The Monday, July 14 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission saw two long-running and consequential agenda items near their conclusion. After months of presentations, revisions and heated public debate, the Commission wrapped up its deliberation on the proposal for 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. (but held off on a final vote until next time — Monday, July 28.) The Commissioners also finished interviews with the five consulting firms selected as finalists for the project to rewrite (but no re-do) the town’s zoning code.
118 Old Ridgefield Rd. Slated for Approval
The fifth time appears to have been the charm for the beleaguered proposal for 118 Old Ridgefield Rd., a four-story, 20-unit, mixed-use complex with two ground-floor retail spaces and 29 parking spaces. First submitted for a pre-application hearing in April 2024, the project went through four subsequent rounds of design revision in an attempt to incorporate feedback from P&Z, the Village District Design Advisory Committee, and the public, culminating in two dueling design directions that P&Z will have to choose between in its final vote on the project.
The commissioners had previewed how they were leaning in their votes at the prior meeting on June 23, so there were no major surprises in this final deliberation round. Chair Rick Tomasetti opened the discussion by running through the three parallel applications under consideration jointly for the building:
- the zone change to allow the site 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. to enter into the Wilton Center Zoning Overlay, created as part of the Commission’s master plan process
- the text change to allow 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. and 18 other sites in Wilton Center that fall between 0.5-1.49 acres in size to request a 20% reduction in required parking
- the site development plan for the design and layout of the new building on the site itself.
He stated that he saw no rationale for denying the site access into the overlay, given that it complies with the eligibility requirements. This change allows the site to be developed using the town’s new form-based code rather than the underlying zoning that existed before the master plan.
He also explained he felt the parking change was well supported by the applicant’s materials and presentations — and aligned with a goal of the master plan, offering a counterpoint to anyone who felt there were too few parking spots.
“It’s a way of encouraging users to park and get out of their cars and walk. … We’re trying to create this village where people will go park and then walk to the neighbors and we have to get people out of the car. That’s what makes this more vibrant and dynamic,” Tomasetti said. He later added that the property alligned with the POCD in promoting diverse housing in Wilton Center.
Regarding the site development plan and the building design itself, Tomasetti acknowledged the unusual degree of public outcry elicited by the project, and reiterated that he read all the letters and emails the Commission had received from members of the public.
“There was no evidence in any of those letters that there is non-compliance that justifies this being denied,” he said. “You can’t ask for additional regulatory burdens that aren’t in the code, like [Environmental Protection Agency] oversight. We can only look at our statutes and regulations to see what’s appropriate here and do they comply.
“I’m listening to the public and I don’t think they made that case to me. ‘I don’t like it’ isn’t a reason [to deny],” he concluded. “We have regulations, we have rules, and that’s what we look to when we approve these or deny a certain application.”
Tomasetti’s position seemed to be echoed by his fellow commissioners, with all but one stating that they intended to vote to approve the project.
Commissioner Eric Fanwick was the one voice of dissent, stating that he planned to vote against the site development plan because he found the density on this particular site to be too great. He and Tomasetti briefly engaged in a back-and-forth about how Fanwick might justify his position legally, given that the application complies with the requirements of the overlay, which allow this degree of density on a site of this size.
The final two matters to settle with the application were two decisions that the applicants left to the Commission to decide: which of the final two proposed design alternatives would be built, and whether the project would be required to explore adding an electric vehicle charging station on site.
Most commissioners favored the white painted brick design, with only Vice Chair Melissa-Jean Rotini and Commissioner Mark Ahasic preferring the red brick option. And all commissioners appeared to agree that while providing an EV charger would have been a nice amenity, the site’s position in the floodplain makes it too dangerous.
Town Planner Michael Wrinn agreed to draft a resolution approving the project in its white brick design with no EV charger requirement for the Commission’s vote on July 28.
Commissioner Ken Hoffman also sparked a longer-term discussion about whether the Commission should reconsider its policy of reviewing all applications related to a project concurrently. Some application types, such as site development plans and special permits, pertain only to the project being presented, but others, like the parking reduction zoning amendment requested by 118 Old Ridgefield Rd., can have a sweeping impact on many sites.
“When we lump these things together, it doesn’t give us ample time for us to deliberate or the public to comment on the [broader zoning text amendment] itself,” he said. “It gets lumped in with lots of comments on whether people like this building. I know it’s more efficient but we’re asking a different question on [zoning amendments] that affect a broader set of developments.”
Tomasetti and Rotini responded, disagreeing with Hoffman’s comments.
“If they don’t get the change for the parking, the project is moot,” Tomasetti said, explaining why applicants prefer to have all applications considered concurrently.
“That’s not my problem,” Hoffman said. “That’s their problem.” He would later add, “I’ve seen us approve [zoning amendments] that don’t just affect this lot but other potential developments, where I think we have inadequate, isolated debate on those changes and what it does on a particular area. We start talking just about this development, not the broader impact — I’d like to see us do that.”
Five Consulting Firms Vie for Project to Update Town Zoning Code
Earlier that night, P&Z also heard from the fifth and final firm vying for the project to update the town’s zoning code. The project has evolved significantly since it was first proposed last year. Initially envisioned as a project to update Wilton’s signage regulations, the first round of bids came in at a ballpark of $68,000, a total that seemed to be a non-starter for the town.
On Wrinn’s advice, the Request for Proposals was redesigned as a project to update the town’s overall zoning code — not necessarily changing the town’s zoning regulations but updating the language, classifications and presentation of the information.
That RFP went out this spring, with five firms being brought to the Commission to consider. The bids range from $90,000 to $174,200, roughly in line with Wrinn’s estimate of $150,000, which he came to after discussion with nearby towns that had engaged in a similar project.
The first four firms (AKRF, Goman+York, Weston & Sampson, and H2M were interviewed in a special meeting on Tuesday, July 9. The fifth, Colliers Engineering, was interviewed at the outset of the July 14 meeting.
The Commission briefly discussed next steps for selecting a firm and some initial impressions of the presentations. AKRF and Colliers were both named by a few commissioners as leading contenders. In their presentation, AKRF representatives had underscored their deep bench of expertise from noise analysts to architectural historians to stormwater management experts. The Colliers presenters had highlighted their particular talent for using graphic design to make complex zoning concepts easier for the public and professionals to understand and work with.
Some commissioners, notably Rotini, expressed hesitation about deliberating publicly on the proposals. While Tomasetti noted that the Commission had opted to conduct these interviews publicly, he and the others agreed to deliberate in executive session, assuming Town Counsel did not object. That deliberation is expected to take place at the July 28 meeting — likely in executive session — followed by a public vote by the Commission to select a firm.
The Commission has placed a target completion date for the project of October 2026.
Looking Ahead
In addition to the vote on 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. and the deliberation and decision on a firm for the zoning code update, the Commission is expected to hear a few pre-applications at the July 28 meeting as well. Bill Earls’ proposal to convert the former Baptist Church at 254 Danbury Rd. into condos will return for a third pre-application discussion with P&Z, following its visit to the Architectural Review Board earlier this month. The project is largely unchanged from the pre-application proposal discussed in 2022 but GOOD Morning Wilton will publish an update and summary on the discussions thus far ahead of the July 28 meeting.
The Commission will then begin its usual August recess, reconvening on Sept. 8, unless a special meeting is called.
I don’t fully understand Mr. Tomasetti’s comment that “[t]here was no evidence in any of those letters that there is non-compliance that justifies this being denied… We can only look at our statutes and regulations to see what’s appropriate here and do they comply.” He has said essentially the same thing at some of the public hearings.
My confusion stems from the fact that the applicant is literally asking for a text CHANGE regarding parking because the proposed number of spots IS non-compliant with the current text. Am I missing something here?
The letters and comments from the public repeatedly flagged this as a concern, (perhaps because they sometimes can’t find a parking spot in town) and the parking study provided does not take into account the additional complexes being build in Town Center.
I understand & share the desire to create a walkable Town Center, and appreciate the hours P&Z has put into this endeavor. But Wilton does not have a designated public parking lot like New Canaan, Ridgefield, or Westport. Until Wilton can set aside such a space, approving the text amendment will create a parking shortage that will inhibit people from coming into Town Center.
Very short sighted if the parking waiver is approved. 29 spots leaves no parking for retail customers. I voiced this opinion to the P&Z. With 20 apartments, let’s count 20 cars, some are 2 & 3 bedroom units, let’s add 6 more spaces. The retailers will want to park there; at least 3-4 more spaces. This brings us to at least 30 requirements for only 29 spaces. Where do customers park? The library? Village Market? Stop and Shop?
Wilton has a dearth of municipal parking. We can’t keep adding more cars and expect there not to be issues. When do applicants receive no for an answer?