The petitioners simply do not want 98 housing units on a 6.7-acre Connecticut parcel that was once home to a YMCA.
They say the housing, which would be built in Hamden under the state’s affordable housing laws, would make a negative environmental impact, create public safety concerns, cause infrastructure strain, change the town’s character and engage in “legal loophole abuse.”
Conversely, a project narrative by Juliano Associates, of Wallingford, says the project is proposed to “provide ninety-nine one-bedroom, affordable, pet-friendly apartments with adequate parking and access to CTtransit. Its development is mindful of the wetlands and reduces peak stormwater runoff flows and pollutants.”
“There is an existing 13,924-square-foot building onsite which used to function as the YMCA,” the narrative for the proposed Sherman Heights Luxury Apartments says. The application is by 1605 Sherman Avenue LLC, of Milford, records show.
The existing building that was the YMCA would be renovated and there would be a 6,926-square-foot addition to house 91, one-bedroom residential units, according to Juliano Associates.
“The property at 1605 Sherman Avenue is situated on the northern side of Sherman Avenue between Shepard Avenue to the east and Kirk Road to the west,” the Juliano Associates narrative says. “It also has a 50-foot access to Bear Path Road to the north. There is 0.8± acre of wetlands running north-south through the middle of the property.”
The narrative notes the wetlands as the proposal is currently before the Hamden Inland Wetlands Commission.
The narrative also reports that the “western portion of the site drains easterly to the wetlands,” and that “Most of the runoff from the eastern portion of the site flows in a westerly direction to the wetlands,” while the “southeasterly-most corner flows toward Shephard and Sherman Avenues.”
CT restaurant known for food and views closing. ‘Heartbroken as if parents sold my childhood home’
The building would be served by public water and sanitary sewer, and the development would requires 149 parking spaces, the addition of which would increase impervious area by 25,947± square feet, resulting in additional stormwater runoff, the narrative says.
“To account for this, two detention areas are proposed. An 11,501±-square-foot detention pond is to be located to the north of the addition and nearby parking. A 2,288±-square-foot underground, Cultec detention system is proposed in the southeastern corner near Shepard Avenue,” it says. “Both systems promote infiltration and reduce the peak flows for the 2 through 100-year storms. 100% of the Water Quality Volume is being provided, and therefore the required pollutant reduction is assumed to be satisfied.”
The petition against the project outlines reasons for each objection:
Environmental Impact: “The proposed site includes protected wetlands that serve as a vital habitat for local wildlife, help prevent and mitigate flooding, and contribute to the ecological health of our community. Development on this land risks irreversible damage to these natural resources”
Public Safety Concerns: “Wetlands play a critical role in stormwater management. Building on this site could increase the risk of flooding for nearby homes and infrastructure, especially as climate change intensifies weather patterns.”
Infrastructure Strain: “Adding 98 units will place significant pressure on local roads, schools, emergency services, and utilities-without a clear plan for sustainable expansion or mitigation.”
Community Character: “This proposal is out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and does not reflect thoughtful integration into the existing community fabric.”
It also claims use of Connecticut’s affordable housing law “to override local zoning protections-especially in environmentally sensitive areas undermines state and local self-determination regarding environmental protections and sustainable development.”
The narrative by Juliano Associates reports that all of the construction would be on the eastern portion of the site and “no activity is currently proposed to the west of the wetlands, although 20,053± square feet are being reserved for a future single-family, residential lot.”
“The only permanent work within the 100-foot nondisturbance area is the removal of 1,730± square feet of bituminous drive and concrete sidewalk to the west of the existing building. Once removed, the area will be planted with grass. All other activity within the 100-foot non-disturbance area is temporary and consists only of installation of silt fence and straw bales. The purpose of the silt fence and straw bales is to protect downgradient areas, particularly the wetlands, from sedimentation and erosion during construction. Once construction is complete and the site is stabilized, the silt fence and straw bales will be removed,” it says.
The proposal also calls for a 6,435-square-foot, fenced-in dog run area to the south of the existing building, which would have dog waste bag dispensers and be illuminated by seven building lights. “In total, nine building lights and sixteen pole lights are proposed throughout the site. Thirty trees of various varieties recommended in the Hamden Zoning Regulations are also proposed,” it says.
The Hamden Inland Wetlands Commission held a walk at the site in August, which included members of the commission, applicant representatives and members of the public, records show.
“The site was extensively staked along the wetland boundary and along the 100- and 200foot setbacks. In addition, corners of parking lot extensions and corners of proposed new structures were staked,” the record of the site walk says.
“Commission members were provided with 1” = 500’ maps to orient themselves. Though much of the site was thickly vegetated, participants were able to approach the wetland from both the eastern and western approaches.”
Records on the project include a letter by REMA Ecological Service LLL, or REMA, which said that, at the request of the applicant, 1605 Sherman Avenue LLC, is provided a preliminary response to submitted review documents, including a peer review by the Southwest Conservation District, dated August 29, 2025 and a civil engineering review by Trinkaus Engineering, LLC, dated Sept. 2, 2025.
In addition to other points, the letter says. “Having delineated and inventoried the wetland at the subject site, and in reviewing the submitted plans, REMA is of the opinion that the proposed non-disturbance wetland buffer is protective of the regulated resources.
“During the construction phase, the proposed erosion and sedimentation controls are robust and protective. The proposed non-disturbance buffer is sufficiently wide to filter out any minimal fine sediment particles that perimeter controls may allow to pass through the silt fence filter fabric and haybales. During the post-construction phase, the proposed stormwater quality measures, which follow the guidelines of 2024 Stormwater Quality Manual, will ensure that the downgradient wetland shall not be degraded,” the letter states.
“The proposed non-disturbance wetland buffer will provide additional polishing of stormwater, over and above the retained and infiltrated water quality volume (WQV). These are the types of potential ‘physical’ impacts discussed in a previous section of this letter/report. Therefore, in our professional opinion the proposed non-disturbance buffers to the wetland resources are of sufficient width for the long-term protection of the regulated wetland and the functions and values that it provides, including as wildlife habitat.”