Monday night’s (June 23) Planning and Zoning Commission meeting took an explosive turn during the public hearing for 118 Old Ridgefield Rd., a 20-unit mixed-use building that has become a lightning rod for debates about multifamily development in town.
During public comment, the pointed remarks expressed by a frequent critic of P&Z riled one commission member to the point of threatening to quit — and saying of the resident that he would “put her in her place of ignorance tomorrow.”
What ensued were 10 chaotic minutes of yelling, interruptions and a heated exchange between the resident and commissioners.
The incident moved some commission members to share candid comments about the singular nature of their administrative roles, their frustrations with how the public perceives P&Z, and the direction Wilton is headed in years to come.
A Calm Round of Public Comment to Start
Public comment began cordially on the beleaguered application, which has been through three rounds of significant redesign at the request of P&Z and its advisory group the Village District Design Advisory Committee.
The applicant team had presented two final design directions for the Commission’s consideration, one with a red brick front façade and one with a full brick surround painted white.
Candace Cole, an often outspoken resident at public hearings and in written letters to the commission, said she had not received any response to several letters she had sent to commissioners about parking and flooding on the site and expressed skepticism that the retail space and apartments would find renters.
Christine Wachter called for change in the way P&Z manages the public review process. “The latest rendering is disappointing,” she said. “I don’t think the developer or the architects are to blame for that. It seems to be the result of a process that just isn’t working.”
Wachter called on P&Z to allow public input earlier and streamline the relationship between VDDAC — tasked with architecture and design review — and P&Z — whose mandate is larger issues of zoning and site use. GOOD Morning Wilton has reported in the past on tension within P&Z about the rights of the public to comment on applications and the commission’s convoluted relationship with its design advisory group.
Kelly Morron expressed frustration that the applicant had not responded to her concerns about parking that she’d expressed in letters and comments at prior hearings. She asked that the applicant team review the parking study they were required to submit but did not present at Monday’s meeting.
Will Moreno reiterated earlier concerns about the environmental impact of parking vehicles in a flood zone along the Norwalk River. Later in the evening, Barbara Dubiel asked whether the Environmental Protection Agency should be engaged about potential flooding and contaminants reaching river.
Barbara Geddis, another frequent comment contributor to P&Z meetings and a member of the master plan subcommittee, expressed support for the latest design. “I think you’ve done the best you can on a small little lot beside a one-story building,” she said. “That’s my attempt to be very positive and encouraging.”
The Mood Takes a Turn and Anger Spills Over
After Geddis’ comment, in accordance with commission rules, members of the public who had already spoken were allowed to make second comments. This second set of remarks by resident Candace Cole is what ignited the argument.
“It does seem like the public’s comments have no bearing or weight, so I’m really hoping that you guys take our comments and really think about this,” Cole began. “I would like to take this time to discuss the article that was released today in GOOD Morning Wilton and how this affects this project. It has come to the attention of the town that you [referring to Chair Rick Tomasetti] were pushing only 10% affordable housing because you felt anything more was not profitable enough for developers. So instead of putting this town and community, and what was best for Wilton, you pushed a 10% —”
At that point, both Vice Chair Melissa Jean Rotini and Commissioner Chris Pagliaro threw up their hands and called on Tomasetti to stop Cole’s comment. Tomasetti said he hadn’t read the article and urged Cole to ask a question specifically about the application for 118 Old Ridgefield Rd.
Tomasetti would later ask Cole four times what her question was. To clarify, according to the commission’s process, comments in public hearings need to pertain to the application at hand. However, the comments do not need to be framed as questions.
“I’m saying that this project should have more affordable housing,” she said, her voice and intensity rising as well. “This project is too big. So let me just finish and then you can say whatever you want afterwards as you always do. You don’t ever answer my questions, so please let me have my moment to express my concern. This is the only time I get to have the floor.”
Cole continued, “To make matters worse, you guys are taking no responsibility for the building across the street from the Post Office,” she said, referring to a different property altogether — 12 Godfrey Pl. — a multi-family development that had been an application in front of the commission at the same time as the Wilton Center Master Plan process and was eventually approved after the developer changed it to an application under the 8-30g affordable housing legislation.
Hearing that, Pagliaro interrupted a second time and began shouting.
“I am not listening to this,” he said. “This is a tirade from someone who writes letter after letter, who doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Let her run for office. It’s a waste of my time to listen to this ignorance.”
Tomasetti, Rotini and Commissioner Mark Ahasic each in turn tried to diffuse the emerging argument, stating that the commission needed to listen to public comment.
“We have to listen to her rant and rave about changing the laws?” Pagliaro asked.
“I can’t have a few minutes to express what I’ve read and then have a comment and then connect it to a project that is going on?” Cole asked. “This is exactly what I’m talking about.”
Rotini reminded Cole that due to potential legal complications, her comments should focus on 118 Old Ridgefield Rd. and not on other applications, such as the 12 Godfrey Pl. project Cole had referenced. “If you can please stay focused on the application before us, we would be happy to hear your comment,” she said. “Please continue your comment on this application. Thank you.”
Cole continued, including remarks about P&Z “trying to take no responsibility” and creating a Master Plan “only benefitting developers,” not the town; that the commission “doesn’t understand their decisions matter and developing this master plan was the town’s downfall.” She continued speaking about the lack of affordable housing in Wilton, and that P&Z knew its 10% affordable housing requirement for new developments would not help Wilton reach the state’s mandate for such housing.
After about two minutes, during which Cole had not yet mentioned 118 Old Ridgefield Rd., both Pagliaro and Tomasetti broke in.
“What does this have to do with this application?” Pagliaro asked.
“Is there a question here? Or is this just a filibuster of you politicking for affordable housing? What is your question, ma’am? Do you have a question for the applicant?” Tomasetti said (while also trying to placate and quiet Pagliaro).
Cole responded, raising her voice again: “How can you destroy Wilton? How can you approve this building?”
The temperature kept rising along with the volume as Cole and the commissioners continued exchanging heated remarks.
Tomasetti acknowledged the elements of the project that Cole had previously criticized (including the building’s parking plan, location in a flood plain and lack of an EV charger) in addition to her repeated complaints about affordable housing and the master plan process.
The chair reiterated that P&Z had a process: “We don’t typically go back and forth with the public. We allow the applicant to answer questions. We’re here to listen to you and listen to the applicant so we can formulate our opinion during deliberations,” before asking again: “So do you have any other questions, ma’am?”
“Because you don’t like what you’re hearing. That is not my issue, that is a you issue!” Cole responded.
Pagliaro erupted again. “Rick, either cut her off right now and this ignorance, or I am resigning live right now. And I’m gonna put her in her place of ignorance tomorrow.”
Tomasetti tried to lower the conflict level, telling Pagliaro that the commission would move on, before turning back to Cole: “Is there anything else, Ms. Cole? I didn’t hear your last comment, I’m more than willing to listen to your last comment.”
Cole was still upset: “Really? You’re interrupting me? This is a disgrace. I don’t get to have a voice? I get to listen to you for weeks on end and I don’t get five seconds to talk about how I feel and connect all of the projects together—”
The back and forth continued on, and Cole complained about the interruptions.
“I keep getting interrupted and I can’t interrupt you. You should all be muted and I shouldn’t be interrupted because now—”
Tomasetti refuted her complaint. “Excuse me ma’am, I have tried to control a commissioner. I told a commissioner that it was impolite to interrupt you. I told a commissioner that he must not talk while somebody is talking. We had the vice chair step in and we’ve given you the floor. Apologies if someone interrupted you. You have the floor and you’ve had the floor for many minutes.”
He again asked for the point she wanted to make.
“The point is,” Cole responded, “that this building is way too big for its property. How dare you allow anyone to park in a very known flood zone, is beyond me. It is unconstitutional—”
The statement upset Pagliaro. “It’s unconstitutional, Rick? It’s in the fricking building codes and the FEMA codes. I’m not going to waste my night listening to such stupidity if she doesn’t get to a point. She makes statements — that it’s ‘unconstitutional’?”
Tomasetti again tried to quiet Pagliaro: “Chris, Chris, please.”
Cole finished her remarks with a suggestion that the developer reconsider making the property a rental building and instead build fewer units that could be sold — something she said would also help reduce the parking.
At the conclusion of Cole’s remarks and those by two others, the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners Deliberate — and Respond — but Do Not Vote
The commissioners then began deliberation on the project. There was general preference for the brick surround of the rendering, but they were split between a preference for which color brick to approve. The applicant expressed a willingness to do either design.
Overall, the commissioners were supportive for the project and indicated an intention to approve it — save for Commissioner Eric Fanwick. “I am concerned with the overall size of that building. Everyone is saying 20 [units] is not a huge development … but I think 20 on that property might be overkill … Generally I’m not in favor of granting the text amendment change.”
There was an extended discussion about parking reductions and the future of parking in Wilton Center, including the oft-mentioned hope that paid municipal parking would one day be an option downtown. The subject of electric vehicle charging received support from some commissioners, with Rotini cautioning that the fire chief needed to be involved in any discussion about the feasibility of an EV charger on site.
Discussion also wound back around to the public comments heard earlier in the night.
Commissioner Jill Warren thanked people who commented politely, even if they didn’t speak positively about the application, and said she had perceived a rise in “disrespectful comments” in public hearings lately. “It’s embarrassing to hear that and to have to live around people like that.”
She suggested that members of the public could familiarize themselves with the state statutes for planning and zoning commissions and the requirements for how they have to conduct meetings.
Warren also addressed some of Cole’s specific comments about affordability, density and parking.
“Comments about the density are really crazy. It’s 20 units we’re talking about. … this is not where the battle is at a 20-unit development, the battle for high density is just totally inappropriate here…. Again, we can’t force developers to sell units rather than rent them. That would just be unconstitutional. And with affordable housing … the reality is that the way the 8-30g [legislation] is constructed, anything we do — unless it’s 100% or dramatically high percentage of affordable housing — is going to hurt us. [This] meets what we have [required]. And I think that’s a positive — 10% is better than nothing,” Warren said.
Other commissioners offered corrections to addressed specific claims that Cole and others had made.
“The issue between rentals and buyable units… I would love to see more condominiums and people have more of a vested equity stake in Wilton… But I don’t think we have any authority over that issue whatsoever,” Commissioner Ken Hoffman said. “It’s up to a developer what they want to do with the money that they are investing.”
Pagliaro made similar points, referring to his job as an architect.
“I make my living in the flood zone. It’s perfectly legal with building codes and FEMA and every beach community, every city, developed on the water. You can’t not develop along the water. … That’s just the way it works. It’s not [un]constitutional. Unconstitutional would be telling someone you can’t build to the zoning that you purchase the property with. Unconstitutional would be to tell them you can’t have rental units,” he said.
Ahasic suggested stepping back and realizing that a 20-unit building was “not a massive development,” and replacing an “antiquated, somewhat dilapidated building,” would bring more tax revenue to the town.
“This is really what development is all about, it’s about improving the community,” Ahasic said.
Several commissioners said this development fit what emerged from the Plan of Conservation and Development [POCD] process, including how its design, size and purpose “fit the New England vernacular” and was part of the effort to create more of a village, by bringing more residential life to Wilton Center — and with it, more town revenue.
Commissioner Anthony Cenatiempo was one who said so.
“The Plan of Conservation and Development was a product of many years of public hearings, subcommittee work, work with consultants, and it was open to the public. … When I look at the overlay code, I think it is done for a good purpose. … We’re looking at an increase in tax revenue, we’re looking at a 20-unit development, we’re looking at bringing people downtown. And I think that is a good thing … we made a decision not to continue to do the same thing that we were doing for years, which resulted in no development, and no increase in tax revenue,” Cenatiempo said.
Pagliaro too made the argument. “That was the whole point of the exercise, with the Master Plan, was to put people in the village, because we’re the only village in the world that didn’t really want people living in it at one point,” he said.
Rotini’s remarks also focused on the POCD, emphasizing the public had had ample opportunity to be part of the process.
“What we have done was based on the POCD. People said it was a long process. It had public meetings… where we handed out index cards and people wrote things on index cards, where they stood up and tacked things on bulletin boards, where they talked. We were there until the wee hours of the morning at times. We had a lot of input and process. That plan said [to] do a master plan. We then went into that, which was extensive process. So all of these things were fully public, fully able for people to submit comments,” Rotini said.
She spoke pointedly about Cole’s accusations that her emails, comments and letters to the commission had gone unanswered and that the public was being shut out.
“When you submit a comment, as Rick has said many times, we read them. Public comment can begin immediately. Public comment in writing is still public comment that is read, heard, understood and addressed. …. Let me be very clear, it is not appropriate under the law for commissioners to be responding to individuals on open applications. So if you’re not getting a response because you asked a question, it’s because we can’t do that,” she said, adding her frustration “to be blamed for not doing something that we cannot do.”
Ahasic suggested holding a once-a-year public listening session, “… not tied to any one application, but just giving our fellow residents an opportunity to talk about planning and zoning, offer their thoughts, their opinions, and I think that would, frankly, benefit our cause and really help with a lot of the criticism that we’ve been getting,” he said.
Pagliaro stated that he would not apologize for his earlier comments or outbursts. “I have a problem with the accusations,” he said, noting that he and others who were involved in the master planning process work in related professions and gave a lot of time to the effort.
“I don’t think I would speak against the medical board if a medical board was offering an opinion on something. But it’s every week another letter, and it’s all just misstating facts, about parking and how dangerous is, and ‘Call the EPA.’ That’s nonsense. It’s a waste of my time, it’s a waste of all our time to hear repeatedly,” he said.
He pushed back on Cole’s assertion that she has not had the opportunity to be heard, within the boundaries of the P&Z “process.”
“The person had the floor multiple times, wrote letters all the time, and the process was explained…. But I don’t understand why this becomes a free forum to gripe on things…. Mr. Chairman, I think you did a nice job controlling it. You gave that member of the public plenty of time to speak … over and over and over again. … I understand the emotions of it, and she has every right to be that emotional. But a lot of it was just redundant and ignorant and was [previously] addressed.”
Tomasetti also spoke to the public comments he’d heard that evening.
“There’s this perception that some members of the Planning and Zoning Commission don’t care … It does pain me a little bit when people portray the volunteer members of this commission as not caring … “
He said that prior P&Z commissions of “years ago” had a reputation as “the commission of ‘no'” because they didn’t want development in Wilton. “I disagreed with that aspect, it was always ‘no,’ and it didn’t allow growth.”
Noting he’d lived his entire life in Wilton, he said he understood people who don’t want to see Wilton change.
“When you buy a home and there’s this big, beautiful tree in the front yard, at some point, you have to cut it down. It happens, and it’s hard. You just always have the memory of this tree. This brown building [currently at 118 Old Ridgefield Rd., that would be torn down for the proposed new building] — it’s hard, I get it. I remember when none of this was here. … I don’t want any of this. I want the Wilton from when I was 8 years old … I wanted it to be this small farming community with a few commuters and a bunch of old farmers. That was fantastic, [but] that’s just not the reality of where we live today. There’s a reality that people own property and have rights to it,” he said.
He also addressed comments made about the commission and its members.
“I want to remind the public that we are all volunteers. We are working diligently. We all care about the town. I do hear what Commissioner Pagliaro and others are saying about educating yourselves. … I do understand that people that write these letters are impassioned and that they don’t want this. I can sympathize with you for not wanting it.”
Tomasetti said he appreciates the public input, but how and where it’s expressed, he suggested, matters.
“That’s the part that bothers me,” he continued. “Growing up here there was always respect for people, that’s what makes a small town. Not some blog that has some gotcha articles and gotcha questions, not a ‘411’ with people making outlandish accusations about our members. I don’t jump in the skunk hole with people like that. There’s no point, they don’t warrant my response. But I do understand people who are concerned and I do appreciate it, but I need an argument as to why they don’t meet the test of our regulations… We have done the work, in the POCD and the Master Plan. Not everyone agrees, but that’s the society we live in.”
“It’s important for us as a community to move forward and not just sit back and not have anything happen and continue to deteriorate as a community,” Tomasetti continued.
Looking Ahead
The Commission opted to close the public hearing, but will continue the deliberation — and presumably vote on the project — at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, July 14.
As a prior P&Z commissioner I can appreciate the strong feelings felt by both sides. We dealt with the same issues during my tenure. While there may be issues with parts of the 118 Old Ridgefield Road development, the major issue appears to be the POCD that was developed in 2023. Unlike the previous POCD that tried to maintain the semi-rural environment in Wilton, the new one is designed to drive growth by allowing larger building footprints and more units. It is evident by the builders like it, as there are a good number of new applications before the Board. But, even though it was approved by consensus (of those that chose to vote), many of us long-time residents are not happy with the outcome. That said, there is little residents can do to change the plan or stop developments that conform to the zoning regulations. For those that are truly impassioned I suggest you run for office. The town boards can always use people that are committed to the town.
I meant unconscionable vs unconstitutional they got me in such a fury I was tongue tied. This board should be ashamed and I am upset with myself for getting so mad.
The 188 Old Ridgefield Road applicant failed to address any of my questions regarding parking and the new traffic study.
1. Unauthorized Library parking: During an earlier hearing, I pointed out that our award-winning Wilton Library is bracketed by the residential building at issue in this application – where the applicants are requesting fewer parking places to be included – and the residential building going up at 12 Godfrey Place – which did the same. I requested that the applicant explain how the Library can prevent the vehicles associated with 118 ORR from occupying its parking spaces which are not intended for spill-over parking. The Chair told the applicant’s attorney she could respond at a later time. Before the June 23 hearing, I transmitted a letter so there could be no misinterpretation: What can the Library do to reserve its parking for patrons using the Library and what can the Wilton Police do; What will the developer do to ensure that its lessees/purchasers know that they should not use the Village Market or Library spaces for their personal use for residential parking (such as inserting a restriction into its leases/deeds); Will the Village Market or Library be under an obligation to complain before actions can be taken to cite or remove improper parking.
I also asked the Commission, if it approved the application, that it require the developer to insert restrictive language in leases or deeds (per above), and also to request the Town to inform the owners of the Village Market and Library annually of the license plate numbers of the vehicles registered to residents of 118 ORR.
During the June 23 hearing, the applicant purported to respond to the parking issue, but none of the questions were addressed. Perhaps worse, the Commission made no request that it do so.
2. New traffic study: Before the June 23 hearing, the applicant supplied a new traffic study. During the hearing, I requested that they explain the study, since I did not understand it. They ignored my request and at no time during the hearing did they explain the traffic study – so it has never been explained.
For both these issues, I take to heart Commissioner Pagliaro’s fury over members of the public, presumably including me, who apparently “don’t know what [I’m] talking about.”
But these questions reflect more than a single Wilton resident’s concerns. Until these questions are answered, this application should not be granted. Failure to respond to the Commission’s request that they do so should independently torpedo the application. However, if the Commission grants the application, as they have now clearly indicated that they will, they are telling all applicants that they may ignore the questions of Wilton residents and may fail to respond to Commission requests that they do so. I also believe that if the Commission grants the application, it will be found to have acted beyond their purview and failed to pass due process requirements. And worse, if the Commission grants this application as is, it is telling Wilton just how cheap it considers our concerns.
Kelly Morron, M.S., J.D.