During the Monday, Apr. 13 meeting of Wilton’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), the commissioners in attendance appeared to be almost evenly split on the question of whether to allow the proposed redevelopment of the former Wilton Baptist Church at 254 Danbury Rd. to be exempt from a zoning requirement to provide a single median-income housing unit.
While the commissioners were unanimous in their agreement that Wilton needs more affordable housing, the question they wrestled with was whether the unique historical and architectural characteristics of the proposed adaptive reuse warranted such an exception.
As GOOD Morning Wilton previously reported, 254 Danbury Road EAT, LLC is proposing to convert the 1850s church into four residential spaces and construct three new buildings on the 1.68-acre site that would each have two residential units, for a total of 10 units. The developer is requesting P&Z’s approval for the property to be included in the Danbury Rd. East Overlay District while simultaneously asking to be exempt from the district’s 10% affordable housing requirement, which would mean that a single unit would be offered for sale at a median-income level.
During Monday’s continuation of the public hearing into the proposed redevelopment, Attorney Laura Indellicati, representing the developer, argued that the preservation goals of the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) overrode the affordable housing requirement for this particular project.
“We respectfully submit that facilitating adaptive reuse projects of this scale by waiving the affordability requirement is precisely the sort of financial incentive for historic preservation that’s envisioned by and encouraged by the POCD,” Indellicati told the commissioners. “We’re mindful that Wilton also has an interest in adding to its affordable housing stock, and in service of that interest … we presented a text change that sets forth specific criteria for eligibility for the affordability waiver that will prevent any ordinary multifamily development from taking advantage of this benefit.”
The text change proposed by the developer would apply the affordable housing requirement in the overlay district to developments with more than 10 residential units — which happens to be one more unit than what is being proposed for the project.
Town Counsel Finds Proposed Changes Are Not Spot Zoning
Following its Mar. 23 meeting, P&Z requested town counsel to issue an opinion on whether the proposed changes to the overlay district amounted to illegal spot zoning. In a memorandum sent to P&Z, attorneys Brendan Liberati and Ira Bloom of Berchem Moses, P.C., acting as counsel for the Town of Wilton, concluded that they did not.
Liberati and Bloom wrote that the proposed zoning text amendment did not change the underlying zoning classification or change the zone’s boundaries, and was consistent with the POCD.
“Our interpretation of [the provisions of the overlay district] is that affordable housing is simply one type of ‘well-designed, smaller-scaled infill multi-family residential development’ that would fit the overall goal of the Overlay District,” they wrote.
They agreed with Indellicati’s claim that the proposed amendment would create opportunities for greater housing diversity, more incentives for adaptive reuse, and increased density within the district.
The commissioners did not take up the issue of spot zoning or address the town counsel memorandum during the public hearing or subsequent discussion during Monday’s meeting.
Financial Impact of Sole Affordable Housing Discussed
Longtime Wilton resident, architect and Wilton Historical Society trustee William D. Earls, who purchased the property, told the commissioners that he intentionally did not pursue state or federal grant funding available for historic property redevelopment because of the red tape involved. Pressed by commissioner Trevor Huffard to at least investigate available state grant funding, Earls said that he was not against the idea.
Indellicati previously argued that offering one unit at a median income level would make it difficult if not impossible for the developer to recoup its costs to develop the property to the intended high standards. However, the applicant did not include financials in its application to P&Z to justify that argument. At the request of Huffard and P&Z Chair Ken Hoffman, Indellicati did share a rough estimate she had prepared showing that the sale price using the state median income, assuming a 30-year mortgage, would be $428,000 for the three-bedroom units, $486,000 for the four-bedroom units, and $544,000 for the sole five-bedroom unit.
“Many of the commissioners, including myself, think that there are substantial issues in Wilton about having adequate affordable housing, and many of the applications that come before this commission … have reasons why they should or shouldn’t meet those affordable housing guidelines,” Hoffman said. “I just don’t know under the information that you have presented how to judge financial hardship or not to the applicant.”
“Respectfully, my response to that would just be that financial hardship to the applicant is really not the consideration here,” Indellicati said. “The question is, under the regulations, you are allowed to give financial incentives for these sorts of historic preservation efforts.”
Huffard asked who was responsible for ensuring that the developer would use the materials specified in the building permit, to ensure the developer was not cutting costs. Director of Planning and Land Use Management Michael Wrinn explained that developers are obligated to follow the plans approved by P&Z or else come back to request a change.
“If We Die on That Hill, We Run the Risk of Losing the Church”
Following the closure of the public hearing, the commissioners discussed how to balance the need for more affordable housing with the developer’s request to make an exception for the Baptist Church project because of its unique nature.
Commissioner Anthony Cenatiempo said that, while he wished that the developer had agreed to include an affordable housing unit, the church is a special and unique asset and he was otherwise in favor of allowing it to proceed. He also reassured residents that P&Z was committed to developing a formal affordable housing strategy, noting that the commissioners would be discussing the topic at a special meeting on Apr. 15.
“This project may not be the right one to … have the applicant change their plans [and] put in one unit,” Cenatiempo said. “That being said, if the entire commission disagrees with me, I … would make it unanimous and have them put in one. But I don’t know if that will cause the project to not go forward, and I don’t want to lose that church.”
Commissioner Jessica Rainey agreed about the unique value of the property, but said she could not support removing the affordable housing requirement.
“I’m concerned that if we make an exception here, we would be asked to make an exception everywhere,” she said.
Commissioner Jill Duncan argued that the financial hit incurred by allowing one affordable housing unit would be proportionally larger for a small development like the Baptist Church property, with its 10 residential units, than it would be for a larger development with hundreds of units.
“I think that if we deny [the amendment] based on that, and then we die on that hill here, which I don’t think is appropriate, we run the risk of losing the church,” Duncan said. “And we run the risk of another very large apartment complex.”
Commissioner Margit Ritz said she agreed with Duncan and Cenatiempo.
Huffard acknowledged the importance of the church building to Wilton’s history but expressed concern over the lack of oversight of the construction to ensure the developer adheres to the building plans and doesn’t attempt to cut costs should the project run over budget. Huffard also reiterated his concern that the developer had not explored grant funding that would help defray costs that could offset the loss of revenue from selling one unit at a median-income level, and said that because of those reasons he was not in favor of the amendment.
“I don’t think he’s pushing [for grant funding] and therefore I don’t think we should be pushed back,” Huffard said.
Hoffman said that he was not in favor of giving up the affordable housing component, saying that he felt “a little pushed” by the developer to grant the exception rather than find a mutually agreeable compromise.
“I don’t believe we were told outright that they would not make a new application if we insisted on the affordable [housing requirement], but implicitly I feel like we are bargaining where someone is saying that we may not go ahead with this project if you include an affordable component, and good luck with whatever replaces what we’re trying to do” Hoffman said. “I understand that they’re saying this is an incentive for this developer to do this project, but as Commissioner Huffard said, the incentive is aesthetic. The incentive is not being phrased to us in terms of dollars and cents.”
Wrinn said he will prepare a draft resolution for review during the next P&Z meeting on Apr. 27. Hoffman noted that the commissioners do not have the ability to modify the permit application, so any vote they take would be a straight up-or-down vote to approve the entire proposal package.