Planning Commission recommends inferred approval for potential sale of 29 Shoreline Drive amid legal questions

The Stratford Planning Commission on Feb. 20 reviewed a town-council referral concerning the potential sale of 29 Shoreline Drive and voted to issue a recommendation consistent with the town attorney’s memorandum that the commission’s 35-day 8-24 review window had closed and therefore resulted in an inferred approval to the council.

Town Planner Sismita Atota told commissioners the property was foreclosed, had building and health violations and that the commission’s role in an 8-24 review is advisory — limited to whether a proposal is consistent with the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). “Your role is advisory only and it’s only to generally prove the consistency with the plan of conservation and development,” Atota said.

Town attorney John Florek told the commission the 8-24 statute carries a 35-day limit and that, in his office’s view, the statutory window had closed. “The statute 8-24 does have a 35-day limitation from referral from the town council,” Florek said. He added the statute provides for an inferred approval if the commission does not render a report within that time but offered a legal briefing on a “tangled set of land use restrictions” that affect the parcel.

The parcel is also encumbered by a private 1947 agreement governing beachfront lots. Jane Scofield, a board member of the Lordship Improvement Association, urged enforcement of that agreement, saying the association’s view is the derelict unit should be removed and the lot returned to park-and-beach use. “Our point of view is … that condominium should be taken down. It should become part of the condo association like the other cottages that have also gone derelict,” Scofield said.

Florek described the legal complexities: the town owns only the condominium unit structure it acquired by foreclosure, while the ground beneath remains common area owned by the condominium association, and the 1947 agreement limits future leasing of vacant lots but does not explicitly require structural removal. “The answer to the ultimate question of what could be done with this particular structure is the structure itself — the obligation is to repair. There’s nothing in the 1947 agreement that requires its removal,” Florek said.

Alternate member Ed Kingston urged sale and rehabilitation to restore tax revenue and recoup foreclosure costs. Kingston said the town spent about $225,000 on the foreclosure process (back taxes and legal fees) and that a rehabilitation could return the unit to the tax rolls.

Resident Joseph Provo, who lives next door, told the commission the cottage could be rehabilitated rather than demolished. “It could be rehabbed in place,” Provo said, adding that neighboring cottages that were fixed up now contribute to the neighborhood.

After discussion about whether staff or the legal office had been asked for formal reports in time, and following the attorney’s legal position on timing, the commission voted to follow the memorandum and forward a recommendation reflecting the inferred approval to the Town Council. Chair Sarah Graham noted the council will make the final decision and that the commission’s recommendation is advisory.

Next steps: the town council will consider the referral and any recommendations; because the parcel’s status is affected by private covenants and condominium bylaws, enforcement or changes to use could require involvement of the condominium association, private parties and potential legal enforcement actions.