Stratford Planning Commission approves waiver letting developer skip sidewalks on Broadbridge Avenue, 4-1

The Stratford Planning Commission on March 7 approved a modification allowing Romano Brothers Builders LLC to avoid installing sidewalks along Broadbridge Avenue at the 2860 Broadbridge subdivision, voting 4-1 to remove condition number 2 of the site-plan approval and accept a $9,600 payment-in-lieu to the town’s sidewalk fund.

Town planner Sismitha Atata summarized staff findings and bond records and said a sidewalk bond of roughly $9,600 was posted in cash when the original map was filed; she and staff cited topography, lack of an existing sidewalk plan for the area and tree and utility-pole constraints as factors supporting a waiver. Attorney Joe Cubic, representing Romano Brothers Builders, argued the location would create "sidewalks to nowhere," risk removal of mature trees and could force costly rework if a future engineering plan changes the route. "There'd be sidewalks to nowhere in this location," Cubic told the commission.

The petition drew sustained public comment. Katarina Tunless of Strephes Road said the stretch of Broadbridge Avenue is dangerous for pedestrians and bus riders, noting children walk to nearby schools and elderly residents often must wait in the street at the bus stop. "They are passing the bus even when it stopped and every day they're flowing through it like it was a highway," Tunless said, urging the commission to prioritize sidewalks "like, yesterday." She also said more than 400 people signed a neighborhood petition supporting sidewalks.

Planner Atata told commissioners she agreed sidewalks are needed in the area but explained a recent state statute created limits around unreasonably burdening developers for off-site improvements in some contexts; she said planning staff and the town attorney advised taking payment in lieu until the town develops a comprehensive sidewalk plan and can direct funds where they best fit. Atata also said the approved site plan requires certain street trees and that zoning enforcement will check compliance; a request from neighbors for the developer to install a fence instead of large trees was not part of the approved plan and could not be imposed retroactively.

Commissioners debated competing priorities: some said requiring the developer to build sidewalks was not an undue burden and highlighted the public-safety testimony; others said the commission should weigh topography, subdivision-regulation waiver criteria and not block housing development. Staff reminded the panel that any approval or denial must state the reasons on the record under the subdivision regulations. A motion to approve the waiver cited topographic and site-characteristic grounds for a subdivision waiver.

The motion to remove the sidewalk requirement and accept payment in lieu passed 4-1. The minutes record the outcome as "approval of 4 to 1." The commission closed the meeting after approving the petition and noting follow-up scheduling matters.

What happens next: the $9,600 sidewalk bond is expected to be available to the town (staff noted it was posted in cash); if and when the town develops a sidewalk plan for that corridor, funds would be used for implementation. If the petition had been denied, staff said the developer could face additional hearings that might delay the project under statutory timelines.