Stratford panel upholds prior denial of Long Mountain multifamily plan after executive session

The Town of Stratford Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission on Tuesday voted to uphold its prior denial of a proposed 29‑unit multifamily development by Long Mountain Development, after an executive session to discuss pending litigation.

Attorney Russo, representing Long Mountain Development, presented revisions and responses from consultants including LandTech and said the applicant proposed measures such as expanded conservation easements, invasive‑species control and an eastern box turtle mitigation plan. Russo described the project as a 29‑unit multifamily building at roughly 60 feet in height and said the applicant had offered conservation easement additions totaling roughly 10,440 square feet and 50,417 square feet in different areas of the site.

Commissioners raised continuing concerns about the project’s footprint, its proximity to headwaters of Bruce Brook, and the ability of proposed engineered stormwater systems to replicate natural hydrology. One commissioner said the site “is the origin for Bruce’s Brook” and warned that failure of engineered tanks, pipes or separators could “drown the wetlands” by changing groundwater and surface flows. Several commissioners questioned whether long‑term maintenance and monitoring obligations would be effective and whether the town could reliably enforce those obligations in perpetuity.

LandTech’s consultant responses, summarized by Attorney Russo, included commitments to invasive species control, revegetation, fencing to exclude turtles from construction areas, daily construction monitoring for eastern box turtles and an on‑call biologist to handle any animals encountered. Russo said the applicant would implement a revised restoration plan, routine maintenance and access provisions for detention basin upkeep. He also noted the site’s parking program and the applicant’s willingness to explore shared parking to reduce the hard‑scape footprint.

Commission discussion turned on whether these mitigations adequately address the conservation and hydrology risks. One commissioner said previous denial reasons “are predominantly still there” and moved to uphold the prior denial. The motion to uphold the denial was seconded, the commission met in executive session to discuss litigation, then returned and voted to uphold the prior denial.

Chair recorded the vote as an upholding of the denial after the executive session; Attorney Russo thanked the commission for its time. The denial leaves the applicant the option to revise and resubmit, pursue legal remedies, or otherwise address the commission’s concerns outside this approval.

Ending: The commission closed the item after the vote; staff and counsel will record the decision in the commission minutes and note outstanding litigation. If the applicant files a revised application, it must address the commission’s stated concerns about wetland hydrology, stormwater maintenance language and habitat fragmentation.