Procedural dispute delays Broadbridge density proposal after residents raise fairness concerns

Attorney Timothy Herbs, representing the petitioner, raised procedural objections and asked the Stratford Zoning Commission to require the planning administrator to explain on the record why she had removed herself from processing the file. Herbs told the commission that an agreement between the applicant and the mayor had led to staff changes and that a staff‑initiated referral back to the Planning Commission applied a different standard to a revised draft, potentially depriving his client of fundamental fairness.

The debate between attorney Herbs, the commission and town counsel unfolded over several hours as members debated whether staff had authority to re‑refer the revised text amendment and whether that re‑referral required the commission’s vote. Herbs said he was preserving his client’s legal remedies and asked the commission to consider whether the first Planning Commission review or the later review should control. Commission counsel, Patricia Sullivan, said she needed time to research where town and state law placed authority for re‑referral and to confirm statutory timelines.

Neighbors and representatives of Stony Brook Gardens and nearby streets spoke in opposition. David Greenwood and residents said the proposed transit‑adjacent density adjustment would permit a shift to RM1 density based on a minimal adjacency and would allow developers to place higher‑density multiunit construction adjacent to long‑standing single‑family neighborhoods. Speakers cited traffic and parking concerns and urged commissioners to preserve neighborhood character.

Petitioner representatives and owner Steve Shapiro defended the proposal as compliant with recent state middle‑housing law and said the project is intended to produce for‑sale, 'middle' housing rather than large rental towers; they offered mitigations including landscaping and private signs to protect neighbors’ privacy. The petitioner also distributed documents showing statutory timing for text amendments and argued the commission could lawfully schedule a special meeting within the remaining extension days.

After a five‑minute recess while staff checked room availability and notice requirements, the commission confirmed council chambers could be used July 1. The commission voted to continue the text amendment, special permit and related site plan matters to that special meeting to allow counsel to complete legal review and for outstanding staff documents and wetlands/engineering comments to be gathered.

What happens next: The commission will reconvene July 1 to consider the amended text and associated applications with additional legal guidance. Any action on the text amendment could change the process for smaller multifamily development near transit, depending on whether the commission adopts the opt‑in Transit Oriented Community approach the petitioner has proposed.