On Monday, Oct. 23, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to pass two regulation changes that commissioners and supporters say are key to making Wilton Center a more vibrant place to attract new residents, businesses and visitors.
While the discussion around the changes also had raised questions about public participation and transparency in recent weeks, the first votes in the Commission’s efforts to change the zoning in and around Wilton Center as part of the Greater Wilton Center Master Plan process came and went with little fanfare.
Later in the meeting, the Commission also considered a regulation to permanently ban cannabis businesses in Wilton.
New Zoning Overlays for Wilton Center & Train Station Area
Following a public hearing last week, the vote to approve the regulatory changes to Wilton Center and the Transit-Oriented Development area surrounding the Wilton Train Station passed nearly unanimously. Commissioner Mark Ahasic, who voted against the Wilton Center overlay, had proposed an amendment to limit building heights in the area to 3-4 stories but received no votes to second the motion.
[Disclosure: Ahasic is a candidate running for election to the Planning and Zoning Commission in this November’s municipal elections.]
The final votes incorporated a series of minor changes requested by the Western Connecticut Council of Governments to change rooftop paint color and reduce impervious surface cover near the Norwalk River.
Regarding the public hearing on Oct. 19, Chair Rick Tomasetti said that complaints about lack of public input “didn’t resonate” with him. He added, “The few people who said they didn’t like the process, when given the chance to have input [at the public hearing], just said they didn’t like the process and didn’t offer anything constructive. It’s all very telling.”
[Disclosure: Tomasetti is a candidate running for re-election to the Planning and Zoning Commission in this November’s municipal elections.]
More background about the new zoning overlays and the public process is available in GOOD Morning Wilton‘s prior coverage. Two final zoning overlays that will affect nearby portions of Danbury Rd. will go to a public hearing next month.
A Permanent Prohibition on Cannabis Businesses
The public comment and Commission debate around how to handle cannabis businesses was decidedly more active. Earlier this month, P&Z postponed a hearing over whether the Commission should permanently ban the industry after a citizen pointed out that alternatives to a ban should be considered as well. GOOD Morning Wilton then reported on what officials later acknowledged was an oversight after the town promised a referendum on the topic at the 2022 Annual Town Meeting but never actually conducted it.
At the start of the hearing, only two of the eight commissioners present (Vice Chair Melissa-Jean Rotini, and Secretary Eric Fanwick) supported a ban outright on cannabis businesses. As deliberations got underway, Commissioners Ahasic, Jill Warren, Mike Murphy, and Chris Pagliaro all expressed a preference for renewing a one-year moratorium, rather than passing a ban. Commissioner Chris Wilson stated his position as, “fine either way.”
[Disclosure: Rotini is a candidate running for re-election to the Planning and Zoning Commission in this November’s municipal elections.]
Vigorous debate ensued regarding what the three possible options — ban, moratorium or allowing cannabis businesses — would mean for the town and for the Commission and staff if they had to craft regulations to cover any (or all) possible types of cannabis businesses.
Chair Tomasetti referred to testimony First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice gave earlier in the evening about Wilton being a family community, as well as his own experience growing up in a dry Wilton that eventually allowed alcohol sales after many years. “I’m in favor of punting this and getting more input from the staff,” he said, later adding. “I don’t think we have any real opportunity to deny this outright or ask staff to prepare something after a moratorium.”
Following lengthy discussion, Commissioners Pagliaro and Wilson were persuaded to switch their votes to “yea” in favor of a ban. Tomasetti then cast the final vote of the evening, voting against a ban to make the final count 5-3 in favor of a permanent ban, with Fanwick, Murphy, Pagliaro, Rotini, and Wilson voting in for the ban, and Ahasic, Warren, and Tomasetti opposed. Several commissioners noted that the topic could be addressed again and that staff would study the topic.
Correction: The story has been updated from an earlier version, to better reflect that Chair Rick Tomasetti did not initially favor a ban until switching his vote to support a moratorium instead. As he stated in an email to GMW following the publication of the story:
“I openly discussed the three choices in front of the commission: approval, an outright ban, or maintaining the current moratorium.
My primary reservation was the ambiguity surrounding the placement and types of cannabis establishments, including retail sales, dispensaries, and grow houses. This lack of clarity was a significant factor in my hesitancy to give outright approval. I’d like to stress that throughout the hearing, my stance was consistent. I recognized the potential of extending the moratorium to allow more time for research and clarity. However, I also voiced concerns about the practicality of an endless moratorium without direction or purpose. At no point did I reverse my stance.”
Public Comment
During the public comment period earlier in the evening, five residents spoke.
Resident Sara Curtis pointed out that, while Wrinn and others had repeatedly referenced resident letters that had been submitted throughout the day, the only letters listed in the town files to which Monday evening’s meeting agenda linked dated back to Oct. 10. A file with more recent letters could be found on the P&Z website page of current applications, filed under Zoning Regulations/Zoning Map Amendments, but they hadn’t been part of the agenda-linked materials.
Farah Masani urged the Commission to either extend the moratorium or put the decision to a town vote, stating that she did not believe in “having this small group of people make this choice for our town.”
Breaking from typical commission procedure in which commissioners wait until their own deliberations to respond to public comments, Tomasetti and Masani engaged in a back-and-forth. Masani said, “I believe the First Selectwoman said that this should go to a town vote and then she forgot about it, and so—”
“I don’t know what the First Selectwoman said,” Tomasetti interrupted. “I know what our board does. In the past, we were the people, and it was up to us, and we have the authority to regulate uses in the town.”
[Disclosure: Masani is a candidate running for election to the Board of Selectmen in this November’s municipal elections.]
First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice then spoke for herself. “What I wrote in my Oct. 20 update is that state legislation allowed both the municipal legislative body — which is either the Board of Selectmen or the town meeting — and the zoning commission to make decisions. So the Zoning Commission can make a decision tonight, the Board of Selectmen can hold a special town meeting special election or put the question on the Annual Town Meeting ballot. If there are two different conclusions, it’s going to have to be worked out.”
Madeleine Wilkins said that although she believed the Commission was acting in good faith, “It feels wrong to leave a small number of officials to make this decision for all of us. It sort of implies that we don’t have the intelligence to do our own research and make our own decisions about how allowing this will affect the town.”
Phillip Murphy, speaking a few minutes later, disagreed. “This is actually the way our town government works. We have elected you. We are delegating some of our authority to you. I want you to know there are citizens out there that respect the system that we have.”
The topic of a referendum came up again during the commission’s deliberation, when Ahasic said peer towns used a public referendum to decide how to handle cannabis regulation. He was told by colleagues that the information could not be considered in the vote and that the only information that could be considered by Commissioners were the facts in Town Planner Michael Wrinn’s memo.
“It’s one of the rules, you can’t do outside research,” Rotini explained. “There are trainings, we’ll get you some stuff.”
Tomasetti offered that Ahasic could ask Wrinn whether in his research he looked at which towns may have held a referendum to decide their position on cannabis businesses, but Wrinn replied that the state website he consulted only lists what decisions were ultimately made, not the means by which a town reached its decision.
Looking Ahead
The Planning & Zoning Commission will hold regular meetings on Monday, Nov. 13 and Monday, Nov. 27. After discussion, the group agreed to schedule a special meeting for the public hearing on the two remaining packages of regulatory changes to nearby Danbury Rd. that came out of the Greater Wilton Center Master Plan process. That special hearing is expected to be scheduled sometime during the week of Thanksgiving.
I invite anyone who supports cannabis sales in Wilton to visit NYC, which as you may know reeks of weed. Blowing joints while walking on the street, hanging in groups and passing joints, are commonplace. Ironically drinking in public is still prohibited — go figure. I was very fortunate to be raised in Wilton and didn’t fully appreciate then — but do now — how important it is to grow up in a community that provides moral guardrails for its children.
I hope these changes to Wilton Center are mindful of the regulations associated with protecting the Norwalk River and the riparian buffer it requires to keep water resources clean and safe for associated fisheries and recreation. So far I haven’t seen any mention of minimizing heat islands or discharge into the River. I would hope that the Conservation Commission and Wetlands Commission has some insight to add here?
Dr. Pinou,
Thank you for your prior service on the Inland Wetlands Commission. As you know, both the Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions can only add insight if there was an actual Application where the Commission(s) then could have deliberated and held a public hearing on, for example, heat islands and the riparian buffer of the Norwalk River as it pertains to the Wilton Center Area Masterplan. But, the Inland Wetlands Commission did not have such an Agenda item for any Public Hearings in the last 22 months, so there is no insight to add.
Regarding the above comment from Mr. Tomasetti where it was written “that complaints about lack of public input “didn’t resonate” with him,” I would point to our Neighbor to the south, the City of Norwalk, which recently did an excellent exercise in Public Input when they updated their Zoning Regulations. Not only was there a significant amount of information available to the public, they also held multiple public hearings, and they not only posted public comments online but ALSO RESPONDED TO THEM:
Norwalk Zoning Regulations Update Website:
https://www.norwalkct.gov/3445/Zoning-Regulations-Update
Here are 72 pages of comments received and responded to by staff:
https://www.norwalkct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30944/Public-Comments-on-Draft-Zoning-Regulations-thru-71123-to-81123
I wish Wilton could follow their example.
I truly respect our Town’s representative form of government in which the citizens are represented by elected officials. I have great respect for the specialized and difficult work our officials do for the town.
However, I have to say that it saddens me that the Planning and Zoning Commission saw fit to pass a permanent ban on cannabis dispensaries in town while avoiding any discussion of the merit of putting the issue to a town-wide referendum.
Whether one favors allowing such a business in town or not, it is a matter which I believe deserves the widest and most open public decision-making.
It is also quite disheartening that at the Oct. 23rd P&Z hearing, at the beginning of the meeting, a number of the commissioners expressed a willingness to at least extend a moratorium on a decision for another year, and not to vote at this time for an outright ban.
That was the only portion of this hearing that was open to public comment.
That hearing was followed by a lengthy discussion of regulations for zoning overlays for Wilton Center & the train station area.
At the very end of the evening – after it is likely that most of the public had drifted away, thinking that the dispensary matter had been dealt with for the night – a number of the Commissioners suddenly reversed their previous opinions and ended up voting for an outright ban on cannabis-related businesses in town. (What was going on there?)
I honestly have no personal stake in whether or not such businesses are allowed in Wilton. I sincerely respect the feelings of people who oppose it for whatever reasons.
What I care about is that decisions like this be completely transparent and completely representative, not the result of this kind of strange proceeding. I only speak for myself, but it doesn’t feels right to me. I may be an old crank, but transparency and democratic process are of the utmost importance to me.
I simply do not understand how anyone can be averse to bringing such a controversial matter to a full town meeting and/or a public referendum! If the town votes to ban cannabis-related businesses, so be it. But let the people decide!
Respectfully,
Madeleine J. Wilken
179 Skunk Lane
Wilton