Commission approves Aldi shopping center on Route One

Planning and Zoning · Meeting of July 15, 2026

Clinton's Planning and Zoning Commission approved a special exception and coastal site plan for an Aldi-anchored shopping center at 224 East Main Street while continuing a separate hearing on closing the Old Nod Road landfill. Engineer Sheamus Moran of H&H Engineering Associates presented a 20,664-square-foot Aldi with 95 parking spaces and a reserved future 6,000-square-foot building, approved with 11 conditions after resident Matt Williams argued the proposed "Spec Brick" facade was a "cookie cutter" corporate design unsuited to Clinton's Main Street character. The commission waived an architectural-plan requirement for the future building, 10-1 with the chair not voting, after an initial motion to deny the waiver failed.

On the landfill, engineers Dave Barrett and Emily Kelping outlined a plan to import 115,000 cubic yards of tested fill under a 1989 state consent order, but Water Pollution Control Commission chairman Matt Kennedy and resident Diana Aino, who recalled losing a 1960s referendum against the landfill "by three votes," pushed for independent town testing. The commission voted unanimously to continue that hearing and send oversight and bonding questions to the town council.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 2,687 words

Source: the Planning and Zoning meeting of July 15, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

The Full Article

Minutes and Quorum

The commission opened with roll call showing all regular members present: Chairman Michael Rossi, Bo Clark, Ellen Dolren, Robert Corson, Michael Florio, Chinsey Latiier, Jay Mandel, Zack Plard, Dylan Walters, Andrew Randy, Susan Marcus and Brian Peligrini. Rossi welcomed Corson back to the commission after an absence but gave no further detail on the reason. Members approved the June 8, 2026 minutes with one correction: a member said the minutes incorrectly stated she had personally confirmed that delivery loads of landfill cover material were inspected and approved, and asked that the record be revised to say she "inquired" rather than "noted" that inspection occurred. The correction was adopted without objection.

Before opening the evening's two public hearings, Rossi reviewed hearing procedure for the audience, explaining that speakers would first address the application in favor, then in opposition, then general questions, and discouraging duplicative testimony. A staff member identified in the discussion only as Abby disclosed that one of the documents in the landfill application record had been prepared by an engineering firm where her husband had worked more than 25 years earlier, stating for the record that she did not consider herself independent on that point, though she did not withdraw from the discussion.

224 East Main Street: Special Exception and Coastal Site Plan for an Aldi-Anchored Shopping Center

Background and stakes: The application, docketed PZC 26-9 with a companion coastal site plan PZC 26-10, sought to redevelop a deteriorated three-building commercial property adjacent to Walgreens on Route One into a new shopping center anchored by an Aldi supermarket. The applicant had already secured health approval for a septic system in April, state wetlands approval in June, and a design review board recommendation in May, according to the presentation.

The question before the commission: Whether the proposed site plan, architecture, traffic design, and stormwater management met the town's special-exception criteria for a shopping center and the separate coastal-area management requirements, and whether to waive a regulatory requirement to submit architectural plans for a future, as-yet-untenanted building on the same lot.

Substantive content: Sheamus Moran, a professional engineer with H&H Engineering Associates, described a roughly 20,664-square-foot Aldi store with 95 parking spaces, plus a reserved 6,000-square-foot future commercial building and 11 additional parking spaces, for a total of 106 spaces once built out — within a zoning range the applicant calculated as 81 spaces minimum and 107 maximum. The existing two-way curb cut onto Route One would become eastbound-only, a change Moran attributed to early feedback from the state Department of Transportation given the site's proximity to the Walgreens traffic signal. Stormwater would be managed through a subsurface "storm tech" detention system discharging into a subsurface gravel wetland designed to remove nitrogen, plus a separate bioretention basin for rooftop and northern parking-lot runoff; the applicant said the project will be 85 percent impervious.

Traffic engineer Guled Mahmood, a project engineer who said he has eight years with his firm and previously worked for the Connecticut Department of Transportation, presented a trip-generation study based on an August 2025 state count showing 9,100 vehicles a day on Route One, with peak hours of 470 vehicles in the morning and 883 in the afternoon. His office's own May 2026 counts at nearby intersections were used to project a 2028 opening-year design scenario assuming 5 percent annual growth. The study found the development would generate about 3,144 daily trips, with 265 trips in the PM peak hour, and that intersection levels of service would remain unchanged from background conditions, with no location falling below a "D" rating. Commissioner questions focused on queuing at the Walgreens signal and a narrative error in the traffic report that referred to the project as a "warehouse use"; Mahmood acknowledged the reference was a typo and confirmed the analysis covered the supermarket and retail use.

Landscape architect Kevin Johnson detailed a planting plan using low-growing paper bark maple trees near overhead utility lines, evergreen "inkberry" shrubs to screen parking from Route One, native plantings to replace invasive species such as Japanese knotweed and multiflora rose in a disturbed rear wetland buffer, and four seed mixes selected for drought tolerance and stormwater-basin conditions.

Architect Clint Batista, appearing remotely, presented Aldi's prototype design modified with masonry pilasters, a water table, fiber-cement panel accents and an aluminum tower, saying the firm incorporated comments from an earlier, informal design review meeting. The primary facade material, a manufactured product called "Spec Brick Jumbo," became the focus of extended commission and public debate. Matt Williams, a resident of 91 Iron Works Road who said he has lived in Clinton since 1990, argued the oversized concrete block was being marketed to resemble brick but would not match the scale or texture of genuine masonry used elsewhere in town, including at the neighboring Walgreens, and urged the commission to reject what he called a standard "boilerplate" corporate design. He passed around a manufacturer's spec sheet for the board's review. Wes Kavanagh, of 27 East Shore Drive, spoke in support of Williams's position and separately raised concerns about glare from building-mounted lighting fixtures, arguing that LED light bright enough to illuminate a 100-car parking lot from a building wall would be difficult to shield adequately. The applicant's team responded that conventional brick would significantly increase labor costs and that the building-mounted fixtures were intended for security and code compliance, not parking-lot illumination, which would come from seven shielded parking-lot fixtures.

"The products that we are using are... it's meant to emulate a larger brick... we're trying to balance the line of complying with jurisdictional feedback and also keeping Aldi's brand identity." — Clint Batista, project architect

A separate procedural dispute arose over whether the applicant needed to submit architectural plans for the future 6,000-square-foot building. One commissioner argued that because the applicant had chosen to apply as a shopping center rather than a simple retail establishment, section 4.7.1 of the zoning regulations required architectural plans for all buildings in the development, including the unbuilt one. Staff clarified that section 4.7.4 allows the commission to waive that requirement upon written request. The applicant submitted a written waiver request during the hearing, signed by Ron Lyman on behalf of the applicant entity.

Procedural steps and outcome: A motion to deny the waiver request was made and seconded but failed on a vote in which only one member voted to deny it. The commission then voted to approve the waiver instead, with one member voting against and Chairman Rossi stating he was not casting a vote in that tally. The commission subsequently closed the public hearing by unanimous voice vote. It then approved the special exception, PZC 26-9, unanimously, with 11 conditions, including: fire marshal approval of hydrant and emergency-access locations; town engineer confirmation that stormwater modifications meet the 2024 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual; a pre-construction meeting with the zoning enforcement officer; a revised lighting plan demonstrating no glare exceeding 0.2 foot-candles on adjacent properties; as-built documentation before certificate of occupancy; installation of five of 10 required electric-vehicle charging stations before occupancy; a prohibition on idling buses or delivery trucks; trash collection limited to Monday through Saturday, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.; a two-year landscaping survival-rate requirement; a requirement that any modification to the future retail portion require an updated coastal site plan application; and a requirement, added during the meeting, that architectural plans for the future building be submitted to and approved by the commission before any future building permit is issued. The commission adopted seven findings of fact, including consistency with the 2025 Plan of Conservation and Development's goal to support reuse of obsolete commercial sites, and a finding that the architectural waiver applies only to the current submission, not to future building permits. The companion coastal site plan, PZC 26-10, was approved unanimously with three conditions and four findings, including a finding that the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection's Office of Long Island Sound Programs found the application consistent with the Connecticut Coastal Management Plan.

Implications and what is next: The shopping center can proceed toward building permits, subject to the conditions above; architectural review of the future 6,000-square-foot building will return to the commission once a tenant is identified, under the new condition added at this meeting.

Item 5B: Withdrawn

A separate map-change application listed as item 5B was withdrawn before the commission took it up; no substantive discussion occurred.

Old Nod Road Landfill Closure: PZC 26-15

Background and stakes: The roughly 9-acre former municipal landfill operated from 1960 to 1979, accepting municipal and industrial waste, and received a noncompliant earthen cap in 1980. The state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection issued a consent order in 1989 or 1990 requiring remediation; according to the applicant engineering team, that order remains open today and represents what they called a "multi-million dollar unfunded environmental liability" for the town. A related question about the status of old septic lagoons near the landfill, which residents said were investigated decades ago after wells tested contaminated, remains outside the scope of the current contract.

The question before the commission: Whether to approve a site plan for a comprehensive closure of the landfill, including importation of roughly 115,000 cubic yards of tested fill material, regrading, a stormwater system and a monitoring and maintenance program, or to continue the hearing for additional information.

Substantive content: Dave Barrett and Emily Kelping, engineers representing the applicant firm under a 2022 town contract, described a closure plan already approved by the town's inland wetlands commission and the state for a material acceptability protocol and stockpiling authorization. The project would place fill to bring the site to subgrade, install a minimum two-foot cover system, regrade slopes from an existing ratio near 1.5-to-1 to a stable 3-to-1, and construct four stormwater detention basins. Construction would run roughly two years, Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., with an estimated average of 50 trucks per day — Kelping said a commissioner's observation that this amounted to roughly 10 truck movements per hour, counting both directions, was correct. Imported fill would undergo testing by a licensed environmental professional hired by the fill supplier, reviewed independently by the applicant's engineers, and checked by a third-party reviewer the applicant said it retains as a redundancy measure. Groundwater monitoring would occur quarterly for two years at six wells, then shift to semiannual monitoring "in perpetuity," according to Kelping.

Several commissioners questioned the degree of independent oversight available to the town itself, as distinct from the applicant's internal quality checks. Matt Kennedy, chairman of the town's Water Pollution Control Commission and a licensed environmental professional, told the commission that the applicant was functioning as a contractor on the project rather than as the town's independent owner's representative, and said the commission's engineering consultant, CDM Smith, had prepared a brief list of topics — including whether closure records would allow imported material to be traced to its specific placement location, source, and testing data decades from now — that the town should consider addressing.

"They are an active participant and we need to think of them as a contractor and not our third-party oversight." — Matt Kennedy, chairman, Water Pollution Control Commission, public comment

Diana Aino, describing herself as a longtime Boulder Lake-area resident who was 16 when the landfill was first sited over local objection in a referendum the opponents lost by three votes, recounted well contamination discovered in 1985 that led the town to extend municipal water to the area; she said some Old Nod Road residents still have not been connected to municipal water. She asked the commission to require renewed well testing and clearer public communication as the project proceeds, while stating her support for completing the closure. Dennis and Suzanne Ericson, who live adjacent to the landfill on Old Nod Road, asked about the limits of disturbance near their property line, buffer plantings, and the nature of the proposed stormwater basins; the applicant's team confirmed grading would extend close to, but not onto, the Ericsons' parcel.

Commissioners also raised the absence of any performance bond for road damage from construction trucking, which staff said was outside the zoning commission's authority and would need to go to the town council. Staff noted that the original 2022 contract was signed under a previous town manager, identified only as Carl, and that subsequent turnover among town officials may have delayed follow-through on recommendations for independent oversight.

Procedural steps and outcome: Rather than closing the hearing, a motion was made and seconded to continue the public hearing and to direct a list of commissioner questions to the town council, covering funding for independent third-party testing, bonding for road damage, the scope of long-term groundwater-monitoring costs, responsibility for corrective action if contamination worsens, and the status of the separate lagoon-closure question. The motion passed by unanimous voice vote. Staff noted the town council had the contract status on its own agenda for the following Wednesday.

Implications and what is next: The landfill closure cannot proceed to a commission decision until the town council responds to the referred questions; the hearing is expected to resume at the commission's August meeting.

Michael Rossi, Chairman, presided over the meeting. Bo Clark, member, present. Ellen Dolren, member, present. Robert Corson, member, present, welcomed back after an absence. Michael Florio, member, present. Chinsey Latiier, member, present. Jay Mandel, member, present. Zack Plard, member, present. Dylan Walters, member, present. Andrew Randy, member, present. Susan Marcus, member, present. Brian Peligrini, member, present. Staff referred to as "Abby" participated throughout, advising on regulatory interpretation and record-keeping; no surname or formal title given in the transcript. Sheamus Moran, P.E., H&H Engineering Associates — agent for the 224 East Main Street applicant. Kevin Johnson, landscape architect — presented landscaping plan for 224 East Main Street. Guled Mahmood, traffic engineer — presented traffic study for 224 East Main Street. Clint Batista, architect (remote) — presented building design for 224 East Main Street. Ron Lyman, signer of the written architectural-waiver request for the applicant entity. Matt Williams, resident of 91 Iron Works Road — public comment opposing the proposed building material. Wes Kavanagh, resident of 27 East Shore Drive — public comment supporting Williams and raising lighting concerns. Dave Barrett, professional engineer and licensed environmental professional — co-presenter for the Old Nod Road landfill closure applicant. Emily Kelping, professional engineer and project manager — co-presenter for the landfill closure applicant. Steve Diaz and John Sullivan, named members of the landfill-applicant team, not otherwise described. Matt Kennedy, chairman, Water Pollution Control Commission — public comment on landfill oversight. Diana Aino, Boulder Lake-area resident — public comment on landfill history and well contamination. Dennis Ericson, resident of Old Nod Road adjacent to the landfill — public comment. Suzanne Ericson, resident, wife of Dennis Ericson — public comment.

H&H Engineering Associates — engineering firm representing the 224 East Main Street shopping-center applicant. The applicant's engineering firm for the landfill project, transcribed inconsistently as "Laurero," "Lorero" and "Guerrero Engineering Associates" — contracted by the town in 2022 to design and manage the landfill closure. Water Pollution Control Commission (WPCC) — town board that submitted correspondence and public testimony on landfill oversight. CDM Smith — engineering consultant retained by the WPCC, which prepared a topics memo cited repeatedly during the landfill discussion. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection — issuer of the 1989/1990 consent order governing landfill closure and reviewer of the solid-waste closure permit. Connecticut Department of Transportation — source of the Route One traffic count used in the 224 East Main Street traffic study and reviewer of an encroachment permit for the shopping-center driveway. 2024 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual and 2024 Connecticut Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control — cited repeatedly as the technical standards governing both applications. 2025 Plan of Conservation and Development — cited as supporting the shopping-center project's consistency with town goals for reuse of obsolete commercial sites. 1989 state consent order — cited throughout the landfill discussion as the unresolved regulatory obligation driving the closure project.