“Up Against the Wire:” P&Z Approves State-Mandated Zoning Changes on Housing & Parking Before July 1 Deadline

Wilton’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) narrowly beat the clock on a July 1 deadline to pass state-mandated zoning regulation changes that will allow certain residential developments in Wilton’s commercial districts to move forward without traditional P&Z Commission review.

The state-mandated changes were related to parking, traffic mitigation and certain types of residential buildings, and needed to be adopted ahead of the state’s July 1 deadline in order to comply with Connecticut’s new housing law, Special Session Public Act 25-1, an Act Concerning Housing Growth.

Commissioners voted unanimously during P&Z’s Jun. 23 meeting to approve a new chapter in Wilton’s zoning regulations establishing rules governing the construction of so-called “transit community middle housing” developments, which are buildings of between two and nine dwellings built on lots zoned for commercial and mixed uses.

PA 25-1 exempts middle housing developments from having to go through the traditional planning and zoning review process. Qualifying proposals would only require summary review by the town’s zoning compliance officer, instead of requiring a P&Z Commission vote, public hearings or any discretionary actions by the town. The only way for P&Z to exert some oversight is by explicitly spelling out as many standards and design requirements as possible in the new zoning regulations.

P&Z also passed new regulations with a map amendment establishing two “traffic mitigation districts” that allow the town to set minimum numbers of parking spaces for residential developments within those districts.

Without the regulations in place by July 1, town officials warned that Wilton would have even less control over future projects subject to the new state law.

“We’re pretty much up against the wire,” Director of Planning and Land Use Management Michael Wrinn said, noting that if a new qualified application came in before the town adopted the new regulations, “realistically, you’re not going to be able to stop that project.”

In order to meet the deadline, P&Z passed a rough draft that had minor formatting errors such as incomplete section numbering and duplicate definitions, which will be corrected by Planning and Zoning Department staff for the final version.

Also due to the deadline constraint, the middle housing chapter was passed without inputs currently being prepared by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), which will be reviewed and incorporated as an amendment when they have been completed.

Planning & Zoning commissioners and staff have been working for months to understand the new mandates and draft new regulations for the town. Wilton is not the only town that has been struggling to make sense of the state’s housing mandates, and the regulations can be amended in light of practice and experience.

“There’s nothing that says these regulations have to remain like this for three years,” Wrinn said. “You can change these at will after a public hearing. So, I think that’s the major takeaway from this is that we’re ready to react to what we see coming forward in the future.”

“We Have a Gun to Our Heads”

The state’s looming deadline and limitations on local oversight drew criticism from residents and commissioners alike during a spirited public hearing that followed the commissioners’ deliberations. A handful of long-time observers of the town’s planning process vented their frustrations over the state’s mandates and P&Z Chair Ken Hoffman criticized what he described as a lack of support for P&Z from Wilton’s Town Hall.

Complaining that “we have a gun to our heads,” Wilton resident Barbara Geddis, an architect who previously served on the subcommittee that drafted the Greater Wilton Center Master Plan, criticized portions of the architectural guidelines in the middle housing chapter — which were taken verbatim from the state’s own guidance — as having “nothing to do with Fairfield County.”

“I’m so about … asserting Wilton’s importance and authenticity as this simple, non-traditional, kind of interesting, vibrant place,” Geddis said. “And just to take this [new chapter] in one fell swoop of 16 pages, … I almost gagged.”

Resident Patricia Frisch said she was “befuddled” by the effect that the proposed changes could have on “the look and feel of Wilton.”

“I’m a little bit frightened by the consequence of us passing something that we all clearly would like more time to refine and consider and don’t have,” Frisch said.

Resident Sara Curtis criticized what she saw as the town having to accept ever-lower standards imposed by the state government, likening P&Z’s efforts as “trying to make a gourmet meal out of what is essentially roadkill.”

“I really kind of wonder where our illustrious Senator [Ceci] Maher has been, why … she couldn’t be attending some type of a meeting and help [explain] what the ramifications for this town would be,” Curtis said. “She seems to be conveniently absent when these things come up.”

Rather than simply listen to the public comments as is usually done, Hoffman frequently commiserated with Geddis, Frisch and Curtis — answering their questions, providing additional background, and expressing frustration with the accelerated deadlines imposed by the Connecticut General Assembly to comply with PA 25-1. He also leveled criticism at Wilton residents who do not participate in town government and the town itself for not providing sufficient support to P&Z.

“With regard to legal review of things, it has been brought up by this commission many times that we would appreciate that if the commission had counsel as staff and they actually did that, against a town government that seems to be reluctant or is resistant to spending money on legal fees,” Hoffman said. “I personally think that’s a bad decision that the town makes with long-term consequences, and they do it because of budgetary reasons.”

New Regulations Account for Sewer Infrastructure Limitations, Commercial Zone Configurations

According to Wrinn, the linear nature of Wilton’s commercial corridor will likely confine middle housing developments to areas along Danbury Rd., Wilton Center, Cannondale Village and Georgetown. Another limiting factor is sanitary sewer capacity, which, as Wrinn noted, is nearing capacity.

“There is a big jump between the sanitary sewer requirements for a residential unit and office space or retail that’s only there part-time during the day,” Wrinn said. “So, it’s going to be difficult to make that transition to these units. But having said that, we have to allow for those units and that’s what we’re trying to do here.”

To ensure the town’s zoning compliance officer has as much discretion as possible over the construction of middle housing, the new chapter includes an extensive list of definitions and requirements drawn from the Greater Wilton Center Master Plan. Wrinn said he did not think it posed a “huge, huge risk” for P&Z to pass the new middle housing regulations prior to receiving the ARB’s inputs, as he expects their recommendations will be ready for review soon.

Wrinn noted that the state regulations do not place an affordability requirement on middle housing nor allow towns to impose one.

Following the vote, Wrinn said he and his staff will fix several minor “scriber’s errors” in the middle housing chapter noted by commissioner Anthony Cenatiempo with regard to inconsistent section numbering, duplicated terms and definitions and formatting mistakes resulting from the effort to get something drafted in time for the Jun. 23 meeting.

Reviewing the maps prepared by Planning & Zoning staff for the two “traffic mitigation districts” that allow the town to specify parking requirements for residential developments with fewer than 16 units, commissioner Trevor Huffard suggested extending the northern zone further south to incorporate the commercial properties south of Old Mill Rd. The commissioners agreed to review this addition at a future public hearing along with the ARB’s recommendations for the middle housing chapter.

Given the July 1 deadline, Wrinn said that he did not think there would be enough time to send the changes discussed by the commissioners to town counsel for review prior to a vote, but the changes were minor enough that they could be amended later.

Housing Growth Plan Looms on the Horizon

The next set of major regulation changes required by PA 25-1 is the development of a housing growth plan. Under the act, municipalities have until next year to decide whether to opt in to a regional housing growth plan or develop one of their own. While most of the state is required to have a plan in place by 2028, towns in South Central and Western Connecticut, the Naugatuck Valley, and Greater Bridgeport have until 2029 to promulgate their housing growth plans.

“So, we’ve got a bit of time for that, but all of this will continue to roll,” Wrinn said.