Planning and Zoning Commission/Inland Wetlands Board

1. Other than Bennett’s Pond, what do you consider the most important environmental issue facing Ridgefield today, and how do you propose to address it?

Autuori: The most important environmental issue facing Ridgefield today is preservation of as much open space as possible, with emphasis, but not exclusive attention, directed toward acquisition of large, high-quality, unfragmented parcels, such as, but not limited to, Bennett’s Pond.

Mucchetti: There are many important issues facing Ridgefield today – traffic, schools, taxes, land use - as well as the environment. I believe it is important to consider issues that affect the Town as a whole, not individually. No one area can, or should, stand alone, but be viewed in their total impact on Ridgefield.

Willis: There are two top issues: the adequacy of Town Sewage Treatment Plants and traffic. Testing through State-approved labs has documented a history of high coliform and ammonia counts downstream from the South Street plant. Correction of those problems needs to be given high priority. The plants need to be analyzed objectively to see what physical changes should be made in order not to pollute the Norwalk River and to provide for the Town's sanitary needs. Then the Town will need to allocate the funds necessary to effect those changes. Norwalk River organizations have been urging improvements, but solutions to the problems are slow in arriving. P&Z/IW can be supportive both of the need for the improvements and solutions recommended.

Traffic might be the harder issue to solve. I do not believe that problems can be solved by extending the present by-pass road near Quail Ridge. Ideally a commuter bypass from I-84 and Route 7 well north of the Route 35 interchange westward over to Route 35 near the CT/NY State line, or some variation, would be created, thereby shunting commuter traffic going to the coast and to the Stamford/Greenwich area away from the center of town and the need to either use or cross Main Street. That bypass will be hard to retrofit and would involve more than just the Town of Ridgefield and state and federal agencies. Within the town, certainly traffic patterns, alignment of some intersections, turning lanes, turning arrows, signalization of lights, and better signage must be explored to alleviate traffic incrementally wherever logical and practical. Moreover every decision to release additional traffic to Main Street must consider that cumulative increases will further bog down the economically important downtown and may threaten Main Street with a widening that would destroy the Town center and prime historical and cultural features that attract residents and visitors. The Town should also address ways to provide additional parking at the Branchville railroad station. Individual members or a subcommittee could bring these matters before the board for consideration and support.

2. As a member or future member of the a) P&Z and b) IWB, what do you believe is your primary responsibility to Ridgefield?

Autuori: I see my primary responsibility as helping to maintain and defend Ridgefield’s character and quality of life. To me this means keeping Ridgefield as rural, undeveloped and environmentally rich as possible, consistent with full respect for private property rights.

Mucchetti: To treat each applicant, and application, that comes before the Commission & Board with courtesy and respect; to review each application on it’s own merit; to arrive at a decision that is informed, impartial and conforms to Town and State regulations.

Willis: To maintain a healthy community by protecting its resources - from a safe and plentiful drinking-water supply to open space to necessary infrastructure and facilities to an economically thriving downtown and stable property values - and to balance the rights of the individual against the health of the community as a whole.

3. The remaining undeveloped land in Ridgefield is largely the most difficult to develop and presents more environmental risks than in the past. What consequence of development do you consider to be the greatest threat to wetlands and watercourses? How should our regulations or implementation of our existing regulations change to reduce this consequence?

Autuori: Your initial premise may not be entirely correct. For example, a flat field with impervious soils may be less "developable" than a sloping, craggy plot with receptive soils. That not withstanding, the best protection for our wetlands and watercourses is to acquire watershed, either by fee simple purchase or by more creative means. New York City DEP is busy acquiring Catskill watershed, and the results are extremely positive. Development itself, rather than any particular consequence of development, is the greatest threat. Curtailing development consistent with the premise that what is in the public interest must be paid for by the public is the way to go.

Mucchetti: Protecting the natural land formations, wetlands/watercourses, and environment are a constant and ongoing part of every decision made by the Commission/Board. It has taken steps to protect watercourses and wetlands by increasing the set back review area to 100 feet. It has designated 4 rivers that run through town as "significant" and given them added protection. It has also addressed the need to protect the ledges and ridges so prominent in Ridgfield, excluding them as areas suitable for development. It has been my experience sitting in 5 years of meetings, that many issues of concern are brought to the attention of the Planner/Wetland Agent by the Town building inspectors, by the P&ZC/IWB members, as well as members of the Conservation Commission.

Willis: Piecemeal fragmentation of wetlands and buffer zones can have a devastating cumulative effect. P&Z can be firmer about not automatically allowing runoff from development to be directed to nearby open space, wetlands, or watercourses and should investigate the possibility of zero increase in runoff. We must be able to look at the big picture and learn from past mistakes and technological improvements. Greater attention to present regulations and the details of proposed construction and development; requiring more environmental assessments; asking for specific septic details in terms of fill, slopes, and limits of disturbance will help. If all applicants realize that we will be stringent from the start about requiring complete information on which to base judgment; that the aim is to protect our natural, historic, recreational, and cultural resources rather than to block legal development that conforms to the regulations, we will save time and confusion in the long haul and have the best and most responsible development possible.

4. The 1999 Ridgefield Plan of Conservation & Development sets a goal of 30% open space. How can the P&Z help the town to attain this goal?

Autuori: First, let me state what I feel P&Z should not do, namely, attempt to use excessively strict and onerous regulations to squeeze a little more open space from landowners seeking to develop their property. The kind of gain resulting from such tactics would not provide significant open space. Simply, it would result in larger squares on the checkerboard of development. I’d like to see significant areas of potential future checkerboard eliminated through outright acquisition of land, purchase of conservation easements or development rights and other incentives which recognize what, to me, is a central principle…If it’s in the public interest (which open space most assuredly is), the public should buy it. Landowners have a right to profit from their land, but public persuasion, either gently applied or more forcibly, via eminent domain as a last resort in exceptional circumstances, could provide the profit and preserve the land. P&Z can serve an advisory or motivational role toward this end as it has in the past, but acquisitions of land or rights to land are more properly the province of the Board of Selectmen with support from the Board of Finance, fueled, ultimately, by the resolve of the people of Ridgefield. Implementation of aggressive and creative open space acquisition practices, including Town of Ridgefield purchases of rights of first refusal for choice parcels will enable us to meet and perhaps even exceed, our 30% open space goal.

Mucchetti: The creation of the PRD was an effort by the P&ZC to encourage responsible development of residential neighborhoods that would result in a significant portion being kept as open space. It is used often, and, with guidance from the P&ZC, well, as an alternative to more traditional subdivisions where no land is set aside as open space. The Commission/Board has also been active in supporting the Town’s efforts to purchase large parcels of land as open space when the opportunities arise, the McKeon Farm being the most recent example.

Willis: P&Z can be supportive of areas delineated as desirable open space by the Conservation Commission and incorporated into the Town's Plan of Conservation and Development. It can support good Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) to maximize open space and be firm about linking open spaces and providing space that is "walkable" and not merely swamps or cliffs (although those lands obviously shouldn't be built on). It should require and ascertain space whose boundaries are adequately posted and delineated by pipes, boulders, or other more permanent features that will show the borders clearly after approval and before development, thereby making it easier for the Conservation Commission and its Open Space Rangers to protect and manage those lands on behalf of the community.

5. The same body of people is responsible for planning, zoning, inland wetlands, and aquifers. Typically across the state, two to four separate commissions address these regulatory responsibilities. Should these burdens be divided among one or more new boards? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Autuori: No, I do not believe that fragmenting our present P&Z/IWB/APA would be in Ridgefield’s best interest. My reasons are personal. I know my colleagues and the new recruits who will fill vacancies. People determine the philosophy and direction of the commissions and boards on which they sit. Our new and applauded Plan of Conservation and Development was forged by existing P&Z/IWB/APA. When we consider the enormous pressures Ridgefield has faced and is facing, and the fact that we are still Connecticut’s number one town for many reasons, I don’t think the system is broken. In fact it is working very well and existing P&Z/IWB/APA is central to that system. It might interest some that approximately twelve years ago (give or take) I proposed an environmental commission to the Board of Selectmen because I thought P&Z had too much power. Today I know that the power had been used wisely and prudently, in the main, for Ridgefield’s betterment. It ain’t broke…because it ain’t broke apart.

Mucchetti: The separation of the IWB from P&ZC is a Town Charter issue. It was brought before the most recent Charter Revision Commission, of which I was a member. By a vote of 5-1-1, the CRC voted to keep the Board/Commission as a combined board. One of the compelling reasons for many CRC members was the testimony given by Mr. David Hannon, Chair of the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials, at the May 23, 2000 IWB/P&ZC Public Hearing, in which he stated that the current configuration of the Ridgefield IWB/P&ZC was held in high regard within New England and that many communities are striving to emulate it. The CRC members in the majority believed that separation would create a staffing problem; would create a more difficult process for applications; and that there was no evidence that that separation of the Board/Commission would improve the process or give additional protection to the wetlands. I voted with the majority.

Willis: The wetlands issue is such a major concern and requires so much administration that ideally it should be addressed by a separate commission that could also manage aquifers. If, for financial or manpower reasons, wetlands needed to be combined with another commission, I feel it philosophically rests better with the Conservation Commission, although it is almost universally accepted that any combined commission then gives one aspect of its duties short shrift because of the double workload involved. Knowing the financial climate of Ridgefield, the Town's heavy dependence upon volunteers, the history of allocation of minimal funds for personnel, and the relative paucity of knowledgeable individuals willing to step up and volunteer, I am at present loathe to create a new board. Perhaps it is a bit of the "Devil you know vs. the Devil you don't." I respect the present members of P&Z/IW, their good intentions, immense knowledge, and extensive experience, and want to reserve judgment on this matter until I - as a new member to the Commission/Board - understand whether procedural changes or other more substantial ones need to be made to be more effective and until I see a larger commitment to the resources necessary to effect those changes.

6. What changes, if any, in our subdivision and zoning regulations would you like to see enacted in the next four years?

Autuori: Beneficial regulatory changes could include:

1. increasing setbacks proportional to house size (would complement new FAR regulation)
2. restricting clear cutting on building lots to no more than necessary to site house and septic system (would save trees and enhance privacy)
3. allowing accessways to serve up to seven house lots (to eliminate the excesses of road construction and to privatize maintenance and repair)
4. allowing accessory apartment units in accessory buildings in zones where lot size and sanitary capacity exist subject to strict sensory disturbance controls including screening, setbacks, parking, lighting and noise restrictions (would increase our affordable housing stock if rents met "affordable" requirements)
5. restricting residential sensory disturbances to adjoining property where such restrictions have not been fully addressed by existing regulations or ordinances (such as light glare and trespass, which are not presently regulated in residential uses).

I tend to favor less regulation of activities and uses inside private property, but stricter regulations governing what crosses a property line, such as noise, light, water and air pollution, to name a few.

Mucchetti: At this time I am not aware of any.

Willis: I would like to consider changes that would offer more choices in road standards so roads are not overdesigned for the use projected. I would also like to see the elimination of mandatory curbs and the encouragement of more innovative techniques for stormwater management - such as curbless roads, grassy swales, sunken cul-de-sac islands, etc. Direction of runoff into catch basins or to streams frequently only puts sediment and pollution into adjacent wetlands and places a sometimes unnecessary responsibility on the shoulders of the Highway Department. Better to permit some alternative solutions that do not require regular maintenance if they are practical and environmentally sound.

7. With the departure of the Assistant Planner last March, staffing in the Planning Department is a problem. Other than filling the vacant position, how would you propose to improve the functioning of the planning, zoning and wetlands department?

Autuori: Generally, I believe less government is better than more government, as long as essential services and protections are provided to citizens. The staffing problem in P&Z Department is exactly that – lack of sufficient staff. When we had our very capable former Assistant Planner (Betty Brosius), things ran well. We need another Betty and a little more efficiency. If our new "Betty’ has environmental expertise, so much the better.

Mucchetti: It is my understanding that the position of Assistant Planner is being actively recruited and will be filled when a suitable candidate is found. I am consistently impressed with how well the "office" functions at the public hearings and working meetings, how much work is done, and feel it would be improper to speculate on improving the function of the department until I have first hand knowledge of the facts.

Willis: I continue to support as desirable the hiring of an environmental analyst who would be a resource to those departments and to others, such as the Conservation Commission and Town residents. This person would use his/her scientific background to provide analysis and guidance in areas where the small size of the development proposed precludes the hiring of an independent analyst, where we need professional review of proposals and the ability to provide scientific expertise that will be persuasive in a public hearing or in a court of law, where the homeowner may need advice on a project that might not require a permit but might have great potential impact, or where environmental education is needed on issues important to the community. I would also propose that information (including maps) be sent to the commissioners a minimum of one week before either the public hearing or a discussion meeting. It is too difficult for a commissioner to digest all the details of frequently complex reports, maps, and letters it they have to be read just before or during a public hearing or discussion session.

8. Over a year ago, Dr. Michael Klemens proposed a joint effort among Ridgefield, Redding, Danbury and Bethel to evaluate and protect biodiversity in the region by identifying areas appropriate for development, and areas not appropriate for development. Do you think such an effort should be undertaken, and if so, how would you propose to make it happen?

Autuori: I would support such an effort provided that either Dr. Klemens or others working with him obtained an advance commitment from the municipalities of the region under study, or the State of Connecticut DEP, to purchase, at fair market value computed before a finding that development was not "appropriate" any parcel of land or, at the landowners discretion, development rights to said parcel of land, that was found to be "inappropriate" for development. Protecting biodiversity is an issue of fundamental importance and should proceed under the caveat stated above. I am not prepared to offer suggestions as to how to proceed, but would be happy to revisit the issue once the commitments to purchase are obtained.

Mucchetti: I don’t know enough about the initiative to comment at this time.

Willis: I absolutely support such an effort. Work is presently being done by Dr. Klemens in New York State and logically should be extended into Connecticut. The kind of analysis proposed deserves regional support and should cross both state and town lines in an effort to view the territory in biological and geological terms, rather than in geopolitical terms. That means cooperating with New York State and Danbury and Bethel. I believe Dr. Klemens is looking for a commitment to positive action in addressing the recommendations that will ensue, so a closer look needs to be taken to see what that commitment will entail at the onset to determine if assurance can be given in good faith without compromising the Town's ability for review. Certainly the information gleaned would help determine the position of any kind of development with regard to building placement, road design and location, vernal pools, wetland setbacks, and harmony of uses coupled with protection of natural resources. I think the present workload, rather than any lack of interest, is why this matter has not been brought forward for discussion.