Stratford Zoning Commission denies Bluebird Prestige request to change 170 Oronoke Lane units to all three-bedrooms

The Stratford Zoning Commission on Jan. 24 voted 3‑2 to deny without prejudice a request from Bluebird Prestige to modify the site plan for 170 Oronoke Lane so that all 11 previously approved homes would be three‑bedroom units.

The applicant’s attorney, Kenneth Cardello, told the commission the change was a correction of a clerical error and that “the settlement agreement never said anything about number of bedrooms in any of the units,” arguing the commission has the authority to evaluate and approve the modified development application. He said the plan would not add buildings or bathrooms and that “these are closed stipulated judgments” that left land‑use review to the town’s boards.

Town counsel and neighborhood representatives disagreed. Kevin Kelly, speaking for the town, read the settlement language into the record and said the clause cited by the applicant referred to another property and that the approved plan had been incorporated into a final court judgment. “You have a court‑ordered judgment,” Kelly said, adding that reopening or amending the judgment would be the fair way to change details that were part of that settlement so all parties could be heard.

Neighbor attorney Joe Kubik echoed that view: “It is a court order. It is a judgment. And now if we want to go forward, we need to open that judgment,” he said, urging the commission not to grant the modification tonight.

Commissioners raised infrastructure questions during deliberations — sanitary sewer service, stormwater/MS4 compliance and parking were discussed at length. Planning staff said the town engineer had reviewed an updated stormwater management plan and that a sewer extension had been approved but not yet constructed; final WPCA approval and other agency permits would still be required before utility connections or occupancy.

After closing the public portion, the commission discussed options in an administrative session. Commissioner Deborah Lamberti moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion passed on a 3‑2 roll call (Yes: JF Ewald, Deborah Lamberti, Harold Watson; No: Linda Mannos, Len Petrucelli). The action denies the applicant’s request while leaving the door open for the petitioner to seek agreement among interested parties and, if necessary, return to the court or to the commission.

What it means: Denial without prejudice does not permanently bar the applicant from returning with a revised approach or after the parties to the settlement reach a procedural agreement. Commissioners and town staff emphasized that any revised path forward would likely require coordination with the town attorney, the settlement parties and relevant agencies such as WPCA.

The commission’s decision came after a lengthy public record in which both the applicant and multiple opponents — including town representatives and neighbors — urged their competing interpretations of the settlement that produced the original approvals. The hearing record includes submissions of the stipulated judgment dated 06/21/2023, a later modification referenced by the applicant and staff engineering comments dated 01/01/2024.