Shelton P&Z approves settlement with Ismaili at Albany, capping project at 30 units and requiring methane testing and eight affordable units

Shelton’s Planning and Zoning Commission on May 21 voted 6–0 to authorize a settlement in the matter involving the proposed Ismaili at Albany development (docket number HHDLNDCV246183336‑S), imposing conditions intended to limit the scale of development and to add safeguards before any clearing or blasting begins.

The motion, read on the record, specified key settlement terms: a maximum of three floors and no more than 30 units; eight units designated at 80% of area median income (AMI) with a 40‑year affordability requirement recorded on the Shelton land records; a parking ratio of two spaces per dwelling unit; a reduction in the roof height of the apartment structure by at least five feet; and a prohibition on any clearance, construction or blasting unless satisfactory methane testing demonstrates no migration of methane gas to any area of the site. The motion further required the applicant to pay for a qualified professional to advise the commission on necessary test borings and to assess whether readings indicate safe conditions for construction and blasting. Finally, the motion directed that a public hearing be scheduled at which the applicant will submit amended development plans and a revised statement of uses and standards reflecting the settlement terms.

Commissioners discussed the pragmatic reasons for settlement. Chair Virginia Harger summarized the legal context of Connecticut’s affordable‑housing statute and the risks to the city if the matter proceeded to superior court: “If we were to deny this particular motion this evening and another appeal went to the superior court, it could come back as a building being four stories and 40 units and not have as many affordable housing units as we have this evening,” she said, describing the statute’s placement of certain burdens on the municipality in these appeals. Commissioners said they had sought to reduce scale and add mitigations where possible rather than risk a judicial outcome with fewer protections for the community.

The commission first moved the settlement for discussion and then voted to adopt it by roll call, 6–0. Commissioner Kelly made the motion to approve; Commissioner Christiano seconded. The motion carried. The settlement requires the applicant to submit amended plans and a recorded affordability restriction for the eight units; the public hearing mandated in the motion will be scheduled by staff.

No litigation settlement payment amounts or other financial terms to the city were disclosed in the public motion. The action ends the commission’s closed‑door discussion with counsel by returning the matter to a public hearing and a planning‑level review that will implement the settlement conditions if the commission later grants final approvals.