A developer’s plans to build a 252-unit apartment complex on land off Shelton’s Bridgeport Avenue prompted doubts last month from two Planning and Zoning Commissioners who thought the apartments wouldn’t attract the type of young ​“echo boomer” clientele they’re intended to.
When the hearing continued last week, other city leaders — Jason Perillo, Shelton’s state representative in Hartford, and Tom Harbinson, the chairman of the Conservation Commission — joined the ranks of the vocal skeptics.
They say the planned development would harm demand for apartments where the city wants them most — downtown — and that the proposal isn’t in line with Shelton’s plan for long-term development.
Meanwhile, the lawyer representing Talbot Partners, the developer, countered with a marketing study arguing that apartments can be successful downtown and off Bridgeport Avenue. They also said the city’s Plan of Conservation and Development is advisory.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has not taken any action on the proposal — to build 252 apartments on a 13-acre site behind Planet Fitness and Bertucci’s.
The apartments would be in eight buildings, with a separate 4,660-square-foot clubhouse with a fitness center, outdoor pool, movie room, and conference and gathering space.
Detailed plans of the proposed complex — which the developer revised to address concerns raised during last month’s hearing — are posted below. Article continues after the document.
Valley Glen, Shelton Apartment Proposal by ValleyIndyDotOrg
The commission has not taken action on the application. The proposal will likely appear on the commission’s agenda for a meeting Feb. 13.
Perillo, a former Alderman and PZC member, said the city should be trying to funnel residential demand toward its riverfront, where the new, 250-unit Avalon Shelton is nearing completion, and a developer wants to redevelop the nearby Spongex building into more than 40 apartments.
“We’re really trying to make sure downtown is redeveloped. That’s the key planning focus,” he said. ​“But there’s only so much demand for residential units, and any construction of residential units on Bridgeport Avenue weakens demand downtown.”
He went on to say that the land might be right for an apartment complex at some point in the future — but not right now.
“The timing is horrendous,” Perillo said. ​“At some point in time, that might be a good use, but it’s not a good use now.”
Even if an apartment proposal for the property were proposed in the future, he said he’d still have a hard time getting behind it.
“This parcel in this area of Bridgeport Avenue is zoned for office space. The plan of development calls for office space, and this request by the applicant is asking for a 180-degree turn and a massive change to the current zoning,” Perillo said. ​“In order to accept such a drastic change, the project just can’t be good. It’s got to be perfect for the city. And this project is not perfect for the city.”
Harbinson, the Conservation Commission chairman, echoed Perillo’s concerns, saying the apartment proposal ​“veers pretty dramatically” from the city’s Plan of Conservation and Development.
Click here to read the Plan of Conservation and Development, which was adopted in 2006.
The document argues that the area should be a place for office and industrial development.
“Given their limited traffic capacity and importance to the two industrial parks, their high visibility of uses, and their function as significant gateways into the City, (the Bridgeport Avenue, Constitution Boulevard, and River Road) corridors should be reserved for predominantly high-quality office/industrial development and ancillary uses,” the plan says.
“If people could just look at the planning documents and adhere to them, we’d be in a much better place,” Harbinson said Tuesday. ​“We are in a better place than a lot of other communities because we had a planning document that was adhered to.”
Harbinson went on to say that because of high traffic volumes on Bridgeport Avenue, ​“I don’t see how residential fits into that presence given that the location there is so vehicular-centric.”
A letter sent to the PZC on behalf of the Conservation Commission urging denial of the application is posted below. Article continues after the document.
Valley Glen Conservation Commission Letter by ValleyIndyDotOrg
Developer’s Lawyer Responds
Dominick Thomas, the lawyer representing the developer, said Tuesday that the arguments against the proposal don’t hold water.
In response to Perillo’s arguments about residential developments along Bridgeport Avenue detracting from demand downtown, Thomas pointed to a marketing study from a Massachusetts-based company commissioned by his client and distributed to the Planning and Zoning Commission last month.
“The City has or is in the process of considering several hundred units of housing in the downtown core along with a similar amount in the more suburban environments along Route 8 and Bridgeport Avenue. This multi-tiered approach to housing supply will help Shelton grab an outsize share of the robust demand that exists throughout both Fairfield and New Haven counties,” the study, authored by an executive at Riverstone Residential Group says.
“With all due respect to Jason, (his argument) is exactly the opposite of what the very professional marketing study shows,” Thomas said. ​“There’s a tremendous demand. This type of housing is what is needed right now.”
Thomas also said that the current owners of the property, the Francini family, have been trying to sell as it’s currently zoned for decades but to no avail.
“This is a piece of property that we introduced evidence has been marketed for 30 years,” he said. ​“Anybody who thinks it could be an office building has jumped the gun on the legalization of marijuana.”
Something like a big box store might work a little better, Thomas said, but even that would require a ​“tremendous amount of site work” to make the land flat enough.
The lawyer went on to say that the tax benefits to the city — estimated at at least $400,000 in annual net revenues — ​“can buy you a lot of open space.”
Thomas said the developer’s revisions in response to comments made at the first hearing date — to consolidate the buildings, subtract 10 apartments, and reduce the amount of site work required, among other changes — shows they’re willing to work with the city.
“We responded substantially to the concerns of the commission,” he said. ​“We addressed a lot of that.”
