown.” However, aesthetically, he likened the design to a college dorm and compared the rounded central axis of the River Rd. building to Citi Field, the New York Mets stadium in Queens.
On this note, Pagliaro disagreed, praising the “softness” of the design. He also suggested a lighter material for the setback fifth story, to help the upper level “blend into the sky.”
The public hearing was continued to the next meeting of P&Z on Monday, June 24. Tomasetti encouraged the public to return for this next hearing date and continue learning about the project and reiterated that comments would be allowed later in the process.
Looking Ahead
At a high level, the meeting on June 10 seemed to indicate an adjustment in the Commission’s approach to public engagement. Last month saw a series of critiques of the public process at P&Z, as detailed by GOOD Morning Wilton in our coverage of the 64 Danbury Rd. hearing and the May 29 State of the Town town hall forum.
The agenda for the meeting this week was laid out in a new format that more explicitly notes when there may be an opportunity for public comment. As chair, Tomasetti also provided information periodically during the meeting, explaining the structure of each section of the meeting. The Commission still does not offer a standing public comment period, however, in contrast to the Boards of Selectmen, Education, and Finance.
Tomasetti also offered an explanation for prohibiting public comment outside of the public hearings for individual projects, stating, “That’s not transparent and it’s not fair to property owners and applicants. And it puts the Commission and the town at risk because we need to be transparent with those applicants.”
I think a fair follow up question for Mr. Tomasetti would be, “How can we engineer a feedback process that is longer, more open and engaging for citizens while also remaining transparent to property owners and applicants?”
It’s great to see movement and progress towards change. The downtown has been in usage decline for well over a decade; and requires change. Kudos to those willing to guide the process.