Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Interior Lots topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies proposal to shrink interior-lot requirements after public opposition and uncertainty about citywide impacts
Summary
Application 25-13, which would have reduced size and setback standards for interior (rear/flag) lots, was denied 6-0 after commissioners and public commenters raised concerns about citywide impacts, infrastructure and the lack of a city planner's analysis.
The Shelton Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 27 denied a proposed text amendment (application 25-13) that would have changed rules for interior (rear) lots, including reducing required lot size and altering setback requirements.
Attorney Donna Thomas told the commission her client sought to allow interior lots to be measured by the underlying district lot size (excluding the access way) rather than the existing requirement that an interior lot be larger—often described in the regulations as 1.5 times the base lot. Thomas cited a 1998 Superior Court opinion in a case referenced to the commission (Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Shelton) and argued the larger size requirement provided no planning benefit. The attorney also supplied a citywide parcel analysis intended to show how many properties might be affected.
Public commenters and multiple commissioners pushed back. Several speakers, including Fred Palmer and Thomas Harbinson, urged the commission not to rewrite citywide regulations to favor one applicant and said the city lacks a planner to assess broad impacts. Commissioners said they lacked sufficient information on how many parcels would be affected, how changes would affect stormwater, sewer capacity and neighborhood character, and whether reducing fronting and setback requirements would yield unintended density increases.
On a roll-call vote the commission denied the text amendment 6-0. Commissioners and staff agreed that a comprehensive study, including GIS parcel analysis and infrastructure review, would be required before pursuing a citywide rewrite of the interior-lot rules.
