“I think it’s critical, if the gentleman has concerns about parking, that he really has to address that with Planning & Zoning, because [the town is] at the point where they’re issuing a certificate of occupancy — if it hasn’t already been done. — Wilton Town Engineer Frank Smeriglio
A new battle is brewing over one of Wilton’s most controversial new housing developments. From the earliest conversations about Wilton Center Lofts, the five-story 40-unit residential building that now looms over Wilton Library, the project has always been light on parking. The project as built today offers roughly one parking space per unit, with eight of the spaces located across Hubbard Rd. This unusual arrangement is the result of a 1985 agreement that granted the site now known as 12 Godfrey “the right to maintain eight parking spaces at the property located as 18 Godfrey Pl. [now known as 23 Hubbard Rd.]”
In an application that was fraught with debate and disagreement, this unusual element of the proposal never attracted much attention — until now. On Jan. 5 during a public comment period at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting, Bruce Likly, owner of Townsend-Adams Properties, brought the disagreement into the public debate.
What Happened at BOS?
The BOS was expected to vote on a sidewalk easement related to the project later that evening. This easement itself, brought by the town to protect future public access to the sidewalks around 12 Godfrey Pl., has no relationship to the parking space dispute. However, the map included with the easement text depicts the parking spaces in question with a label reading: “Right to maintain eight parking spaces.”
Likly, in speaking to BOS at the start of the meeting, shared a 1985 map where those spaces are instead labeled “Declarant reserves the right to relocate 8 parking spaces.”
This disagreement is at the heart of the lawsuit currently being adjudicated by the Connecticut Superior Court. Architect Rich Granoff and Wilton Center Lofts contend that the 1985 agreement gives to the property at 12 Godfrey the exclusive, perpetual right to eight parking spaces at 23 Hubbard, and the right to locate those eight spaces as it sees fit.
Likly and Townsend-Adams claim that the property has always maintained the right to locate those eight spaces anywhere on the 23 Hubbard property, and furthermore, that the grant never provided that the spaces could be used for residential parking.
As the disagreement has heated up, the neighboring properties have each racked up complaints about the other’s behavior. Townsend-Adams said that Wilton Center Lofts blocked parking spaces assigned to existing tenants at 23 Hubbard and used the site as a staging area during construction, including placing a 40-foot shipping container on the property. Wilton Center Lofts in return claimed that Townsend-Adams removed its signage in the parking lot and threatened to have the company’s shipping container removed.
Although the sidewalk easement on behalf of the town has no direct relationship to the parking easement between the two buildings, the BOS opted to hold off on passing the town’s easement until more information could be gathered about the building owners’ dispute. In particular, the selectmen and Wilton Director of Public Works Frank Smeriglio agreed to seek more clarity from Wilton’s Planning and Zoning Department on the origins of the sidewalk easement and the nature of the parking easement dispute.
“I think I would be more comfortable if we brought [Town Planner] Michael Wrinn back to address some of the concerns that were just listed,” First Selectman Toni Boucher said.
What Does Wilton P&Z Have to Say about it?
The actions of Wilton P&Z — both the Town Department and the Commission — figure significantly in the case. Wilton Center Lofts points to the commission’s June 2023 approval of the site development plan for the 12 Godfrey project, which includes the mapped eight spaces at 23 Hubbard, as evidence that the parking easement is still in place. Likly, in his remarks to the BOS, stated that he reached out personally to Wrinn twice in May 2023. In one letter, dated May 9, 2023, he said that the then-applicant for 12 Godfrey was “playing fast and loose” with the facts.
“I am writing to confirm the presence of the easement but to note that 12 Godfrey Place has no right to any specific space,” Likly wrote. “We alone as the building owners have sole discretion to determine who parks where on our property.”
Likly, who is the former chair of the Wilton Board of Education, said he never heard back from Wrinn about the letters. Last spring, when tensions rose between the two parties, he said he reached out to Boucher directly, who told him Wrinn would follow up on the issue. Again, Likly said, he never heard from the Town Planner.
GMW reached out to Wrinn for comment but did not hear back prior to publication.
Granoff provided the following statement to GMW, while noting that he could not offer more comment due to the ongoing nature of the litigation.
“22 Hubbard Rd. has perpetual deeded access to 8 parking spaces at 23 Hubbard, which has been acknowledged in writing by Mr. Likly in the past. We are unaware why he now believes that is not the case and unfortunately we have to proceed with legal action to protect our property.”
Could This Issue Have Stopped 12 Godfrey?
Would the potential loss of these eight parking spaces have made a difference in the outcome of 12 Godfrey Pl.? It’s not clear.
By the time Likly contacted Wrinn flagging that the parking easement was far from a settled matter, the project had already been resubmitted as an 8-30g affordable housing project. This status gave Granoff significant freedom to skirt local zoning regulations, including those that concern parking, because Wilton falls well below the state benchmark of 10% affordable housing.
When the commission was still considering the original, smaller proposal for 12 Godfrey — a four-story, 32-unit building that strived to anticipate and incorporate the zoning changes P&Z previewed were coming for Wilton Center — the commission could have demanded more than the roughly one parking space per unit that fit in the garage beneath the building.
However, P&Z at the time was still helmed by then-chair Rick Tomasetti, who along with then-commissioner Chris Pagliaro long argued that Wilton Center has a surplus of parking. Both have since resigned. Reducing parking minimums across downtown was a main priority the two had in crafting the Wilton Center zoning overlay. And indeed the commission voted in July 2025 to allow mixed-use developments on sites as small as 12 Godfrey a chance to cut their required parking by an additional 20% on top of the reduction already baked into the new overlay.
The change applies to mixed-use projects, so a purely residential development like 12 Godfrey would not have been eligible for the reduction even if proposed today. But the commission’s well-established eagerness to drive down parking minimums in Wilton Center suggests that pushback may not have been strong.
In the complaint filed by Wilton Center Lofts, however, Wilton Center Lofts noted that it stands to incur damages if the spots at 23 Hubbard continue to be blocked, because the building will be unable to lease eight of its 40 units.
What Happens Next?
As of Thursday, Jan. 22, a temporary arrangement had been worked out between the two parties to give 12 Godfrey access to eight parking spaces somewhere on the 23 Hubbard property while the case works its way through the court. In the meantime, the Board of Selectmen did not revisit the issue of the sidewalk easement at its Jan. 20 meeting. Wilton Center Lofts is currently leasing and expected to open its doors later this year.
As for 23 Hubbard, Likly reports that the ongoing construction and now the parking dispute has affected the mixed-use building, whose commercial spaces house both small local businesses and larger international firms that chose to take up offices in Wilton Center. Two luxury apartments are also on site.
“Anecdotally, do i believe it’s affected the tenants, absolutely,” he said in a call with GMW. “We bought [23 Hubbard] because we liked the location — you can walk to Village Market every day for lunch, walk to Bianco Rosso for dinner. You have the Norwalk River Valley Trail, and the Post Office is right next door.” He added that employees with children love that the school bus can drop them right at the library to do their homework while mom or dad finishes up at work.
“Happy tenants, happy building,” he said in closing.
Ms. Baron continues to warp reality when convenient to a story. First, I “resigned” two meetings before my 8 year tenure was up because I sold my house and moved. Second, the reality about what 8-30g does as a weapon is very evident at this project and is truly the subject of this development.
The applicant asked PZC to change the existing underlying zone to accommodate their needs in a manner that would have changed ALL the zoning in the village. Ultimately, the existing zoning still remains in place, except PZC passed an incentive-based overlay form-based zoning that was able to implement requirements to qualify, such as the creation of a streetscape, setbacks in building form, the requirement of civic space, and yes, an 1/2 story additional with the possibility of a portion of a building being taller if qualified by PZC (and intended to be used for architectural features – the same ones one would see when traveling the world, such as towers, lofts, etc). PZC, and all of the accused “delays” associated with GMW articles, were not willing to bend to the request of a complete zone change, and were not willing to rush a master planning process to accommodate a project that we already knew would not be very good anyway. [A lot of opinions are shared, yet not a single project under the form based zoning has been built yet.]
The 12 Godfrey applicant knew he was pushing the limits and the fact is that HE WANTED AN 8-30g! This is his business model (as proven by the other 8-30g’s he has developed in Fairfield County). This was the goal from the initial application.
Specific to parking – Ms. Baron misleading with regard to my position on parking at this location. We always addressed a parking concern at this location, but the parking became irrelevant to our powers once an 8-30g (hence, the weaponization). Had this not been an 8-30g the parking conversation would have much deeper, as would the spaces across the street.
Yes, I believe that parking is an overrated zoning requirement, and that if a developer skirts parking, that is their responsibility to success/failure for their tenants, but that the cart should not lead the horse. For the ignorant, take a look at New Canaan and Greenwich Avenue, where there is no parking requirement, yet their retail thrives through a streetscape of architecture that is not broken by the automobile. Rather, those communities had the foresight and wherewithal to invest in municipal lots that consolidate asphalt and give way to building form and character over parking lots. By the way – both references THRIVE with success, partly because of the lack of parking: one parks in a muni lot and walks by other shops en route to the destination, creating unintended spending.
Ms. Baron continually finds it convenient to leave the “delight of design” reasoning behind what otherwise is a solid punch line to her story.
As the current Chair of Planning and Zoning, I cannot comment on the dispute in this article. I can comment on former Commissioner Pagliaro’s tenure with the commission. Chris resigned because he sold his house and moved. In my opinion, his resignation had nothing to do with this project, politics, or any other concerns. To put his resignation in a sentence that conflates his resignation with Rick Tomasetti implies an inaccurate representation of the facts. Also, Rick resigned from the Commission as it is his right to do. On the other hand, Rick gave years of service to Wilton which should be applauded. There is, in my opinion, no conspiracy here. I am unsure why their resignations were part of this article. I enjoyed working with Chris and Rick and learned a tremendous amount from both of them.
8-30g doesn’t require adequate parking and the developer didn’t put it in (and the town has nothing to say about it). What could possibly go wrong?
Tenants have already started to move into the building.
Sounds like the town needs to consider space for municipal parking…How much low-income housing will Kimco (executive campus) and Toll Brothers (railroad station) provide?
😮💨this all seems like water under the bridge so to speak. In my humble mind is the concern “where is this all going”: when will we meet the 10% threshold so we can no longer fall prey to the 8-30g mandate? This is a control issue. The longer we try to control the outcome the more our control is eroded. Creative solutions are needed that see the foreseeable future. In the meantime I want to thank everyone for their service.
Wilton’s Problem Isn’t Growth — It’s Poor Judgment
Wilton is in trouble, and it didn’t happen by accident. It is the result of a Planning & Zoning Board that consistently failed to understand the town it was entrusted to serve — and refused to listen when residents tried to warn them.
For years, the P&Z board justified its decisions by comparing Wilton to New Canaan and Greenwich. That comparison alone reveals the fundamental problem: Wilton is not, and never will be, either of those towns. We do not have their density, their retail footprint, their walkable commercial cores, or their volume of storefronts. Pretending otherwise has led to planning decisions that are not only misguided but irreversible.
The most damaging misunderstanding has been the board’s insistence on equating density with vibrancy. These are not the same thing. Vibrancy comes from thoughtful design, a healthy mix of businesses, accessibility, and convenience for residents. Density without those elements simply creates congestion, strain on infrastructure, and frustration — which is exactly what Wilton is now experiencing.
Residents repeatedly raised these concerns. They spoke at meetings, wrote letters, and tried to explain the realities of living here. But the board pressed forward anyway, relying on the fact that, by law, they are not required to meaningfully consider public input. Instead of treating residents as partners, they changed rules, limited voices, and substituted their own judgment where expertise was lacking.
This was made worse by the incomplete consultant report for the Plan of Conservation and Development. Taxpayers paid for professional analysis that was never finished due to lack of funds — yet the board “filled in the blanks” themselves. That is not planning; it is guesswork. And it is unacceptable for decisions with permanent consequences.
Nowhere is this failure more obvious than in parking. Residents have been sounding the alarm for over a year. Wilton is not designed as a “park once and walk” town. Our daily needs — grocery stores, pharmacies, the library — are not clustered the way they are in other towns. Asking families, seniors, or parents with young children to park blocks away for everyday errands is not practical, and never was.
Other towns recognized this reality and planned accordingly, with accessible, dedicated parking for essential services. Wilton ignored it, choosing ideology over common sense.
When you read the POCD and related planning documents, what stands out is not thoughtful adaptation to Wilton’s unique character, but an eagerness to emulate places we are not — even references to European-style models that bear no resemblance to how our town functions. Wilton should have been planned as Wilton, not as a replica of somewhere else.
The damage from these decisions will last for decades. Acknowledging that isn’t about politics or personalities — it’s about honesty. If Wilton is going to recover, it starts with recognizing that the problem wasn’t growth itself, but a planning process driven by ego, assumptions, and comparisons that never fit.
Undecided residents should be asking a simple question:
Did these decisions make Wilton more functional for the people who live here — or just more theoretical on paper?
Because the answer is now visible every day.
Ms. Cole continues to demonstrate her absolute ignorance to planning – including her weak arguments against those who, like myself, are professional architects and planners who have forgotten more about planning than she will ever know. She is relatively new to town and ignorant to the economic shortfalls that Wilton faces when it has to worry about fixing a field or repairing a school building. The Wilton she moved to was at the tail end of a lifecycle that no longer exists. The end of the class-A office space (that no longer has a market) and under-performing buildings such as Melissa & Doug that generated low taxes and had no useful life once the company was sold and no one wanted that building. She hasn’t been a resident long enough to understand that the community fails to meet demographics for retail to survive (not knowing the Shoe Shoe’s, Gaps, Chico’s that abandoned us). She fails to comprehend that the POCD was generated by the exhaustive effort ever undertaken by Wilton in terms of public meetings, professional surveys, live Q&A sessions and feedback from the entire swath of Wiltonians: from the elderly to high school students. Restaurant owners spoke publicly about how they can’t fill every seat on a weekend night (never mind turnover) yet pay high rents due to the mil rate that desperate.y needed an accelerant to the Grand List. She hasn’t been in town long enough to realize that the Route-7 corridor and Wilton Center essentially had no development or worthwhile reinvestment in almost 25 years because the naysayers of commissions past created a “no development” regulation as they still believed in a 1959 model supported by the “no stress on town services” model of the class-A office space that no longer exists (in fact a comment ‘just get offices and no stress on the town’ which was received during the POCD public interviews). Her vision of no change is a fantasy that is not survivable to a community that faces a suicidal mil rate and increased annual expenses through debt services, pensions, union contracts for education and public safety. Show me a healthy community that essentially bans living in a village and then let’s talk. Better yet, show me Candace Cole’s name on a ballot so she could volunteer her own time and put her mouth out there instead of her alternate solution-less opinion.
What I may lack in the technical ability to physically construct a building, I make up for in common sense—and common sense matters when shaping a town people actually want to live in. It is a well-known reality that many “book-smart” professionals lack practical, real-world understanding. Being a professional architect does not automatically grant someone superior insight into what makes a town desirable, functional, or livable.
I hold a real estate license, and I do have firsthand knowledge of what attracts people to certain towns and why they choose to stay—or leave.
What truly saved Wilton was COVID. The pandemic forced people to reassess how and where they wanted to live. People no longer wanted dense, cramped spaces. Instead, they began searching for towns that were quiet, safe, affordable, small, not overpopulated, and not stacked with large buildings.
People like myself fell in love with Wilton because of what it is not.
I can easily find parking when running a quick errand. I can get into town, do what I need to do, and get back to my life efficiently. I can also avoid the town center entirely and still get where I need to go. That flexibility is part of Wilton’s appeal.
What Wilton lacks—and has long lacked—is a true draw or destination. At one point, we had a movie theater. That was it. We need more reasons for people from other towns to come here. Only then will retail succeed.
Retail did not fail in Wilton because of a lack of density. It failed because there was no destination. People from surrounding towns had no reason to come here, unlike New Canaan or Greenwich. This reflects a fundamental lack of foresight and an inability to understand that density is not the same as vibrancy. Adding more people without giving them things to do simply results in those people leaving town to spend their time and money elsewhere.
You do not need to be a professional architect to understand this.
Unfortunately, Planning & Zoning made irreversible decisions that have harmed Wilton. Parking is one of the most glaring examples. Not requiring developers to provide more than the bare minimum parking has already hurt—and will continue to hurt—our town. If people cannot find parking, they will go somewhere else. That is not an opinion; that is a fact.
Recently, while at the Snappy Gator, I spoke with a woman who has lived in Wilton for 12 years. She and her husband moved here from New York, own a home near Chestnut Hill Road, and are raising two young children. She is currently helping a friend who owns the Snappy Gator and expressed deep frustration over the lack of parking. Customers are actively trying to patronize the business but cannot find parking in the Stop & Shop lot.
She also shared a broader concern familiar to many families: during peak hours—when children are attending karate, dance, and other activities—there is simply nowhere to park. This is exactly the type of vibrant, family-centered activity we want in town. Children attend programs, parents grab food locally, and small businesses benefit. But without the infrastructure to support it—specifically parking—we fail at the most basic level.
With more apartments being added, this problem will only intensify. Those families will enroll their children in the same activities and seek out the same restaurants, only to find the same lack of parking—possibly even at their own residences if parking is “shared.” This is not forward-thinking planning; it is short-sighted.
The suggestion that people should park outside the town center and take trolleys demonstrates just how out of touch this board has become with reality. I believe you suggested during a meeting.
Additionally, converting commercial buildings to mixed-use in known flood zones is not only irresponsible—it is dangerous. The river has overflowed. We know this. Ignoring that reality puts residents and businesses at risk. The consequences of flooding are not theoretical, and they do not require extensive explanation to understand why such decisions are reckless.
If development must occur, it should be focused on Danbury Road—not the center of town. And if building does occur in the town center, height should be capped at three stories.
I ask directly: why five stories?
Public records show board members advocating for five-story buildings because they wanted Wilton to be “noticeable from Danbury Road” and because developers would not make enough money otherwise. As a professional architect, do you genuinely believe those are valid reasons to increase building height in the heart of Wilton?
Finally, thank you for your response. It confirmed exactly what many residents already believe: that this board was out of touch with what makes a town vibrant and desirable. The decisions made did not reflect the best interests of Wilton’s residents, but rather aligned with the interests of those in the development business—decisions that may benefit them in the future, but not the town as a whole.
The surveys and data Mr. Pagliaro frequently references—those used to justify the Master Plan and POCD—were conducted before COVID, and quite some time ago. Since then, Wilton’s demographic has changed significantly.
We are now seeing an influx of residents in the 35–50 age range, many moving from New York. These are working professionals who can afford to buy homes, who have young children, and who are looking for specific amenities that support their lifestyle. These are the people currently purchasing homes in Wilton.
What they are not looking for is increased density.
This is where I believe a major disconnect exists. There seems to be an assumption that adding apartment buildings will somehow bring services and amenities to Wilton. That simply is not true. The apartments themselves do not create public amenities. The “amenities” associated with these developments are contained within the buildings and are exclusively for the residents who live there.
As residents walking past a new development—such as the Kimco property—we cannot use those amenities. We cannot access them. They do not serve the broader community. What is being built is the building itself, not shared infrastructure or destinations that benefit the town as a whole.
This distinction matters. Density without public-facing amenities does not create vibrancy, and it does not address what today’s families are actually seeking when they choose Wilton.