PETITION OPPOSING ZONING REGULATION CHANGE PROPOSED IN 24-30 REVISION 2_11_2025 AGE RESTRICTED

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OVERLAY

ZONE 

The following addresses have been targeted for dense development;

357 Shelton Avenue

369 Shelton Avenue

376 Shelton Avenue 

395 Shelton Avenue 

451 Shelton Avenue 

48 Armstrong Road.       

51 Armstrong Road

54 Armstrong Road 

118 Armstrong Road 

128 Armstrong Road 

1 James Farm Road

5 James Farm Road

To: Shelton Planning and Zoning Commission 

From: Concerned Residents of Shelton Ct

Date: 03/01/2025

We, the undersigned residents of Shelton CT, strongly oppose the proposed zoning regulation change outlined in 24-30 Revision 2_11_2025. This change would lead to the destruction of existing R-1 residential zones, negatively impacting the character of our community and the quality of life for its residents.

Concerns Regarding the Proposed Change:

    1.    Destruction of R-1 Zones & Unfair Targeting of Specific Lots

The proposed change would dismantle established R-1 zoning protections, allowing for dense housing in areas historically designated for single-family homes. This shift disregards the long-term planning and stability that zoning laws are meant to provide.

Furthermore, this proposal affects only 12 targeted lots—two of which are owned by the very developer seeking the change. A zoning regulation should serve the interests of the entire community, not benefit a single applicant. This selective application of zoning changes raises concerns about spot zoning, which is both unfair and legally questionable.

    2.    Excessive Housing Density on Small Plots of Land

The proposed change would allow for up to 7 dwellings per acre, a drastic increase from the current zoning regulations. This level of density is inappropriate for the affected lots and would lead to overcrowding, loss of green space, and an increase in impervious surfaces, contributing to drainage and environmental concerns.

    3.    Traffic Congestion & Parking Shortages

The increase in residential density will result in more vehicles on already strained roadways, creating traffic congestion and safety hazards. Additionally, most lots in the affected area were not designed to accommodate this level of development, leading to insufficient parking and increased on-street congestion.

    4.    Strain on Local Infrastructure & Public Services

Higher population density will overwhelm emergency services, water and sewer systems, and public utilities. Many of these systems are already at or near capacity, and additional housing will require costly upgrades—placing the financial burden on taxpayers.

    5.    Negative Impact on Property Values & Community Character

Residents purchased their homes based on existing zoning protections. If this proposal is approved, it will erode property values, disrupt the character of our community, and diminish the quality of life for longtime residents. Allowing dense development on a select few small lots ignores the interests of the broader community.

    6.    Noise, Privacy, and Environmental Concerns

The proposed increase in housing density will lead to higher noise levels, reduced privacy, and loss of green space, directly impacting neighboring properties. In addition, higher-density development can contribute to environmental strain, including increased stormwater runoff and reduced air quality.

Our Request:

We urge the Planning and Zoning Board to reject the proposed zoning regulation change in 24-30 Revision  2_11_2025. The targeted nature of this change benefits a single applicant while disregarding the long-term interests of the broader community. We call for:

    •    The preservation of R-1 zoning protections to maintain the character of our neighborhood.

    •    A halt to any zoning changes that unfairly benefit select property owners at the expense of the community.

    •    A comprehensive impact study to assess how this proposal would affect infrastructure, schools, traffic, and the environment.

    •    More community input and consideration of alternative solutions that support responsible growth without sacrificing existing residents’ quality of life.

We, the undersigned, stand in firm opposition to this proposal and request that our concerns be given full consideration before any decision is made.