Future Special Town Meeting Planned for Residents to Vote on Ambler Lease and Demolition Ordinance 

A date hasn’t been set, but the Board of Selectmen said on Tuesday, June 17, that it intends to hold a Special Town Meeting so Wiltonians can vote on two unresolved items.

Confirming that it intends to have the town vote on a lease with Friends of Ambler Farm that is currently being worked on, the BOS also voted unanimously to let residents decide if the town should approve an ordinance amendment that would extend the wait time on the demolition of structures deemed historic.

Demolition Delay Debate

The amendment to Chapter 10B of the Wilton Code of Ordinances was proposed by the Historic District and Historic Properties Commission (HDHP). Entitled “Demolition of Buildings, the change would have the following impacts, according to the office of the first selectman:

• Extending the possible waiting period before the demolition of any historic structures from 90 to 180 days
• Clarifying the express purpose of the ordinance to provide time for interested parties to consider and offer alternatives to demolition
• Modifying notice and other procedural timeframes to conform to best practices
• Enacting and clarifying signage requirements for demolition of historic structures
• Clarifying non-substantive language and updating to contemporary terminology

“I would rather it didn’t fall on me,” Selectwoman Kim Healy said before the BOS was due to vote, following a public hearing that was held over from last month on a public notification technicality.

Healy said she had heard from realtors who are opposed to the change. “I don’t know why they don’t show up,” she said in regard to their making public comment, but she expressed concerns on their behalf that the ordinance could be applied to the very large number of houses in Wilton that are 50 years or older. 

The fear is that this, in turn, would lead to potential delays in demolition or house sales at the discretion of the HDHP, which would have more time to deliberate on whether these houses demonstrated historic significance. 

Opponents of the revision, including Planning and Zoning Commission Chair Rick Tomasetti, who spoke out against it last month from the standpoint of his profession as an architect, argue it can present a kind of hardship for homeowners who want to sell or rebuild quickly, granting the HDHP the power to delay.

HDHP Chair Lori Fusco told the BOS, however, that only three or four houses have even been subject to the current ordinance over the past 10 years. She said more historic houses could have been saved, however, had there been more time for her commission to investigate.

“This is not a ban on demolition,” Fusco said. “This is not a rule that will apply to every structure. This is not intent to freeze Wilton in time.”

“The demolition delay applies only in rare cases and only to properties deemed as historically, architecturally or culturally significant,” she said.

Fusco cited the John C. Wally House on Danbury Rd. as a recent example of a structure that needed more than 90 days to review, with the end result ultimately being that part of the original structure was preserved.

“Without that time it would have been lost entirely,” she said, noting that other area towns, including Monroe, Redding, Stamford and Westport, allow 180 days.

Fusco said the change is rooted in Wilton’s Plan of Conservation and Development.

“This isn’t just our idea. It’s a reflection of what residents said matters to them,” she said, “and it’s our duty to respond.”

She noted that, contrary to some fears, the HDHP cannot act arbitrarily when it comes to pinpointing structures that qualify as historically significant, and that its members are vetted professionals that have been appointed to the commission through the first selectman.

While Selectman Ross Tartell spoke in favor of approving the ordinance, Selectman Josh Cole sided with Healy.

“It’s a big change in some people’s minds,” Cole said, “somewhat akin to many years ago when we decided to repeal the dry ordinance in town, and have Wilton not be a dry town.”

“We’re gonna have to do a Town Meeting anyway to approve an Ambler Farm lease, I think we agreed,” he said, “so I don’t see any harm in putting two questions on the ballot for that.”

Selectman Bas Nabulsi, whose term is winding down this month, said there was an “artificial urgency” in approving the change immediately, so he agreed.

“I’m open to the idea that we act cautiously or we act conservatively, perhaps,” he said.

First Selectman Toni Boucher then concurred.

“You’re right that there’s no urgency,” she said, with the vote unanimous in favor of bringing it to a Town Meeting.

Closely Watched Ambler Farm Lease

Boucher, meanwhile, advocated providing the Friends of Ambler Farm and its legal counsel with more input from the BOS on the lease revision.

“We do need to pass it on to the other party, so that they can opine,” she said, noting it was currently posted online but she is still expecting more feedback from the BOS.

Boucher said, however, that FOAF had already let her know that any issue of revenue sharing tied in to the lease would prevent them from signing.

“They basically said they could not sign a lease if that was in there, so we needed to move on with that,” she said.

Town Attorney Doug LoMonte, who wrote a June 11, 2025, revision of the lease which is posted on the town’s website, was not at the BOS meeting to answer questions, though Healy indicated she wanted to include him in discussion. She questioned providing FOAF with an incomplete picture of the lease.

“I don’t understand,” she said. “I thought we had a conversation they’re not owed a draft until we were done with it,” Healy said.

“Wouldn’t it be good to just get it all out there and then be done with it?” she said, asking that they table further discussion until their next meeting.

Cole and others agreed with her assessment.

“Didn’t we say at the last meeting that it wasn’t fair to Ambler Farm to go back to them with a document that didn’t represent all of our final changes?” he said. “I think that was the whole point of giving them some stability as to what they’re reviewing.”

“From my perspective as an attorney, I wouldn’t want to waste my client’s time reviewing a lease that is not considered to be the final representation of the other party’s intent on that lease.”

Boucher, however, said that it was a “living, breathing document that’s gonna change as we move the process along.”

“It’s not an all-or-nothing … It’s a process that goes back and forth,” she said.

Further discussion was tabled until the Monday, July 7 BOS meeting. Boucher asked that each BOS member prepare any additional comments for LoMonte, which could be addressed at that meeting.