Shelton planners approve conversion of former Residence Inn into 96 units with 19 affordable units

Shelton — The Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission on Sept. 10 approved a major modification to PDD No. 8 that will allow the conversion of the former Residence Inn at 1001 Bridgeport Ave into a 96‑unit multifamily rental development, the commission chair said. The applicant agreed to 19 deed‑restricted affordable units at 80% of area median income for 40 years.

Chair Virginia Harger opened the public hearing record and read the commission staff’s draft resolution, which summarized submitted materials including amended final site development plans, a parking analysis, and a traffic impact assessment prepared by Soley Engineering. The property, currently on about 4.44 acres, consists of 13 buildings and the proposed conversion would maintain the existing building footprint while changing use from an extended‑stay hotel to conventional multifamily housing.

Why it matters: The resolution frames the project as an adaptive reuse of an existing, declining hotel property and adds permanently deed‑restricted affordable housing within Shelton’s supply. The applicant increased the number of affordable units from 18 to 19 at the commission’s request, bringing the proposal closer to the city’s 20% affordability threshold.

Key details: The project would keep the existing unit mix of 72 studio units and 24 two‑bedroom units (96 units total). The applicant proposed to increase on‑site parking from 106 to 120 spaces; the commission and staff noted site constraints that limit further parking expansion. The resolution requires submission of revised final plans reflecting relocation of one parking space to preserve the existing buffer, dark‑sky‑compliant shielded lighting, enlargement and repair of the trash disposal enclosure, and paving and restriping of the lot. The developer also agreed to explore installation of two to four electric‑vehicle charging stations or to prepare conduit for future expansion.

Discussion: Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff on several operational and mitigation issues. One commissioner questioned what the resolution means by “24/7 availability” of management or maintenance staff, asking whether that availability implied on‑site personnel or a call‑out arrangement; staff and other commissioners said the resolution text was ambiguous and discussion focused on retaining reasonable standards without imposing requirements on this applicant beyond what the commission asks of others. Concerns were also raised about interior renovations — the resolution primarily addressed exterior upgrades — and whether the conversion would produce housing affordable to seniors or lower‑income workforce households at deeper income targets.

Vote and next steps: On a roll‑call vote the commission approved the major modification; one commissioner recorded an abstention and the motion carried. The resolution sets conditions and requires that no permits be issued until final plans are endorsed and staff approves the specified site improvements. The resolution states the amendment will become effective on a date set in the resolution and adoption procedures (as read into the record). Staff also noted the applicant should coordinate with the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) about past benefit/connection charges as a separate administrative step.

The commission’s action allows the applicant to proceed to the permit phase once the required revised plans and conditions are satisfied.