Understanding Planning & Zoning: Setting the Record Straight

To the Editor,

As chair of Wilton's Planning & Zoning Commission, I have followed recent candidate interviews and letters with concern. I must address significant factual and legal errors in statements from P&Z candidates Jessica Rainey, Michelle Saglimbene, Margaret Ritz, Trevor Huffard, and incumbent Ken Hoffman. While I applaud anyone willing to serve our community, voters deserve accurate information about what the commission can and cannot legally do.

I am not on the ballot this year—I'm in the middle of my term—but as chair, I feel obligated to correct misunderstandings that could undermine years of strategic planning and expose Wilton to legal liability.

Understanding the Commission's Dual Role

The most persistent confusion involves the commission's two fundamentally different functions:

Legislative "Planning" Role: When we develop long-range plans like the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) or area master plans, we conduct extensive public engagement including town-wide surveys, public workshops, and community visioning sessions. This is when we set the community's vision. We completed this process for both our 2019 POCD and the Wilton Center Master Plan.

Quasi-Judicial "Zoning" Role: When we review specific development applications at our bi-weekly meetings, we are conducting administrative hearings. We apply publicly vetted regulations to individual cases. In this capacity, the application, all materials, testimony, reports, and comments (written or spoken) create and constitute an appealable record. Connecticut law requires strict procedural rules to ensure fairness. In the same way a judge cannot discuss a case privately with one party, commissioners are prohibited from having conversations (written or oral) about matters concerning an application outside the hearing process.

When candidates promise "open mic" sessions during P&Z meetings, they're proposing to violate due process requirements. The applicant has the right to have any comments about their application made on the record so that they may respond and so that they are included in any judicial review of the decision on the application. Our Town Attorney has correctly advised against such discussions outside formal public hearings. This isn't the chair's preference. It is established case law (Blaker v. PZC, 1988) protecting both applicants' rights and Wilton from legal challenges.

Confusing these two roles leads to proposals that sound good, but are actually illegal.

Recent Achievements Under Current Leadership

The claim that this commission "hasn't done planning" ignores substantial recent accomplishments:

• Transparency innovations: Video-recorded meetings and online posting of all materials, implemented years before state mandate

• Architectural Review Board: Created to provide professional design guidance ensuring quality development

• Affordable housing reform: Eliminated sunset clauses so affordable units remain permanently affordable

• 2019 Plan of Conservation and Development: Completed through an extensive multi-year public process

• Adaptive reuse zoning: Reformed regulations to allow corporate buildings to be repurposed, addressing a key community goal

• Wilton Center Master Plan: Developed modern form-based zoning that regulates building design and street relationships, not just uses

Understanding the Strategic Vision

The POCD's planning strategy is a crucial context that candidates seem to misunderstand. Wilton's 2-acre residential zoning is a treasured community asset that honors our town's agrarian history. However, there's simply no room for significant new development in these established neighborhoods, nor should there be.

The publicly supported POCD recognized this reality and provided clear direction: protect what residents love about Wilton while being proactive about where inevitable growth should occur. Rather than allowing development pressure to encroach on residential neighborhoods, the POCD correctly guided us to focus on redeveloping underutilized and often vacant commercial properties along the Danbury Road corridor and greater Wilton Center area. This is strategic planning— directing growth to appropriate locations while preserving residential character.

This explains why the Master Plan's core strategy was adding residential use to our center, which was previously prohibited, specifically to create a built-in customer base for the retail, restaurants, and bookstores that candidates say they want. Residential development in the commercial corridor isn't undermining our town; it's protecting our residential neighborhoods while revitalizing and bringing vibrancy to underutilized commercial areas. This represents sound planning, economic development, and faithful execution of the public's vision as expressed in the POCD.

The next planning priorities—Cannondale Master Plan, Georgetown/Route 7 Corridor Plan, and the 2029 POCD update—are already identified in our current plan. These represent strategic continuation, not new ideas needing discovery.

Some candidates have incorrectly suggested the 2029 POCD update will be a major focus of the coming term. This misunderstands the timeline. A comprehensive POCD update typically requires 18-24 months of intensive work and includes community surveys, workshops, data analysis, draft review, and public hearings. Given our current 2019 POCD doesn't expire until 2029, this update is not imminent over the next two years. The immediate priorities for the coming term are completing the Cannondale Master Plan and Georgetown/Route 7 Corridor Plan, both of which will inform the eventual POCD update.

Legal Constraints That Cannot Be Ignored

Several candidate proposals conflict with Connecticut law:

On ownership type: Some candidates suggest requiring condominiums instead of rental apartments. Connecticut law (F.A.S.T. v. Waterford, 1987) explicitly prohibits this. Zoning regulates land use, not ownership structure. The commission cannot treat rental apartments differently from condominiums—they are legally identical "residential uses."

On affordable housing percentages: Our incentive-based zoning regulations require 10% of units be affordable. The claim that "10% will never get us there" may be accurate, but oversimplifies a complex mathematical reality that voters need to understand. Establishing a 10% affordable housing requirement addresses the issue of affordable housing, even if it does not prevent developers from using the state’s 8-30g statute.

At its core, the state's 8-30g law, which allows developers to bypass all local regulations (except those linked to health and safety) if a town hasn't met state affordable housing targets. Those targets include 10% of the total number of housing units in a town (single family, apartments, etc.) be affordable. If a developer makes 30% of units in a development affordable, 8-30g allows that developer to bypass height, coverage, design, parking, and any other P&Z regulations. This allows more units in a smaller space. Additionally, the state incentivizes 8-30g developments by offering various grant programs to developers to offset the cost of building the developments.

Some candidates suggest we should simply increase the set-aside to 15% or even 20% to meet the target and avoid 8-30g buildings. That oversimplification fails to address the economic reality of the cost of building affordable units. The costs to build 15-20% affordable units would prevent most development in town, unless the project fell under 8-30g, removing virtually all oversight by P&Z.

For a temporary state moratorium, the requirements are even more stringent. Connecticut requires accumulating Housing Unit Equivalents (HUE) equal to 2% of our housing stock over a four-year lookback period—about 132 points for Wilton. To qualify for a moratorium, roughly 60% of all units approved in the last four years would need to be deed-restricted affordable housing. Even with aggressive 20% set-asides, this standard is mathematically out of reach under normal development conditions.

The commission can and has approved applications with higher affordable percentages when appropriate and has acted to incentivize increased percentages.

The reality is that housing affordability is shaped by factors far beyond local zoning: commodity prices, labor costs, land costs and availability, financing terms, and broader economic conditions. Promising that different set-aside percentages will "solve" our affordable housing challenge without acknowledging these mathematical realities is misleading voters. Some characterize 8-30g as a "loophole," but it's actually the governing law. Understanding these constraints is essential to effective policy.

On "negotiating" with developers: One candidate repeatedly calls for the commission to "negotiate" during application hearings, suggesting a quid-pro-quo for approvals. This would constitute illegal contract zoning. The commission's authority is strictly defined by state statute (C.G.S. § 8-2) and our Town Charter. We must apply our adopted regulations consistently and fairly.

Negotiation properly occurs during the legislative planning process when we create regulations. During quasi-judicial hearings, we determine whether specific applications comply with existing rules. Attempting to "negotiate" to avoid denials would be arbitrary, exceeds our authority, and provides grounds for immediate court reversal.

On administrative versus policy roles: Some complaints about permit delays for simple projects like garages demonstrate confusion about municipal structure. The Planning & Zoning Commission votes on regulations and major applications. The Planning & Zoning Department, comprised of town staff, handles administrative permits. Blaming the volunteer commission for potential staff-level processing issues reflects fundamental misunderstanding of basic town functions.

Concerns About Specific Proposals

Beyond general misunderstandings, some specific candidate statements warrant response:

One candidate claims we "spend too much time arguing about paint colors" and that "planning and zoning shouldn't worry about" facade design. This dismisses a required duty. The Wilton Center Master Plan specifically mandates that we review building facades, materials, and architectural details to ensure they meet standards created during the public planning process. This is the "good planning" that creates attractive, human-scale development rather than generic strip malls.

On hybrid meetings: While accessibility matters—and we've dramatically improved it through video recording and online materials—our quasi-judicial hearings require participants to view complex architectural and engineering drawings in real-time. Current town technology cannot reliably support this for all participants simultaneously, while maintaining the legal record these

hearings require.

Regarding fiscal impact: One candidate suggests the town hasn't studied whether development is "accretive or dilutive." This ignores extensive analysis embedded in both the Wilton Center Master Plan process and individual application reviews. Public records consistently show multi-family development contributes significantly more in tax revenue than it costs in services, while generating minimal school enrollment, which is dwindling according to the most recent BOE/BOF analysis. The data exists, but it doesn't support the conclusion some candidates seek.

A Concern About Incumbent Proposals

Most troubling are proposals from a current commission member who voted for regulations he now criticizes. Having been briefed multiple times by both commission leadership and Town Counsel on legal requirements, his public dismissal of attorney guidance on due process is particularly concerning.

His characterization of legal advice as an "excuse" and his repeated calls to "negotiate" during hearings suggest a troubling willingness to disregard legal counsel that protects both applicants' rights and the town's interests. This represents the opposite of good governance.

What's at Stake

These aren't mere technicalities. Legally flawed decisions get overturned in court, costing taxpayer money and eliminating local input. Violating due process exposes Wilton to lawsuits and can invalidate years of work.

Planning and Zoning is arguably Wilton's most technical board. It requires working knowledge of land use law, state statutes, constitutional due process, and municipal finance. Commission members must make difficult decisions that balance competing interests within legal constraints.

Wilton has been built by those who respected both community input and legal process. We face increasing pressure from state-level mandates on local zoning. The commission has been proactive, planning for inevitable development on our terms rather than accepting state-imposed solutions.

This requires commissioners who understand the legal framework within which we operate—not those who dismiss attorney guidance as inconvenient or promise solutions that sound appealing but are legally impossible.

Questions for Voters to Ask

I encourage voters to ask candidates:

• How will you navigate quasi-judicial due process requirements?

• What is your understanding of key Connecticut land use statutes?

• How would you balance community preferences with legal constraints?

• How would you protect Wilton's local control while respecting applicants' constitutional rights?

Wilton's future depends on commissioners who understand that protecting our town's character requires more than good intentions—it demands working knowledge of the law, respect for due process, and the discipline to make difficult decisions within legal constraints. The stakes are too

high for on-the-job learning. Our community deserves leaders who will safeguard local control through sound legal practices while faithfully executing the strategic vision our residents approved.

Rick Tomasetti

Chairman, Wilton Planning and Zoning Commission

Wilton, Connecticut

Detailed legal citations and planning documents available upon request.