Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Site Plan Expansion topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Shelton denies Double J's proposal to add two floors at 322 Coram Avenue; denial without prejudice lets owner revise plan

2230609 · January 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After neighbor objections about lost ventilation, noise, smoke and parking, the commission voted 6–0 to deny Double J Associates’ site-plan application without prejudice, allowing the owner to return with redesigned plans.

The Shelton Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to deny without prejudice a site-plan application by Double J Associates LLC to add two floors to the building at 322 Coram Avenue.

Applicant Joe Joyce said the proposal would add two floors to the existing bar to create occasional-event space similar to other downtown venues, not a full-time entertainment hall. Joyce told the commission he offered concessions to adjacent property owners — including installing a skylight to replace a second-floor bathroom window, repairing stucco and exterior defects on the adjoining Walker-owned building, and installing a metal roof and lights over a shared exterior staircase at the Perry-owned property — all at his expense. Joyce said he had sent those offers by priority mail and email on Dec. 23 (delivery receipts show Dec. 27 and Dec. 30) and had not received a substantive response.

Neighbors who spoke at the public hearing objected to the expansion. Marisha Walker, a Walker family representative, said the second-floor window “is for natural light. It's for cross breeze. It's for ventilation,” and said she and her family do not want the window removed or replaced with a fixed skylight that would remove ventilation. Her husband said the family has lived at the property since 2010 and described concerns about future rentability, nighttime noise from an outdoor second-floor patio, cigarette smoke entering units, and the safety and insurance implications of shared exterior stairs. Marcy Anderson, another neighbor, raised parking concerns and said families with young children live in the six-family building.

Staff and commissioners reviewed related technical constraints. Commissioner Christiano read a fire marshal letter noting that second-floor occupancy depends on egress: a second-floor with only internal egress limits occupancy to 46 people, while an additional remote exit (external egress) would allow up to 88 standing occupants. Joyce acknowledged that external egress from the second floor would be necessary to increase occupancy and that he would work with the fire marshal, architect and building official if the plan moved forward.

Commission discussion focused on the difficulty of reconciling the applicant’s expansion with the existing, long-standing small apartments directly adjacent to the site. Several commissioners said they supported downtown business growth but not at the expense of existing residential units that predate other developments. Commissioner comments urged that any revised plan avoid an open second-floor patio and consider moving the upper floor away from the left property line to preserve ventilation and windows for neighbors.

Commissioner Christiano moved to deny the application; he amended his motion on the floor to deny without prejudice to allow the applicant to return with revised plans. Commissioner Kelly seconded the amended motion. The commission voted 6–0 in favor of denial without prejudice. The commission noted that a fee waiver for resubmittal would be considered only upon request to the commission.