Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shelton P&Z tables Crown Point final plans over missing easements, sewer review
Summary
The Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission tabled final site plans for the Crown Point project after commissioners said the applicant had not secured city easements shown on plans and WPCA had not yet confirmed system capacity; the motion passed 5–1.
The Shelton City Planning & Zoning Commission on Aug. 13 tabled final site development plans for a large mixed‑use proposal by Crown Point Associates of Shelton 2 LLC after commissioners said the application was incomplete.
Commissioners raised two central concerns: the plans show three crossings over property now owned by the city for which the applicant has not obtained easements or formal permission, and the Sewer Authority (WPCA) had not issued a determination about whether the system can accept the additional flows. Commissioner Oppel asked the commission to deny the application without prejudice, saying staff and board records showed no formal WPCA confirmation and that no easement request had been received by the city.
Dominic Thomas, attorney for the applicant, said his team had submitted evidence in the concept plans and had asked the city for a permission letter. “I’ve been doing this for 40 years, and WPCA approval has never been a prerequisite to any PDD that I’ve worked on,” Thomas said, adding his belief that the initial concept plans already evidenced the right to connect and that he had circulated a draft permission letter to the city.
City engineering and the commission’s professional engineer disagreed on what the record now required. The commission’s engineer warned that a drawing showing a proposed sewer connection does not convey a legal right to connect and that the WPCA must evaluate system impact. “That doesn’t mean you have the right to that connection because the WPCA hasn’t evaluated the impact of your proposal on its system,” the engineer said.
After lengthy discussion about timing — staff noted a 65‑day review clock from the date of submission — Commissioner Parkins moved to table the application so the applicant can negotiate the required easements with the city; Commissioner Christiano seconded. The motion to table passed on a roll‑call vote, 5–1.
What happens next: staff advised the applicant to negotiate easement permission and to secure any necessary WPCA determinations; the commission may place the item back on a future agenda within its statutory review window. If required items remain unresolved the commission retains the option to deny the application without prejudice, which would allow re‑filing.
Authorities and procedures cited in the discussion included the city’s zoning resolution requirements for final development plans, local review conditions referencing WPCA confirmation, and state traffic‑review processes noted by the applicant’s counsel. The tabled action leaves the final disposition dependent on the applicant obtaining city permission for crossings and satisfactory WPCA evaluation.
