[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6804661,"mediaKeyId","5582767-cbf25df08d3978f0cb948525cd9c0b7a","parentId",5582767,"title","Public hearing continued for 41–45 Bridgeport Ave site plan after technical, tree and drainage concerns","audioSeconds",2164,"startMs",5341175,"endMs",7505535,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5582767-cbf25df08d3978f0cb948525cd9c0b7a&start=5341&end=7505","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5582767-cbf25df08d3978f0cb948525cd9c0b7a/thumbnail_5341175.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6804661/Shelton-City/Fairfield/Connecticut/Public-hearing-continued-for-4145-Bridgeport-Ave-site-plan-after-technical-tree-and-drainage-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6804661-2c2516c95305b3c2d660506a7d32c7c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014579&Signature=b775KihNJ9nq4fQ1iXfXkTlHKH8rPN3k80e4tmzm~H0rhzaky0cw5Uxn-TuFu9OAUqqxPOMEqw0GH39UJ1-LL6xKbjtDu199xOLNdv-CV3HSoFMBjPqxQVxMXuMW8nidgUODMBWT6inegzKa-Wgrone2Bjq1p5uVf9npt0T934q~L4u22JpfFa6-3FuVWw4hQiEfO7a0Ou8eGUzW-kclnKYEG4ud8NCdtL17hfG2XS3w~JEeqilCsDw~Qlh~-Q2y8c4XnzmTM3UMQCcu0eM3rwzs1IwQIvGJuW~05Srs3pcda0U~ixzZMGSk4S8NsczUyP21HTm4EYPjMnHnlPRRbw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Shelton, CT","date","2025-08-14T07:44:40Z","article","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.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","SPZC 08/13/2025","oneSentenceSummary","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.","taxTitle","Shelton City, Fairfield, Connecticut","taxId",64126,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6804666,"Commission denies 56‑unit 8‑30g proposal at 390 Shelton Ave without prejudice",809,4340460,5149710,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5582767-cbf25df08d3978f0cb948525cd9c0b7a&start=4340&end=5149","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5582767-cbf25df08d3978f0cb948525cd9c0b7a/thumbnail_4340460.jpg","/articles/6804666/Shelton-City/Fairfield/Connecticut/Commission-denies-56unit-830g-proposal-at-390-Shelton-Ave-without-prejudice","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6804666-8d734edc5f852e141ac575f28948dff7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014579&Signature=BDTS2qpZru1H196AgaAQOf5s6UfC-9Z~7hm9M6GBM50rSor87OsvBtbNO7e4jfTyB2-MkjU2zypmcQLubCsqYKq5HRnDlJYYv44x0NkgwPHXcaojnau0EGan7B3bcgrQTo6SCfsPelLFsNt1LrxHzPuwIttFUQOHzf~gXTHXkS-pjX-i0AZIJKbz1N6yP-CXi1c7kDW4DQrwlHA7jheiJNf~9jmler2ZlWusi6eWiT9Jf1lgZlWFCPXmKmfkZMKhdrrIaGOhJu5Kbl2dsYNKkjOkiCwroSSULkriCfWMithhDe~rFc52wVJAobYyEJGTD61z2-vQdqGgWCCd9WCd3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6–0 on Aug. 13 to deny without prejudice application 24‑34, a Connecticut General Statute 8‑30g proposal that would have allowed construction of 56 attached residential units at 390 Shelton Avenue.

Commissioner Appel argued the previously approved plan for 16 single‑family homes — which is currently being appealed — represented a safer, less dense alternative and cited traffic‑safety and infrastructure concerns raised during prior hearings. \"We are all familiar with this type of request,\" Appel said, referencing past discussion and a traffic study presented previously. He urged denial without prejudice so the commission would not be required to build a larger administrative record that could be vulnerable on appeal.

Attorney Jason McCoy, representing the commission, advised that a denial should include adequate reasons on the record because the applicant could challenge the decision. Commissioners debated the potential for appeal under 8‑30g and noted applicants frequently keep an approved project as a backup while pursuing alternative proposals. After deliberation the commission moved and seconded to deny the 56‑unit application without prejudice; the motion passed 6–0.

Effect: Denying without prejudice allows the applicant to come back for further applications; it also preserves the commission’s record and avoids the larger evidentiary burden of a full, explicit denial if the board prefers not to take that route at this time.","The commission denied without prejudice an 8‑30g application proposing 56 attached units at 390 Shelton Ave, citing traffic, density and infrastructure concerns and the existence of a previously approved 16‑unit plan under appeal; vote 6–0.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6804670,"P&Z approves ADU at 395 Shelton Ave for applicant’s mother-in‑law",950,825345,1776305,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5582767-cbf25df08d3978f0cb948525cd9c0b7a&start=825&end=1776","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5582767-cbf25df08d3978f0cb948525cd9c0b7a/thumbnail_825345.jpg","/articles/6804670/Shelton-City/Fairfield/Connecticut/PZ-approves-ADU-at-395-Shelton-Ave-for-applicants-mother-inlaw","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6804670-ac2c69200d122e48341585d586eafcb8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014579&Signature=BWMnK~s~uU2b2196Mlw4d27A4zxblgAMbOJuq5Si4gnbuvY4x1eNQQMgnpad0N7McmGJ4q1x3L6hLKt4rLV5NoR5PNf7MpSoiYsKxbqmi9UgRMeK5-UYWSqFl1bJXUKsN5Pc0FPjqujcJ0mbl7Wc~HQSKmkNZTMQ58~B29lwSwsM6dzWUjgIPkh4WU66EzNKYRlN1OnUeFQvsi49Bk-XSA1hDQ8FO69ARuzOU~aROhuzfeJfM6ASOKi4hpI7yxxRlMxQyR9z7g6lfbq10BemHrTJCmW2wbNhLFmL7NIFKpeGex64ASnUzCCdb2ucVUls-h5rvLDmqIBCGQ6yNBnhtA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously on Aug. 13 to approve application 2509, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 395 Shelton Avenue proposed by Randy England.

England told the board the ADU is an internal renovation of the first floor for his mother‑in‑law, who has mobility issues, and that no exterior footprint will be increased. Commissioners questioned whether the proposed connection between the ADU and the primary residence met the commission’s typical standard for a “common wall” separation and raised concerns about egress and the potential for a closet/passage to become cluttered.

Staff and the applicant clarified a door was added to create an internal egress into the main house circulation; commissioners noted comparable ADUs previously approved by the commission had variably routed connections through hallways. \"It's for my mother‑in‑law,\" the applicant said, identifying the intended occupant and noting she is 80.

After questions about the layout, emergency exits and the lack of exterior expansion, Commissioner Christiano moved to approve the ADU; Commissioner Appel seconded. The motion passed by roll call, 6–0. Chair Harger instructed the applicant to coordinate follow‑up with staff on filing and next steps.

The approval includes the condition that the applicant complete any required filing with staff and obtain all applicable building and safety approvals prior to occupancy.","The commission approved an accessory dwelling unit at 395 Shelton Ave after staff confirmed an internal egress and commissioners discussed common‑wall standards and emergency egress; vote was 6–0.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6804676,"Shelton P&Z tables Crown Point final plans over missing easements, sewer review",2231,1922460,4153725,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5582767-cbf25df08d3978f0cb948525cd9c0b7a&start=1922&end=4153","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5582767-cbf25df08d3978f0cb948525cd9c0b7a/thumbnail_1922460.jpg","/articles/6804676/Shelton-City/Fairfield/Connecticut/Shelton-PZ-tables-Crown-Point-final-plans-over-missing-easements-sewer-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6804676-2af8d6369df276d89ab5417a748fc189/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014579&Signature=Dh3vCTeJHMj0jAy5pSEFg~V8DTqBjB3XrM7pvddz6dPCc5Mhl~bB3CJ5MsN4affHrC0lV2-eiQ-8piek3BdfoGF6GVt6YXdfV4LIIl4okK35tGbZEv9FS4ZQjsZBhVTQs1fCEobumK4ftt5Tpp56I~abS6P4jkvEhzgtio8o4Ghoi3g8tzipbyH5nuVxMiaonNutvEU2qC~JwOB1uvX8XITOW4YfmRnx4fqvX9~~eWpKe3MAfDgAdyZMumeyoWTFUIsHp2Ce5WY132izGoOKHSqEyoyrUjiky14MkzYUtsNjqV1oc~-XHbSCxI5UjbRAiQM-sU4e64g4h98W9697og__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","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.","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.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6804657,"Shelton P&Z approves several sign applications, tables one for further review",170,270570,441410,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5582767-cbf25df08d3978f0cb948525cd9c0b7a&start=270&end=441","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5582767-cbf25df08d3978f0cb948525cd9c0b7a/thumbnail_270570.jpg","/articles/6804657/Shelton-City/Fairfield/Connecticut/Shelton-PZ-approves-several-sign-applications-tables-one-for-further-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6804657-37078aab590a7a8f429460c66476056a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771014579&Signature=He5wyIMZlWdK8i3PcYnWGZMsA7-DYhQv7L5zcf-IPDZJoqQL68Ut5pKWBqKsc9Z6oPhIthZm4i~RwOeEQRdGJ-mWGcV0u2JcdN26tjAY34A9hxx1H5r7WVCkh3Nf0RVLJhOAMcCHtuuPZ7R~7JqR62ma04Jyu4MICeY~nbLDsxhW2~VWFffYPA4kTRkunrzOVWduKG6GMVi5vPWuXjAriAqflP5A~szKllwAqMsZF00ZQMOWgBeez2GIU15dZswywDFDOGdRxw5zLARal1sSKR1~rTQCdY9EoMT8wxopMAE18mwrUay2xe5hVOQcXDDC-1yjaMxv0d1J4CViIcgOSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At its Aug. 13 meeting the Shelton Planning & Zoning Commission approved multiple sign applications and postponed one pending property‑owner input.

The board approved sign application 2538 for Blackheart Gallery (549 Howe Ave) and 2539 for Brookview Apartments (309 Bridgeport Ave) after subcommittee review found them consistent with neighboring signs; both motions passed 6–0. Application 2541 (MCM Dental, 801 Bridgeport Ave) and application 2542 (Masonic Care, 580 Long Hill Ave) were likewise approved by unanimous roll calls; staff noted coordination with police for an indicated stop sign in one submittal.

Application 2540 (Angela Mayon Beauty, 719 Bridgeport Ave) raised questions about multi‑tenant signage for second‑floor tenants and whether a single removable‑panel directory sign would be preferable; staff reminded the commission that regulations do not typically allow second‑floor tenant signs outside windows. Commissioner Motto moved to table the application to allow the property owner and applicant to resolve the design and consent issues; the motion passed 6–0.

Votes at a glance: 2538 approved 6–0; 2539 approved 6–0; 2540 tabled 6–0; 2541 approved 6–0; 2542 approved 6–0.","The commission approved four sign applications (2538, 2539, 2541, 2542) by unanimous votes and tabled application 2540 to give the applicant and property owner time to resolve second‑floor tenant signage and property‑owner consent issues.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Public hearing continued for 41–45 Bridgeport Ave site plan after technical, tree and drainage concerns

Commission denies 56‑unit 8‑30g proposal at 390 Shelton Ave without prejudice

P&Z approves ADU at 395 Shelton Ave for applicant’s mother-in‑law

Shelton P&Z tables Crown Point final plans over missing easements, sewer review

Shelton P&Z approves several sign applications, tables one for further review