“Safety vs. Convenience”: Police Dept. Concerned about 131 Danbury’s Driveway

The 208-unit multifamily residential development proposed for 131 Danbury Rd. cleared two potential hurdles at the Planning and Zoning Commission this week. However, the Wilton Police Department’s review of the project yielded a new concern about the project, one that the commissioners seemed poised to take seriously.

The meeting on Monday, April 8 started out positively for the applicant, as Craig Flaherty, President and Senior Engineer at Redniss & Mead, announced that the team had come to an agreement with the developer of 141 Danbury Rd. — its neighbor to the north — over the landscaped buffer between the two properties. During the Mar. 25 meeting, the team representing 131 Danbury had asked P&Z for a waiver to allow the project to build closer to the lot line than the 10-foot buffer that Wilton zoning requires.  

Flaherty began the April 8 meeting by stating that the request for a waiver had been rescinded. Rather than pursue the concept of encroaching on the property line buffer, the applicant opted to reduce the footprint of the building by an additional two feet, relocate the generator, and level the terrain at the northern property line, eliminating the need for a retaining wall.

With that matter resolved, the Commission faced two new points of concern raised by a pair of town entities that have also been reviewing the project.

P&Z Brushes Aside Inland Wetlands’ “Significant Concern” about Norwalk River Pollution

The second item of concern appeared to underscore a disconnect between P&Z and one of its peer commissions, Inland Wetlands. During a March 28 hearing about 131 Danbury Rd, Inland Wetlands Commissioner Rem Bigosinski had raised concerns about how the third-party review firm handled the question of pollution impacting the Norwalk River during flooding events.

Chair Nick Lee responded at the time, “For good or bad, unless our expert [third-party review firm Cardinal] countermands their expert, it’s something we need to accept as a fact.” Bigosinski also questioned whether the management plan to communicate with residents about moving cars out of the parking lot ahead of a storm was realistic, and was told that matter fell under the purview of P&Z, not Inland Wetlands.

“Does P&Z actually look at our deliberation or do they just ignore it? Will they notice?” Bigosinski asked. Inland Wetlands commissioners voted to include a note in their report to P&Z calling attention to the issue. Indeed, Director of Environmental Affairs Michael Conklin’s report to P&Z read in part:

“In the motion to approve the application, the Commission directed me to report a significant concern to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Specifically, the Inland Wetlands Commission was of the opinion that the applicant did not adequately address questions and concerns about pollutants from parked cars washing into the river during high flooding events.”

When presenting to P&Z, however, Megan Raymond of SLR Consulting framed the topic by saying that in its approval of the application, the Inland Wetlands Commission “affirmed” the applicant’s claims that “there’s minimal to low potential” for pollutants to enter the Norwalk River.

When the time came for the Commissioners to respond, Rotini dispensed with the topic without discussion, saying simply, “We don’t review [Inland Wetlands’] approvals.”

Commissioner Chris Pagliaro would later add, “Let’s get this record straight because we’re going to have a lot of applications in flood zones as we’re developing Wilton Center and Danbury Rd.: you’re allowed to park vehicles in a flood zone.” He also pointed out that the parking plan complies with FEMA regulations.

Wilton Police See Potential for “Crashes” with Additional Driveway

In contrast, the commissioners reacted with noticeable concern to the final issue outlined in the presentation: On April 5, Lt. David Hartman emailed the Commission outlining concerns about the addition of another driveway and curb cut on this particular stretch of Danbury Rd.

“With the number of units being added between the two buildings, 131/141, and each having their own entrance and exits so close together I am concerned with the number of potential points of contact for crashes,” he wrote. The total number of apartments under construction at 141 Danbury Rd. and proposed for 131 Danbury Rd. is 381 units.

Hartman recommended that 131 and 141 Danbury share entrance or exit driveways in order to eliminate some of the hazards. He acknowledged that the third-party review firm said that a shared driveway would cause delays for residents, but added, “I am directly addressing a safety concern versus convenience.”

Flaherty quickly dismissed the suggestion of a shared driveway saying they had spoken with the owner of 141 Danbury Rd., and “that option is not available to us.”

Furthermore, he explained, this stretch of Danbury Rd. is overseen by the State of Connecticut as U.S. Route 7, and any decisions about curb cuts are ultimately under the purview of the Office of the State Traffic Administration (OSTA). Regardless, Lt. Hartman’s concerns seemed to resonate with the commissioners.

“I’m concerned about the term ‘safety issue,’” Pagliaro said. “I don’t want that on my conscience.”

Commissioner Mark Ahasic urged the applicant to continue seeking a solution. “They [Police Department] came out with this letter on Friday. We’re one business day after that, I’m hearing, ‘It’s not possible.’ I would like to see a bit more dialogue and study to see if there is a solution to this,” he said.

Rotini suggested that the team explore other safety measures like restricting left-hand turns out of the property if no solution could be found to share driveways.

Some commissioners expressed skepticism about the applicant’s traffic study itself, and the third-party review that was conducted. In a report to the Commission, Town Planner Michael Wrinn wrote, “The consultant noted that traffic operations along Danbury Rd. are not anticipated to be impacted” by the project.

“I respect what both of the traffic studies say but just from common sense, I don’t really believe that it’s not going to be an issue,” said Commissioner Jill Warren.

Commissioner Anthony Cenatiempo agreed saying, “It doesn’t pass the smell test.” He added that the Commission has already heard concerns about existing traffic from the residents of the Wilton Hills community across the street from 131 Danbury Rd. The town has received several letters expressing both support and concern about the project over the last two months.

Flaherty agreed to grant an extension for the application, which will be heard again at the Commission’s next meeting on Tuesday, Apr. 30. However, in an echo of the discussion at Inland Wetlands about Commissions having to “accept as fact” the on-the-record findings of third party reviewers, Flaherty seemed to caution P&Z:

“Your decision needs to rest on the record and the presentations from the professionals that prepared that record,” he said.

Looking Ahead

The discussion about 131 Danbury Rd. will continue at the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 30. That meeting is also expected to feature a hearing on another nearby apartment complex, the 93-unit complex proposed for 64 Danbury Rd., as well as a pre-application hearing for a new 24-unit residential building at 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. in Wilton Center.

The Water Pollution Control Authority will meet on Wednesday, April 10 to discuss 131 Danbury Rd.’s request for sewer capacity. The project’s application has been caught up in a broader debate over Wilton’s dwindling sewer capacity. On March 14, the WPCA effectively paused commercial development in town until these issues can be resolved.