The owner of several properties on Shelton’s Canal Street complained to the Planning and Zoning Commission Wednesday that it has OK’d too much residential development there while traffic and parking issues go unresolved.
The comments came during a public hearing on a proposal to put a 68-apartment development at 223 Canal St., just north of the recently completed Avalon Shelton.
The proposal is from John Guedes, the head of Primrose Companies and the principal author of the “master plan” for the redevelopment of Canal Street.
Thursday’s opposition came from John Watts, who owns several neighboring properties and is a past business partner of Guedes’.
Watts’ comments reflect a common theme reflected on Facebook comments posted by Shelton residents when Canal Street development stories are posted on the Valley Indy Facebook page.
The Proposal
Guedes wants to level the buildings that currently occupy 223 Canal St., a 1.25-acre site between the Avalon apartment complex and one of Watts’ properties, 235 Canal St.
Guedes plans to build 68 apartments in a new three-and-a-half story, T‑shaped brick building.
The target rent for the units will be $1,200 to $1,400.
Guedes’ plans call for 106 parking spaces underneath and around the building, a ratio of about 1.6 spaces per apartment.
There would be 21 one-bedroom apartments and 47 two-bedrooms.
Guedes, who authored the original “master plan” for the overall redevelopment of Canal Street, said he originally envisioned developing the property in conjunction with Watts’ property, but those plans were scotched when the economy crashed.
Those original plans also called for the filling in of the canal to the west of the street so the road could be rebuilt on top of it.
But the plans didn’t pass muster with the Army Corps of Engineers and state environmental officials, Guedes said.
That means the buildings at 223 Canal St. have to come down so he can turn over 15 feet of the property fronting the road to the city to rebuild the street, itself a project years in the making and currently the subject of talks between the city, state, and Housatonic Railroad, which owns tracks that run nearby.
Parking?
Planning and Zoning Commissioner Nancy Dickal asked Guedes whether the development might need — you guessed it, more parking.
“It’s already kind of congested down there already,” she said.
While the city’s zoning regulations were revised in 2013 to mandate 2 parking spots per residential unit, Guedes pointed out the PZC had before that approved a master plan to redevelop Canal Street calling for 1.5 spots per unit.
Guedes conceded parking isn’t great on Canal Street.He said past plans to provide about 30 more parking spaces near the nearby railroad tracks for residents of the Birmingham building went awry, but some relief will come when the nearby Chromium Process Co. building is demolished and replaced with a 60-spot parking lot.
“I’m confident that the ratio of parking we have is adequate,” he said.
Concerns
Watts and his business partners, who want to sell or lease Guedes a property where he could put parking spots, weren’t convinced.
Watts’ realtor, Gerald Romano, said the commission is “putting the cart before the horse” by considering the project before Canal Street is fully rebuilt and once again connects with Wooster Street.
Access to Canal Street from Wooster Street has been “temporarily” closed for years.
Timothy Atwood, Watts’ lawyer, whose office is at 281 Canal St., another property owned by Watts, said the parking situation on the road is “a daily and ongoing disaster.”
He said the city’s current two-spot-per-unit rules “quite reasonably reflect current parking and vehicle usage realities.”
“Does anybody know anyone who can afford these apartments who doesn’t have two vehicles?” Atwood asked.
“If you drive up and down Canal Street at any time of the day or night, cars, vehicles are parked on both sides of Canal Street in the entire beneath-the-bridge area,” he said.
Article continues after video.
Atwood also doubted the demolition of the Chromium Process building — to be replaced by a parking lot — will provide much relief.
“That’s a good quarter of a mile away,” he said. “Is there anyone on the commission who parks his car a quarter of a mile from their residence?”
Atwood said the commission should stick to its rules.
Watts also hopes that would force Guedes to the bargaining table to use a neighboring property Watts owns for parking.
“Let the applicant negotiate with us,” Atwood said. “Abide by the city’s regulations. Try to alleviate some of the parking disaster that exists.”
Atwood also complained that the commission has been unfair to Watts with respect to the development of Canal Street, which calls for a total of 600 residential units.
“Why is it that this commission has already approved more than two-thirds of the total number of units on less than one-half of the total footage of the land?” he asked. “Interesting conundrum.”
Article continues after video.
Watts, after recounting prior stalled development projects he had with Guedes, told the commission that he has his own plans to put 23 apartments at his property at 235 Canal St.
That property was damaged in a January 2013 fire, but Watts has been doing demolition and renovation work there since.
His formal application to put apartments on the property — which he promised would also deliver more than two parking spots per unit — will be on the PZC’s agenda next month.
“I don’t think you fully realize what the problems about parking are,” Watts said.
The commission took no action on Guedes’ application Wednesday, instead continuing the public hearing to May 12.
The Valley Indy left a message Thursday with Mayor Mark Lauretti seeking comment on the rebuilding of Canal Street and Watts’ parking concerns.
The mayor has previously said that high demand for parking is a good thing.
