Commission grants contingent approval for 10 Long Hill Ave. project; affordable units reduced to two
Loading...
Summary
Shelton P&Z granted final site development approval for a three‑story, 17‑unit building at 10 Long Hill Ave., contingent on a peer engineering review paid by the applicant; the commission also adjusted the required affordable units from three to two based on the reduced unit count.
The Shelton Planning and Zoning Commission voted to grant final site development approval for a three‑story residential building at 10 Long Hill Avenue, contingent on an independent engineering peer review paid for by the applicant.
Pat Rose of Rose Diesel and Company presented the plans for a 17‑unit building with 34 parking spaces (under and surface) and described building elevations, materials and screening. Civil engineer Manny Silva reviewed grading, stormwater and erosion control. Silva said the design uses an underground gallery system beneath the parking area to reduce off‑site discharge; the stormwater gallery and outlet control reduce runoff at the 5‑, 10‑, 25‑ and 50‑year design storms (reductions ranged from roughly 17% to 33% across events), and the design meets the state MS4 and town stormwater requirements.
Commissioners and staff discussed landscaping and screening for the uphill slope; Silva agreed to substitute evergreen screening species (red cedar or similar) and confirm planting detail. Commissioners also requested documentation of environmental remediation or monitoring history; counsel clarified environmental compliance and any transfer act obligations are handled through DEEP and recorded instruments, not by planning and zoning.
Commissioner Parkins moved to approve the final site development plans and to reduce the affordable housing unit requirement from three units to two (reflecting the lower total unit count). The motion included a condition that an independent, licensed engineering firm review the final plans for technical conformance; the cost of that peer review is to be borne by the applicant and the commission requested the peer review be completed in time for an item on the Feb. 26 agenda (staff and applicant to target a peer‑review response by Feb. 21). The motion passed 6–0.
Why this matters: The approval advances a centrally located residential infill project and adjusts affordable housing obligations consistent with the final unit count. The peer‑review contingency addresses staff capacity limits and ensures technical compliance with drainage and fire safety comments before final sign‑off.
Next steps: Staff to retain a licensed engineering reviewer at the applicant’s expense, review comments and sign off if the review is favorable; staff to post review results and notify the commission if substantive issues are raised.
