Boucher’s Surprising Note to Residents “Discontent” with Development and P&Z: ‘You Have Options — Run for a Seat, Write Letters, Start Petitions, Take ’em to Court’

In her June 26 newsletter to residents, First Selectman Toni Boucher focused on the topic of development, which she called “a major concern for all” who attended the May 29 State of the Town talk. 

Boucher made a surprising move in the newsletter, offering the following message to residents unhappy with development in Wilton and the Planning and Zoning Commission:

“[P&Z has], indeed, a firm grip on our town’s planning. Civic engagement, like running for a spot on the Planning and Zoning Commission, is key to counterbalancing the current agenda of this Commission’s members. There are five seats on this board that will go to a vote in November 2025. Another seat is up for election in 2027.

“Another avenue the public may use to express dissatisfaction is to write letters or gather signatures on petitions that expressly oppose development projects, or ask for a text amendment to change a zoning regulation. … Op-eds and letters to the editor can be sent to our local press. Citizens may also take some issues to superior court.” First Selectman Toni Boucher’s June Update Message

After publishing the newsletter, GOOD Morning Wilton reached out to Boucher to request an interview and submitted several specific questions by email. In a nearly one-hour-long phone interview with GMW writer Kathy Bonnist on July 1, Boucher spoke at length about, among other topics:

• The concerns and frustrations Boucher says residents have communicated to her about new multifamily housing developments in Wilton
• Her views on Wilton’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) and why she believes the latest array of multifamily housing developments falls short of Wilton’s housing diversity goal 
• Wilton’s limited sewer capacity as a “hurdle” for development 
• Why she says “the jury’s still out” on the question of whether new multifamily housing will create a burden on Wilton’s schools and municipal services
• As-yet-unanswered questions about the fiscal impact of new multifamily housing developments in Wilton

GMW also reached out to all of the P&Z members, including P&Z Chair Rick Tomasetti, as well as Director of Planning & Land Use Management/Town Planner Michael Wrinn. None responded to our requests for comment. 

GMW‘s interview with Boucher sought to explore the First Selectman’s views in more detail. It sheds light on the current discourse and debate surrounding multifamily housing development in Wilton from the viewpoint of its top official.

The Town has not yet produced current, hard data on the fiscal impact from new developments. Boucher refers mostly to anecdotal information and feedback she said she hears directly from residents.

“I get a couple of calls or emails a week, not to mention every single grocery store or post office I go to, people bring this topic up,” Boucher told GMW.

This story contains just a portion of GMW’s interview with Boucher, primarily regarding her comments in her newsletter about development. Consider this Part 1 — a jumping off point for a deeper dive GMW plans to take into the many complex issues surrounding development in Wilton being talked about at Town Hall, on social media and all around Wilton. More of Boucher’s interview will be included in future articles in our ongoing coverage.

The Interview

First, Boucher explained why she chose to focus on development in her newsletter at this time.

“It was not surprising that when we had our first State of the Town meeting, [development] was one of the first things that was brought up. So I wanted to give an overview about what happened at that meeting. And I had an opportunity to explain the process a little,” Boucher said.

Boucher emphasized that her comments in the newsletter were aimed at educating residents on how Town government works, and explaining what action steps are available to residents who are unhappy with P&Z.

GOOD Morning Wilton: My sense is, you went one step beyond that. You threw down a gauntlet in a way — you called for a change in P&Z membership.

Boucher: No, I didn’t. I didn’t call for it. I said that if [residents] were dissatisfied… They keep saying, ‘Please, Toni, fix this. Change this. What can you do about this? We expect you to do something about this.’

[Reading from her own newsletter] It says here, “[P&Z’s] decisions are entirely their own and made without influence or control from the Board of Selectmen. The Board of Selectmen cannot veto [P&Z’s] decisions, nor can their decisions be overturned by an Annual Town Meeting“ — that’s the law. “They have, indeed, a firm grip on the Town’s planning…” — They do. 

[She continues reading]: “Civic engagement, like running for a spot on the Planning and Zoning Commission, is key to counterbalancing the current agenda of the Commission’s members. There are five seats on this board that will go for a vote in November 2025, another seat is up for election in 2027.” 

GMW: It sounded like you were calling for a change in the [P&Z] membership.

Boucher: I said if [residents] are discontent, that they have these options. If they are feeling frustrated, they can express their dissatisfaction. The public may use — not that you should, but you may use — all of these different ways [to] approach P&Z. They just can’t keep trying to get me or the Board of Selectmen to make these changes, because it’s not in our responsibility or purview.

GMW: When you refer to “the current agenda of the Commission’s members” — what do you believe is their current agenda?

Boucher: I don’t say that they have an agenda. I say that there’s frustration that the public doesn’t feel that they are being heard, or that their feedback is not welcome. [Editor’s note: In fact, Boucher did write “…the current agenda of the Commission’s members.” See above.]

That was just the tip of the iceberg when we had that [State of the Town] meeting, but I’ve been getting this continuously through emails. It seems like I’m the point person for people to express their dislike or displeasure. We did have also an email or two, or an individual, say, ‘I think this [development] is good, we have to do this.’ But when you get 90% against and 10% for, there’s a definite sense of the mood out there in the community.

What [P&Z is] not hearing is the calls I get that say [residents] are too frustrated. [After the P&Z public hearing on 131 Danbury Rd.] they finally gave up and went away. They said, ‘We’re done. We’re so frustrated. [P&Z] won’t hear us.’ And I hear that a great deal… There’s many people that have tried to weigh in, and they were shut out because many of those big projects were continued a couple of different times at different meetings, and they didn’t bother. And they also said that they had tried to send letters to the editor. They weren’t published. [Editor’s note: GMW received three letters regarding development. One contained data that could not be verified. A second, received while GMW was on hiatus at the end of June, was sent to four state legislators and GMW asking for help with changing zoning regulations; there was not a specific request to publish it. A third letter sent at the end of April was inadvertently overlooked. GMW has reached out to the author who still would like it published; it will run next week. All other comments on related articles — if they met our requirements for consideration — were approved and published.]

GMW: Just to be clear, do you feel that the issue is that P&Z isn’t hearing from the public, or that they’re ignoring the comments that they receive? Or both?

Boucher:  Well, I think that there’s a lot of both… I think that [residents] get frustrated and don’t feel heard, so they go and express their opinions elsewhere. Or they are not knowledgeable about [why] they’re not being allowed to make a public comment — they just don’t know the rules. There is a set of guidelines that [P&Z] have that are also part of the state regulations that we don’t have on the Board of Selectmen. They are governed by another layer of rules from the state, but [P&Z] can explain that, rather than just shutting people down or not allowing any engagement at all, without really good explanation of why that’s the case, that there are many good reasons for the fact that they don’t take public comment and a particular public hearing has to be continued for good reasons.  [Editor’s note: GMW reported as recently as May 29 on how P&Z’s rigid public comment process makes it difficult for members of the public to comment and participate in public hearings. We also frequently report low attendance and civic engagement at public hearings and other Town meetings.]

GMW: The Wilton POCD concluded that there was a need for population growth and more housing supply, greater housing diversity. Do you agree with those conclusions — do you feel that Wilton should be working toward those goals? And is P&Z approaching it the right way?

Boucher: Well, I think everyone wants good growth, balanced growth, and the ability to absorb growth rather than having everything all at once. But more important, that housing ‘diversity’ does not seem to be happening — all we’re seeing right now is projects that have one or two hundred apartment units exclusively, rather than a diversity of townhouses or condominiums. I’ve heard a lot from the public that they would like to see condominiums and townhouses that they can purchase, rather than these large, dense apartment complexes that look like they belong more in Stamford than they do in Wilton.

We need to be able to provide the roadways and traffic mitigation and town services and police and fire and schools and so forth, so that [Wilton] can move well into the future, rather than having everything done all at once. The pace has been an issue or concern expressed to me… that the pace seems to have gone very rapidly, rather than taking its time. A lot of what was in the [POCD] is outstanding. It’s really good. You always want good growth, balanced growth, a growth that you can absorb and for the vitality of the community. But we have to do that in a way that makes sense for the community… But again, that is not in the purview of the Board of Selectmen. That is something that P&Z has almost exclusive decision-making power over. And that’s where the public need to get involved. I don’t think they see that — they see the First Selectman’s office and the Board of Selectmen as having control over growth or the way the Town appears. And that’s not the case.

[At one point Boucher raised the subject of Wilton’s limited sewer capacity as one constraint on growth.] 

GMW: That gets to my question about the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) and who really has the responsibility for the Land Use decisions. Is commenting about the WPCA as a “hurdle for developers plans” getting into risky territory — from a legal standpoint, the WPCA being a barrier for development?

Boucher: It’s not a barrier. It is the ultimate, biggest consideration. It is something we often discuss — should developers first get approved from P&Z, or should they first go to the WPCA? It is up to the developers on how they want to proceed. But right now, [sewer capacity] is limited due to a contract that we have with Norwalk. … We engaged immediately into negotiations [with Norwalk] so as to not become a barrier to any of these plans that were being proposed… We’re working hard to make sure that we solve any inflow and infiltration problems we might have by making sure that our pipes are in good repair. It’s going to be costly, but we have reserves set aside specifically for that. So we’re trying not to be an impediment — but it is a barrier, a consideration, if you’re at capacity, which is where we are right now… so what I’m saying is, it’s not a purposeful hurdle or barrier. It is a real one that’s created simply by the amount of capacity we have. That is real. It’s not imagined or not something artificially created. [Editor’s note: The WPCA approved a slew of applications at its meeting on Wednesday, July 10. We’re reporting on that in a separate story.]

Reaction from Other Town Officials 

GMW reached out to several Town officials for their reaction to Boucher’s newsletter comments.

Board of Finance (BOF) Chair Matt Raimondi responded with the following statement, noting the BOF has received differing views among residents on the subject of development. He also emphasized the importance of growing the grand list and the BOF’s support for POCD’s goals:

“One of the main topics residents contact us about is the budget and mill rate. In these conversations, residents sometimes share their views on development, both in favor and against. Opponents of further development express concerns about over-urbanization and potential cost escalation (due to perceptions that this will lead to more pupils in schools and increased spending on town resources), while proponents believe development can expand the net taxable grand list, support more businesses and amenities in town, and foster a larger community. 

“Although the Board of Finance typically doesn’t delve into development issues (since it’s outside our jurisdiction), it significantly affects the taxable grand list that influences our mill rate decisions. This year’s revaluation underscored the impact: a relatively lower increase in the commercial grand list placed a heavier financial burden on residents, given the significantly higher increase in the residential grand list. Consequently, during the recent budget cycle, every Board of Finance member advocated for expanding the grand list to offset rising costs and stabilize tax impacts. While development isn’t within our oversight, we support the goals outlined in the POCD and are in favor of responsible projects that bolster Wilton’s tax base, while ensuring the community remains close-knit and vibrant.”  Board of Finance (BOF) Chair Matt Raimondi

While none of the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, nor Town Planner Michael Wrinn, responded to our request for comment, former P&Z Chair Scott Lawrence sent GMW the following statement:

“The Town is fortunate to have such an experienced, diligent and dedicated group of bipartisan volunteers serving in the Town’s best interests. I believe all were elected espousing a similar responsible growth and targeted development platform that recognizes the acute need for new housing options in Town to support resident housing choices and affordability while promoting good design and grand list growth. The planning and development work they are seeing through today started six years prior and has Town-wide support built carefully during the POCD process, and it deserves the attention and robust discussion it is engendering. That it is always part of a good process. I support their work and wish them continued success. Wilton’s economy, businesses, budgets and quality of life depend on it.” Former P&Z Chair Scott Lawrence

Coming Soon

GMW‘s analysis of development and multifamily housing will continue, with a look at:

• Comments from WestCOG Executive Director Francis Pickering on the fiscal impact of multifamily housing, and a new study about to be released to member municipalities on affordable housing
• Available data on real estate tax revenues from properties like 141 Danbury Rd. — before and after projects are completed — and explore whether that revenue is likely to support costs to the Town related to growth
• Wilton’s existing large developments, like the Avalon Wilton community at 25 River Rd. and White Oaks at Wilton at 116 Danbury Rd. (tax revenue, student enrollment, etc.)
• Data from Wilton police and fire
• Ongoing news about the latest applications, including Kimco’s proposal for Wilton Center (see this past Wednesday’s story)
• The latest applications before the WPCA, and the recent court decision in favor of a 70-unit multifamily application for 19 Cannon Rd. (and the Town’s appeal of the decision)