The latest multi-family residential project proposed for Danbury Rd. has hit more than one stumbling block on its way to final review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Last month, the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) declined to vote on 131 Danbury Rd.’s application (yet), in light of increasing concerns about the town’s sewer capacity. This week, concerns about flooding at the banks of the Norwalk River and the project’s somewhat haphazard peer review process have taken the Inland Wetlands Commission’s public hearing period down to the wire.
The public hearing was opened on Dec. 14, 2023, and would normally have concluded within 35 days, but last-minute requests and late filings have drawn out the process. In a special meeting on the afternoon of Wed. Mar. 6, in which 131 Danbury was the only item on the agenda, the applicant’s representative on the project reminded the Commission that the clock is ticking.
“What we want to do is leave this meeting with a very clear understanding of any additional information you feel is important to include in the record,” Craig Flaherty, President and Senior Engineer at Redniss & Mead said. “We’ll have the opportunity for another meeting next Thursday. But after that, our ability to give extensions runs out unless you would be willing to schedule another special meeting.”
The Inland Wetlands Commission reviews applications for projects that take place within wetlands and watercourses, or within the 100-foot regulated area that surrounds them. The complex proposed for 131 Danbury Rd. includes an underground parking lot within the upland regulated area around the Norwalk River, which passes through the site.
In a presentation, Flaherty and his partners on the project made a case that the project would be a “net positive” for the river. The current development on the site includes an above-ground parking lot, and the upland area is almost entirely covered by impervious asphalt (shown in pink in the first image below) up to the boundary of the wetland. The proposal for 131 Danbury moves the lot underground and replaces two-thirds of that asphalt with either restored native plantings or pervious pavers, which allow stormwater to drain and disperse more naturally.
“We’re re-vegetating the upland area with all native plantings as well as providing spaces for people to go and sit and relax and enjoy the Norwalk River,” Landscape architect Jason Williams explained. “In the front of our property along Danbury Rd., we’re introducing a meadow system, which is very different from the current mown lawn area. And throughout the entire site, we are proposing a diverse landscape of all native plants to encourage pollinators to use the site, which we know is very important in Wilton.”
Before the Commissioners posed questions to the applicant, Chair Nick Lee invited Director of Environmental Affairs Mike Conklin to add any additional information.
“I just want it on the record that a large portion of the parking areas are going to be in a flood zone,” he said. “Even if this is okay with Planning and Zoning and FEMA regulations, it’s a concern that I have.” He noted that the current parking lot on-site serves a commercial building, so visiting cars are only present during certain hours of the day, whereas 131 Danbury would be a residential development.
Commissioner Rem Bigosinski said he shared Conklin’s concern about potential flooding, but Flaherty signaled that the matter may in fact be beyond the purview of the Inland Wetlands Commission.
“Development in flood plains in the Town of Wilton is definitely a zoning regulation and clearly under the purview of Planning and Zoning,” he said. He also referenced a change to the location of the access driveway that may help protect the underground lot from flood waters.
Roy Seelye, Senior Project Manager for the peer review firm Cardinal Engineering, countered, “It is a concern of [the Inland Wetlands] Commission because it does impact the river. If your vehicle gets flooded, you have potential for fuel spills, oil spills, that sort of thing. So we understand that Planning and Zoning has direct oversight of flood plain management but it is a concern of the [Inland Wetlands] Commission.”
Seelye also pointed out that much of the western portion of the site is within a 10-year flood plain (versus the 100-year flood plain being referenced primarily so far). This section would flood fairly regularly, a concern that is bolstered by photographs sent by a neighbor as part of the public hearing process.
Adam Stolpen, a resident who represents 18 households at the nearby Wilton Hills Community, provided the following images and more by email to the Commission. He explained that they were taken on Dec. 18, 2023, following a rain storm but after the peak period of flooding had passed. According to Weather Underground, the storm earlier that day had dropped 3.22 inches of rain in the area.
Selection of photographs submitted by Adam Stolpen as evidence of flooding on the site.
Throughout the meeting, the representatives from Cardinal remained polite but expressed frustration about the piecemeal manner in which they were receiving responses and project updates from Flaherty and his team. Seelye said that he believed most of the concerns Cardinal flagged earlier in the review process have been addressed, but that the firm needs “the final, latest and greatest, everything’s been addressed or a response provided” package from the applicant in order to complete its report to the town.
Flaherty confirmed that the copy currently on file with the town is the final, but then added that a few items — including, crucially, an approved plan with the Fire Marshal — are still in process.
“We know the Fire Marshal is really important,” said Tom Daly of SLR Consulting, who is also working on the project. “We’re on our third version of trying to get them happy, but I think we’re there.”
Looking Ahead
The Inland Wetlands Commission will continue the discussion on Thursday, Mar. 14, with pressure rising to hold a vote up or down on the project. This meeting will also include a public comment period for anyone wishing to speak. Comments can also be submitted by email to Mike Conklin and Elizabeth Larkin. There are currently several letters in support of 131 Danbury Rd. included in the Commission’s project file, in addition to Stolpen’s letter of concern.
The Planning and Zoning Commission had intended to include the project on the agenda for Monday, Mar. 11, but with both WPCA and Inland Wetlands’ reviews ongoing, it is unclear whether P&Z can move ahead just yet. Whenever it does, the topic of flooding will surely be a point of discussion. Floodplain development came up several times in 2022 and 2023 during subcommittee meetings on the Wilton Center Area Master Plan, with P&Z Commissioner Chris Pagliaro in particular arguing that building within a floodplain can be done responsibly.
But do 131 Danbury’s current plans fall into that category? Stay tuned.
Why would anyone build in a know flood zone or a piece of property that is known for flooding? Water can and does do massive damage. If you have ever experienced a flood or even a leek of any kind you know the destructive nature of water. Water damage can be devastating financially and medically. Even worse, water can do damage to a structure that could result in mass casualties. So I ask you again why would anyone build in a known flood zone?
It’s a known fact that grading the land surface, and constructing drainage networks increase runoff to streams from rainfall and snowmelt. As a result, the peak discharge, volume, and frequency of floods increase in nearby streams. Builders who tamper with even small wetlands can have big problems.
Wetlands are superb at purifying polluted water, replenishing aquifers and harboring wildlife. But they are almost always terrible places to build houses/building! These transitional zones—neither completely dry nor entirely liquid—are enormously valuable, especially when it comes to controlling floods. Wetlands act like natural sponges on the landscape, absorbing and then gradually releasing storm waters and lessening flood damage.
A bigger fear water that made them wet has to go somewhere. If it isn’t seeping back into the basement of the structure built on the former wetland, the water likely is leaking into formerly dry homes of downstream property owners.
That’s exactly what happened not long ago in the Pocono Mountains in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, after a developer drained a half-acre forested wetland and then dug a channel down the middle of the property. Thanks to that ditch, “the sponge wasn’t acting like a sponge anymore,” says Craig Todd, manager of the Monroe County Conservation District. Storm water sluicing through the drained wetland “ended up creating the largest eroded gulley in our county,” he says. It clogged municipal culverts and flooded out two houses down stream.
Filling one small parcel of wetland may seem harmless, or rather redirecting that water away from that parcel, but the damage adds up when several property owners in a watershed also begin draining and building. That’s why conservationists are concerned.
Again why build in a known flood site? You will only have to deal with the “water” again at some later date.