Shelton commission closes public hearing on revised 31-unit Algonquin plan; settlement keeps affordable set-aside and adds conditions

The Shelton Planning and Zoning Commission closed the public hearing Wednesday on Application 22-26, a planned development district (PDD) proposal for a residential building on Mohawk Drive and Long Hill Avenue that the applicant says will include a minimum number of income-restricted units.

The application has been before the commission and the courts for several years. The current submission, introduced as part of a settlement between the applicant and the city, reduces the original massing, cuts one floor from a previously larger scheme, and adjusts unit and parking counts. The applicant's team said the revised project would provide three floors of living space with an underground/garage parking level and a total of roughly 30 apartments (described in testimony as a mix of one- and two-bedroom units). The settlement calls for at least eight units to be rented at or below the maximum monthly rent calculated at 80% of area median income (AMI) per state statute.

Applicant representatives told the commission they had increased the parking ratio (described in testimony as rising from about 1.5 spaces per unit to roughly 2 spaces per unit, plus some dedicated spaces) and reduced building height by about five feet. They described engineering responses to city comments: relocation of an underground storm gallery to permit vac-truck access for cleaning, addition of snouted catch basins and an oil-water separator, and a retaining-wall design to work with existing ledge. The applicant's team said the fire marshal asked for and would be provided a standpipe to serve the rear parking area, and that final sprinkler/dry-head decisions would be governed by building and fire code.

Neighbors raised concerns about traffic at the Long Hill/Route 110 intersection, on-street parking impacts, the placement and visibility of the project's public-notice sign, and safety and environmental risks tied to blasting and a nearby former landfill (including methane). The applicant said methane monitoring and "test holes" would be performed before construction and that remediation/mitigation conditions would be required before permits. Multiple speakers asked the commission to require additional pre-construction monitoring and ongoing testing; the applicant said some measures were already required and/or agreed to as conditions.

Commission discussion touched on how prior appeals under Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-30g had shaped the settlement and the limits on the town's arguments in court. Attorney Francis Tiedoso (corporation counsel) summarized legal context for 8-30g appeals and said the burden would fall to the municipality to show reasons to deny such an application on safety or other demonstrable, factual grounds.

Outcome and next steps: the public hearing was closed by motion and roll-call vote (5-0). The applicant and counsel said a final resolution and associated conditions would be prepared for the commission's next available meeting (attorney indicated staff would prepare a resolution for the July 9 meeting). The commission explicitly recorded that methane testing and test holes must be completed prior to construction permits.

Why it matters: the filing is part of an ongoing series of applications and appeals in Shelton involving 8-30g affordable-housing statute issues and a neighborhood that has repeatedly flagged traffic, safety, and environmental concerns. The settlement reduces the project's scale from earlier proposals and commits the applicant to several engineering and fire‑safety measures, but neighbors remain concerned about traffic, parking spillover, and blasting risks.

Evidence: the application notice and staff memo were read into the record, the applicant presented architectural, civil-engineering and drainage plans, and public comments were recorded on the hearing record before the commission closed the hearing.