Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing continued for 41–45 Bridgeport Ave site plan after technical, tree and drainage concerns
Summary
Shelton P&Z continued the public hearing for a proposed two‑story commercial building at 41–45 Bridgeport Ave after engineers and neighbors identified unresolved drainage, retaining‑wall, driveway and tree‑screening issues.
The Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission continued the public hearing on application 25‑11 (41 and 45 Bridgeport Avenue) after staff and neighbors raised outstanding technical and neighborhood concerns.
Applicant Paul Bombaro described plans for a two‑story building with four retail units at street level and office space above, parking front and rear, retaining walls and stormwater controls. Miss Castro said WPCA engineers reviewed the plans and were likely to recommend approval but requested minor changes the applicant had not yet addressed.
Engineering staff and the fire marshal flagged several items that must be revised before plan endorsement, including location and separation of stormwater structures relative to the proposed retaining wall; a site‑specific retaining wall design and certification by a licensed engineer; utility diameters and material callouts; driveway and fire‑lane widths; and additional catch basins along the southern parking driveway.
Neighbors submitted a letter expressing concern about removal of mature trees that currently provide screening and about lighting spilling into backyards. Don North, a nearby business owner, told the commission he did not object to the project overall but cautioned that grading and potential blasting to lower elevations could damage nearby slab‑on‑grade buildings and underground utilities. The applicant said he would pursue low‑impact excavation techniques and that pre‑blast inspections and protections would be used if ledge is encountered.
Given the outstanding technical revisions and unknown tree locations, Commissioner Amato moved to continue the public hearing; Commissioner Cristiano seconded. Staff required an extension letter agreeing to extend the commission’s 65‑day review period; the amended motion specified that if staff did not receive the extension letter from the applicant by 5:00 p.m. the next day, the commission would deny the application without prejudice. The amended motion passed on a roll‑call vote, 6–0.
Next steps: Applicant to submit revised plans addressing engineering and fire marshal comments, locate existing trees to confirm ownership before any removals, and submit the extension letter by the stated deadline to keep the hearing open.
