Stratford commission keeps Silver Oak 8-30g application open after large public turnout and legal questions

The Stratford Zoning Commission kept the public hearing open Wednesday evening on an application by Affordability LLC to create a new Silver Oak District (SOD) at 600 Silver Lane and to rezone the property for a proposed 95-unit development.

The proposal, filed under Connecticut General Statute 8-30g, would create a site-specific zoning district and an affordability plan that the applicant says would restrict 30 units (30 percent) as long-term affordable housing (15 units at 80% of area median income and 15 at 60%). The hearing drew large turnout from nearby residents, municipal officials and legal counsel on both sides.

Why it matters: The application would add a high-density, mixed-income development into a neighborhood of mostly single-family homes and has prompted sustained concerns about traffic safety, sewer capacity, stormwater runoff, fire access and compliance with a prior town settlement affecting the property.

Applicant attorney Steven Bellas told commissioners the filing is an 8-30g affordable housing application and stressed the limits of local review under that statute, saying the commission could require “reasonable changes” but that denial requires showing a quantifiable probability of harm. He described the affordability plan and a conceptual site plan showing roughly 95 units (the applicant described 30 studios, 61 one-bedroom units and five two-bedroom units in the application materials) and said an appointed administrator would enforce deed restrictions and income limits.

Residents pushed back. Several neighbors described Silver Lane as a quiet, wooded street and urged denial or additional study. “95 units in a 2½-acre area… that’s a lot of people,” said Art Battaglino, a Cannon Drive resident, who questioned sewer capacity and neighborhood character. Jeffrey Gutman, who owns adjacent property, said the project’s height, traffic impacts at a curved stretch of Silver Lane and construction impacts would be disruptive.

Town staff, consultants and legal counsel raised technical and legal questions during the hearing and in the administrative session. Town consultants flagged possible public-safety and environmental concerns cited at the hearing: fire apparatus access and turning radius for a multi-story building on a constrained lot; increased impervious area and stormwater/runoff risks for nearby brooks; and uncertainties about sewer capacity during wet-weather conditions. The town’s planning staff also noted a pending court-modified settlement that has limited prior development on this property, a point raised repeatedly by town counsel and others during the hearing.

Mayor Laura Hoytik asked the commission to keep the hearing open so the town could submit additional expert evidence. Commissioners voted to leave the public hearing open Wednesday night; at the subsequent administrative session the commission voted unanimously to table formal action on the Silver Oak text amendment and rezoning to its next meeting so staff and legal counsel can prepare supplemental materials.

What’s next: The commission’s action keeps the record open and schedules further review; the applicant may revise materials or return with a modified proposal. If the commission later denies an 8-30g application, state law allows the applicant a short window to submit a modified plan or to appeal to the courts, shifting standards for judicial review.

Ending: The application remains pending and will return to the Zoning Commission at its next scheduled meeting. The town indicated it will supplement the record with consultant memos addressing sewer, fire access and legal questions raised at the hearing.