Still Concerned about Pollution During Floods, Inland Wetlands Sends 131 Danbury Rd. Approval — with a Caveat — to P&Z

The Inland Wetlands Commission met on Thursday evening, Mar. 28, and voted to approve a wetlands permit for 131 Danbury Rd. This 208-unit multifamily residential development has been under review by the town since December and is currently caught up in a broader debate over Wilton’s dwindling sewer capacity and development. However, that approval comes with a big caveat from the commissioners, all of which will summed up in a report headed to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review.

Background

The Inland Wetlands Commission regulates the impact of development on the town’s wetlands and watercourses. For 131 Danbury Rd., the concerns had centered around the fact that a portion of the property is situated within a wetland-regulated area and a flood zone. A peer review firm, Cardinal Engineering, initially laid out a series of potential issues on the site. On Mar. 13, the firm submitted its final peer review report to the Commission, stating in part that “proposed plans do not adequately describe how the Norwalk River will be protected during construction during flooding events, including small storm events.”

After a flurry of activity by the project engineers at SLR, Cardinal returned to the Commission on Mar. 14 with a very different take.

“They’ve addressed the flooding issues. I don’t think anyone ever said you can’t park cars in a flood zone,” Roy Seelye, Cardinal’s Senior Project Manager, said in his final presentation to the Commission. “I am satisfied with the application and the applicant’s efforts to respond to our comments.”

Flooding Issues “Addressed” but Not Everyone Agrees

In his opening comments on Mar. 28, Inland Wetlands Commission Chair Nick Lee reiterated an earlier comment about how productive the process had been. “I was really happy to see how our third-party reviewer and the applicant worked together on this to try to move things to an acceptable spot. It’s really the way it’s supposed to work,” Lee said.

He opened the floor to comments from fellow commissioners, one of whom did not seem as reassured by the results of the peer review process.

“I don’t really know that we had a lot of resolution on the pollution issue,” Commissioner Rem Bigosinski said. “They [Cardinal] said in response that FEMA allows them [131 Danbury Rd.] to have a parking lot in a flood plain, but that isn’t really an answer.”

He also flagged concerns about whether the emergency management plan, which would involve getting residents to move their cars off the site ahead of a flood event, was realistic. Lee responded that those concerns fell under the purview of P&Z, not Inland Wetlands itself.

Mike Conklin, the Town’s Director of Environmental Affairs, also noted that since there is currently a parking lot on the site, with more parking spaces within the flood zone than the proposed plan would have, the new 131 Danbury Rd. might result in less overall pollution.

Bigosinski pushed further, stating that he was not convinced by the applicant’s assertions about the velocity of water during flooding events and the calculations in their materials.  

Lee clarified the restrictions that the Commission must work under: “For good or bad, unless our expert [third party review firm Cardinal] countermands their expert, it’s something we need to accept as a fact.”

The Commission then discussed including language in the report to P&Z that despite the vote to approve, they still have remaining concerns about pollution on the site during flooding events. Bigosinski asked, “Does P&Z actually look at our deliberation or do they just ignore it? Will they notice?”

During the Mar. 25 meeting of P&Z, Chair Rick Tomasetti at one point asked Town Planner Michael Wrinn for clarification on the relationship between the reports by Inland Wetlands and the ultimate decisions made by P&Z. Wrinn’s comments were made during a discussion of a nearby multifamily development, 64 Danbury Rd., which is also under review by Inland Wetlands.

“The report they have coming back to you just has to be considered,” Wrinn explained. “That’s a key phrase — it does not mean that if [Inland Wetlands] denies [the application], you can’t do anything with it. You don’t relinquish any powers to them. You make your design totally independent of that. You just have to take the report into consideration after they submit it.”

In the end, the Inland Wetlands Commission voted 4-0 to approve 131 Danbury Rd. Conklin agreed to include a note to P&Z about the outstanding flooding and pollution concerns in the report. Commissioner Kathy Dhanda, who was newly appointed in January, abstained.

Looking Ahead

The application now sits with P&Z, which is still awaiting a decision by the Water Pollution Control Authority on whether new development will be allowed given the town’s sewer capacity issues. During the Mar. 25 meeting of P&Z, the Commission weighed yet another new issue for project: whether to allow 131 Danbury Rd. to build closer to the lot line than zoning allows, in order to meet emergency access requirements set by the Fire Marshal.

The next meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission is scheduled for Monday, April 8 and will likely include 131 Danbury Rd. as an agenda item. The next meeting of the Inland Wetlands Commission is scheduled for Thursday, Apr. 11 and is expected to include a public hearing on 64 Danbury Rd., which was postponed this week.

Correction: This story has been updated to reflect that the proposed development at 131 Danbury Rd. plans for 208 units. An earlier version stated there will be 173 units.