On Thursday, Oct. 19, the Planning & Zoning Commission and Greater Wilton Center Area Master Plan subcommittee held a public hearing to invite comment on four proposed zoning regulation changes driven by the downtown master plan.
In his opening remarks, P&Z Chair Rick Tomasetti set the tone for the evening by laying out the ambitions and impetus for the project.
“What’s important to understand is this idea of our vision. Our roots in history provide us with wisdom and grounding. Our vision is the guiding beacon illuminating the horizons of our future. We’re not content with mere cosmetic touch-ups in Wilton Center. We aspire to a transformation or metamorphosis that binds those time-honored traditions of the past with a dynamic promise of the future,” he said.
After Tomasetti clarified next steps for the four zoning overlays proposed by the subcommittee, the Commission voted unanimously to split the evening’s agenda. During this meeting, they addressed the zoning changes to Wilton Center proper and the section of Danbury Rd. near the Wilton train station (known as the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) area). The zoning changes proposed as the East and West segments of Danbury Rd. will be presented and opened for public comment at a future hearing that will be newly advertised.
First, Questions from the Commission
The meeting began with a brief but thorough presentation in which the consultants from BFJ Planning went over the zoning changes proposed for Wilton Center and the TOD area.
In an odd moment, Jonathan Martin of BFJ Planning presented a slide of renderings that he said depicted the kind of street frontages that could be developed using Wilton Center’s new form-based code. One of the examples (top right, shown below) was the original design for 12 Godfrey Pl., a contentious application that at times received both praise and criticism from the Commission about whether it indeed fit with the design intention of the new zoning overlay still in development. The application was eventually withdrawn, redesigned as a larger and less ornamental affordable housing project, and reluctantly approved by P&Z under threat of an 8-30g legal challenge. Its inclusion as a development example was not commented on.
From there, P&Z Commissioners, especially those who had not served on the subcommittee, were invited to ask questions.
Commissioner Eric Fanwick asked how many lots in the TOD area meet the minimum three-acre size required to make use of the TOD zoning overlay. Michael Wrinn, the town’s Director of Planning and Land Use Management, clarified that the available parcels are primarily one town-owned parcel and one site that is the current location of Commonfund.
Commissioner Ken Hoffman asked for more detail on the economic calculus that led BFJ to recommend four- or five-story buildings for Wilton Center rather than the three-story heights that appear in many of the examples from other towns shown during the presentation. Frank Fish, Principal at BFJ Planning, replied that in his experience working with developers, “3-over-1 [a ground floor, often retail, with three stories of residential above it] is the magic number.” He also clarified that none of BFJ’s work with developers includes projects that pose a conflict of interest for BFJ’s consulting role with the Town of Wilton.
Commissioner Mark Ahasic asked what could be done to incorporate more community amenities and activities, not just additional housing and retail, into Wilton Center. Fish replied that the overlay allowing a wider variety of building uses may encourage it. Tomasetti echoed that position and said, “It’s not quite ‘build it and they will come,’ but in essence, it is.”
Widespread Praise, with Some Remarks about Public Input
After questions from the Commission were concluded, the group took a five-minute recess and returned to begin hearing public comment. Seventeen residents spoke in total, with near-universal praise for the subcommittee’s two-year effort.
“I’m entirely supportive of these changes,” said Mike Sutka, a resident of Wilton for 28 years. “The town needs to evolve and change; we can’t live in the past.”
Jason Brandt agreed and said that not much has changed since he was growing up in Wilton in the 1970s. “[Wilton is] a beautiful community. It’s bucolic, lots of open spaces. But towns around us have buzz and I don’t see that in Wilton.”
Joe Polito said he moved to Wilton in 1987 and as a developer, he understands the need to make Wilton Center appealing as a town core. “We have to make it attractive to people who invest here, monetarily and emotionally.”
Sara Curtis, who spoke at the initial public hearing in March 2022, praised the final product and the work that went into crafting it. “Don’t be afraid of the public,” she said. “We all want to engage in this, we want to help. Most people are fairly enthusiastic and they’re pleased you’re doing this.” She said she wished the subcommittee and the public had found more opportunities to meet in person, particularly in Wilton Center itself, as part of the process.
In addition to members of the public, the hearing drew comments from a broad subset of Town representatives. Nearly half of the evening’s speakers served as Commissioners and members of Town Boards that BFJ Planning had consulted directly as part of its analysis.
One member of this group, Rob Sanders, urged the Commission to keep the public hearing open so people could comment on a future date, saying “Tonight’s meeting is an illustration of how important it is to have public information sessions.” Sanders is Chair of the Architectural Review Board and the Village District Design Advisory Committee, which reviews buildings proposed for Wilton Center.
Several others defended the way public input had been handled so far, albeit with an undercurrent of confusion about the process.
Selectwoman Kim Healy praised P&Z and the subcommittee and said she didn’t understand why people feel that they did not have the opportunity to participate since “you have public comment at all of your meetings.” Unlike the Board of Selectmen, however, P&Z does not offer an open public comment period during its meetings. No regular meeting of P&Z has ever allowed public comments on this topic and the Commission’s special meetings for the master plan allowed public comment just once, during the March 2022 public hearing held at the outset of the process.
One business owner in Wilton Center spoke as well. Mike Lebeau, who owns Marly’s Bistro, expressed strong support for the zoning changes and encouraged the Commission to also pursue better signage directing people into the downtown.
Denise Sabol, a current resident of Wilton Center, expressed worry about how increased housing density would impact traffic in the area. “There are times when River Rd. is a speedway,” she said, noting that downtown Ridgefield has stop lights in addition to stop signs, which help slow traffic.
Vice Chair Melissa-Jean Rotini responded to this concern later in the evening, “Nothing in this prevents us from looking at traffic as we always do when projects come to us. I don’t want anyone to have the impression that, oh, they did this, and now traffic is off the table.”
The final speaker during the hearing portion of the evening was First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice, who made a fiscal case for the need to bring more density downtown. “We’re going to need new investment and the associated new tax dollars if we want to remain affordable and fund town and school operations — now higher because of inflation — the more than $40 million in anticipated new borrowing through 2028 presented at May’s annual Town Meeting, and additional new borrowings that now are coming based on the draft needs assessment for the schools for the next 10-15 years and the needs assessment that we haven’t yet received for municipal buildings for the next 10-15 years.”
She added, “I applaud moving Wilton towards the future with the recommendation of a form-based code and your recommended regulations for the Center and its TOD overlay zone.“
Next Steps & Continued Mystery about the Status of the Master Plan
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission voted to close the public hearing on the zoning regulations and proceed to deliberation. However, given the late hour, deliberation was carried over to the Monday, Oct. 23 meeting of P&Z.
The question of whether the master plan should have gone to a vote by the Commission, first raised by GOOD Morning Wilton in an email to the town on Monday, remains unanswered. Both Tomasetti and Town Planner Michael Wrinn have commented during meetings in September that the master plan is an advisory document that is not subject to a hearing or vote.
Earlier on Thursday, land use attorney and former P&Z Commissioner David Waters commented on GMW, “I have been practicing zoning law for over 40 years and sat on Wilton P&Z for eight, and I have never heard of any jurisdiction (including Wilton) where a master plan or portion thereof has not been formally adopted by vote of the Commission. It does not just arise sui generis “is what it is”. Without a formal vote, the plan is unenforceable and not worth the paper it is written on — and if it has not been formally adopted then it can’t be the foundation for any approval or denial of a subsequent application — including the adoption of new regulations that are intended to advance the goals of the master plan.”
Consultants BFJ Planning discussed the master plan during their presentation on Thursday but no mention was made of any next steps in reviewing or approving the plan.
On Thursday afternoon, an agenda for Monday, Oct. 23’s regular meeting of P&Z was posted that includes an opportunity for the Commission to vote on the first two zoning regulation packages but makes no mention of the master plan. This meeting will also include the rescheduled public hearing to decide whether to permanently ban cannabis businesses in Wilton or pass a one-year prohibition.
I am grateful for these commissioners and this massive effort, which will benefit Wilton.
I have the utmost respect for Dave and his experience in this area dwarfs mine, but I’m pretty sure the PZC is not limited by whether or not it formally votes to adopt the center plan. Whether it should or not is a separate question and I defer.
The planning and zoning commission can bring map and text amendments like this at any time for any reason consistent with state law. They are not limited to a preexisting plan or having some formal adoption of a plan, save perhaps the POCD, which is advisory. Even if the plan were a legally required prerequisite, I think it would still be only largely advisory and the formal regulations would be the only binding result of this process, shaped by the plan, public feedback and the public record. The commissioners have discretion to consider all of that as it sees fit.
Scott, I don’t disagree that a master plan is an advisory document, but my point is that it isn’t an advisory document unless and until it has been formally adopted by the Commission, which can only occur by a formal vote – until then, it is just a study by an outside consultant. Otherwise, if, for example the master plan is cited as a basis for new regulations, you might as well say “we are approving these because BFJ Planning thinks they are a good idea” since the Commission has not made it *their* plan.
I am surprised that this is even an issue, and I would have thought that since it appears the Commission is fully on board with what BFJ Planning has drafted there would not be any impediment to a vote to adopt. That is what occurred for the 2019 POCD and for the POCD before that.
If they really want public input, they should put this up to a referendum of the voters. As it is, after several years and however much money has been spent on this, it didn’t feel like there was any way this was going to be swayed by a few public comments. It is hard to imagine that a majority of residents want the town center to look like a bunch of over sized buildings like the one going up next to Ring’s End on route 7.
EXACTLY!!!!
Your options are a dead town center with 2 -3 story buildings, high taxes, and worse amenities. Or 4-5 story buildings (these are really not very tall for a downtown area) with much more reasonable taxes and amenities. I don’t understand why you would choose the first, just because you want the literal “downtown” to look like it’s still 1950s Wilton? The town needs to modernize and enable development of an active and prosperous downtown. And the rest of Wilton can remain sleepy, but with better finances and amenities.
Unlike the Board of Selectmen, however, P&Z does not offer an open public comment period during its meetings. No regular meeting of P&Z has ever allowed public comments on this topic and the Commission’s special meetings for the master plan allowed public comment just once, during the March 2022 public hearing held at the outset of the process. How does a current member of the BOS not know this information?
Besides the one year non transparency of Planning and Zoning of this critical action, the meeting last evening was a “town controlled video”. Thus the extra special warm and fuzzy. Every other commission meets in person with the zoom option. That makes meetings more equitable with on site public input. The warm and fuzzy town controlled video meeting would have been very different.
Residents of Wilton live here because of the quiet, unassuming nature of the town. They are not interested in population density, heavily trafficked roads and congestion.
If development takes place without public approval, the exodus of those who enjoy the character of Wilton will begin.
I think town center is being held back by a single developer owning such a large portion of it. Their hope is that they can come up with a single, perfect-as-built River Rd. development that will stand the test of time. The reality is that they tried this already and the result was a monolithic structure that could not adapt to changing needs.
Had the roughly 550 feet of storefront from the movie theater to the hardware store instead been six or eight or ten uniquely owned and operated parcels, they could have adapted over time to suit changing needs, resulting in the kind of incremental development that makes a town resilient. It is less likely that we would have had a string of storefronts all dormant for a decade.
*I am not a zoning expert or a developer. I just look at areas like downtown Ridgefield or New Canaan, or SoNo, or stretches of Post Road in Darien, or the Main St./Columbus Park area in Stamford– areas have a patchwork of smaller, densely clustered buildings– and think there is something to be learned from that development pattern.
**Yes, I know we do not have the finances of a New Canaan or Darien; no, I do not want to be as large as Stamford or Norwalk. I am just pointing out examples of pockets of development that are visually interesting, very walkable, and have the capacity to adapt because they are not counting on one massive 10+acre development project.
The article didn’t include the 28 public comments received by email. 24 of which were supportive and 4 were not. You can read them here, scroll to the bottom. Like the public comments, they include many long-time residents, many who graduated from Wilton High School, returned to raise a family and opened a business in Wilton. Great to see and hear. https://www.wiltonct.org/planning-zoning-commission/pages/current-pz-applications-and-pre-application-reviews
I’d encourage anyone who didn’t email, but instead commented here to email the Commission in advance of the next public hearing on Danbury Road Overlay zones. By state statute, the Commissioners can only consider comments made as part of a public hearing. Many don’t read social media comments for that reason. The date will be set and followed by the state statute requirement to publish two public notices in a printed newspaper.
Lastly, there is no “mystery” about the vote on the plan. Not even sure where that came from. Town Counsel provided his legal guidance and yes it is an advisory document. The document uses the word plan, but not in the same manner as the word plan is used in the state-mandated POCD. It could easily have been called a report.
Here we go again…the truth is…I count 8 not 4 letters of opposition. The most important was Rem Bigosinski on October 19th of which if people had the time to read his analysis, there would be a different outcome in a public forum not a rushed once off pressured by a “Town Controlled Video Meeting”…
Thanks for this explanation; people should listen to your statement at the end of last night’s hearing. It seems that many commenters on this article and on social media did not attend last night’s zoom session, which I found informative, very positive and supportive. We seem to have a small cadre of residents who willingly and frequently complain about the process and/orthe plan, here and on social media, but who did not participate in the well advertised hearing. From my perspective, it was 3 hours well spent.
I was and am aware the Planning and Zoning Commission only allows public comment during public hearings. We were in a public hearing meeting so I inarticulately said all meeting referring to public hearings. As pointed out I should have specified public hearing.
Last night at the public hearing meeting and through email a good number of residents provided their comments. If you didn’t attend and missed the consultant’s highly informative presentation, the meeting video will soon be on the town website and Channel 79.
For what it’s worth, as a noted Complainer About Things I actually don’t see much to object to in the plan itself; I’ve generally been a strong supporter of more density and remain so here. I’m more receptive to arguments about aesthetics and architectural compatibility in a walkable downtown area than I am along, say, Route 7 (“oh my gosh no we can’t put this big blocky building next to power lines and a self-storage warehouse”), but it remains the case that we need more people living downtown to make it commercially viable.
That being said, the process behind this has, candidly, sucked; they develop the plan mostly in private and take forever to release it, resulting in – among other consequences – an ugly 8-30g building that neither the town nor the developer are particularly excited about, and then rush it out before the election without putting it to a vote, despite the fact that the P&Z races are entirely uncontested this year and so the electoral consequences for finalizing it in a more organized / formal way would be nonexistent.
But it’s not too late to decide to hold a few more meetings and put the plan to a vote; that’s still something they can do, it just requires Tomasetti & co. to admit that they’re wrong about something. (which is, sadly, not a particularly common occurrence)