Shelton commission denies proposed age‑restricted overlay, cites sewer, notice and density concerns

The Shelton Planning and Zoning Commission on April 16 denied, without prejudice, a proposed zoning text amendment that would add an age‑restricted residential development overlay to parts of the city.

The commission voted 6‑0 to deny application 2430 after a public hearing that drew more than a dozen speakers who said the change would allow dense, multiunit development in longstanding R‑1 single‑family neighborhoods. The denial was made without prejudice and the commission directed that questions about public sanitary sewer and city water availability be resolved with the city WPCA before the applicant returns.

The amendment, proposed by attorney Steven Bellis on behalf of the applicant, would have added “Section 37, age‑restricted residential development” to Shelton’s zoning regulations and created an overlay allowing multifamily units in specified areas southwest of Old Stratford Road and southeast of Route 8. Bellis told the commission the draft text limits density compared with a Conn. Gen. Stat. 8‑30g application, would cap units at 10 per parcel in qualifying locations and was intended to provide another option for active‑adult housing. He also said the draft includes a 10 percent affordability component (one affordable unit per 10 units) required by the city’s affordability guidance.

The public hearing that followed included lengthy testimony from neighbors and other residents. Fred Farmer of 391 Shelton Avenue read a petition he said contained more than 40 signatures and argued the text would “lead to the destruction of the existing R‑1 residential zones,” calling the proposed 10‑unit limit, 40‑foot height, and reduced setbacks incompatible with the neighborhood. Jay Gulick of 365 Shelton Avenue told the commission the proposed overlay “does not meet” the requirements of an 8‑30g affordable‑housing application and urged denial; several speakers complained that notice materials, maps and a usable video link were not effectively distributed to abutters.

Speakers raised technical and infrastructure concerns. Thomas Harbinson and others pointed to revised setback language in the March 25 draft that reduced minimum building setbacks from 30 to 10 feet from a public road; Harbinson also noted some parcels identified in online materials appeared to be north of Armstrong Road and questioned the mapping. Commenters warned of ledge, wetlands and blasting safety around some lots, and said local roads, emergency services and utilities could be strained if development proceeded without confirmed sewer and water capacity.

Commission discussion focused on infrastructure and jurisdictional referrals. Commissioner Cristiano moved to deny the amendment without prejudice and to send the question of sewer and water availability to the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) for a formal determination; Commissioner Kelly seconded. Commissioners said they lacked information showing the areas proposed for the overlay can be connected to public sanitary sewer and municipal water and noted that any extensions would likely be system expansions rather than single‑lot hookups. Several commissioners said the commission could reconsider the amendment once WPCA and any regional referrals had been completed.

The motion to close the public hearing passed earlier in the meeting by roll call; the subsequent motion to deny without prejudice passed by roll call, 6‑0.

The application record posted on the city website includes the original and revised proposed text changes, conceptual plans, a map prepared by the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, lists of potentially affected properties, attorneys’ opinions, and correspondence from six residents. The application file shows the amendment was accepted for review on Nov. 13, 2024, and that the applicant submitted a revised draft on March 25, 2025.

The commission’s denial does not permanently bar the applicant from returning. The commission said the applicant may seek determinations from WPCA and any required intergovernmental referrals and then resubmit the text amendment or pursue other options allowed under state law.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to close public hearing on application 2430: passed by roll call, 6‑0. - Motion to deny application 2430 without prejudice (to allow WPCA determination on sewer/water): passed by roll call, 6‑0.

Ending

The applicant and attorney Steven Bellis left the meeting after the vote. The commission said it will await WPCA findings and any required intergovernmental referrals before taking further action on this application.