Commission continues Crown 0.2 mixed‑use PDD hearing after debate over proposed residential on upper pad

The Shelton Planning and Zoning Commission continued the public hearing on Crown 0.2 LLC’s planned development district (PDD) for a mixed‑use project that would include a hotel, restaurants, grocery and retail at the Bridgeport Avenue / Long Hill Crossroads site.

Attorney Dominic Thomas, representing Crown 0.2 LLC, presented revised site plans and said negotiations with the adjacent Hawks Ridge Association had produced extensive changes to reduce visual and circulation impacts. Thomas said the applicant had agreed to a no‑build area, added buffer plantings, reconfigured central buildings and proposed eight townhouses at the rear edge of the PDD to create a transitional buffer. Pat Rose and engineer Manny Silva were present to describe the technical revisions.

Several commissioners objected to adding residential on the upper pad. Commissioner Cristiano said he would prefer the upper section remain undeveloped or be LIP (light industrial) — consistent with the site’s original intent — rather than contain new housing overlooking the shopping center. Attorney Thomas replied that the project requires revenue from the upper pad to finance substantial off‑site road improvements and re‑iterated that, if the commission was not sympathetic to residential on the top portion, the applicant would move the PDD line to the top of the retaining wall and leave the area above as LIP; he offered to submit a formal revised plan showing that option.

Brian McCann, counsel for the Hawks Ridge Association, said his clients appreciated the enhanced buffer and visual transition and asked the commission to consider the technical evidence offered in support of the revised plan.

The commission asked the applicant to file a revised initial development concept showing the PDD boundary moved back to the top of the retaining wall if that option is to be pursued; commissioners also requested the applicant show the landscape buffer that would remain without the upper portion in the PDD. Attorney Thomas said he would file revised plans and the applicant agreed to seek any required wetlands approvals. The commission voted to continue the public hearing and to accept an extension to allow submission of revised plans; the motion to continue (moved by Commissioner Kelly and seconded by Commissioner Parkins) passed 6–0.

Why this matters: The PDD proposal affects a major commercial corridor and includes off‑site road and traffic improvements the applicant says are substantial and necessary to support the development. Commissioners repeatedly raised land‑use policy questions about whether residential units are appropriate at the upper portion of a commercial PDD and whether the commission should require the applicant to preserve that area as open space or leave it as LIP.

Next steps: The applicant will submit revised site plans and a revised statement of uses and standards showing either (1) the original mixed‑use PDD with residential at the upper portion or (2) a reduced PDD with the upper area remaining LIP; the commission expects the item on the Feb. 19 agenda pending the applicant’s extension and revisions.