Farmington Town Council hears split public reaction to Meadow Road sidewalk proposal

The Town of Farmington held a public hearing April 28 on a proposed Meadow Road sidewalk that would run on the south side of Meadow Road between New Britain Avenue and Wisteria Lane, connect roughly 165 homes to existing sidewalks and trails, and is estimated to cost $1,034,832, about $500,000 of which was described as state grant funding and the remainder from town capital funds.

Town Manager Kathy Blonsky said the project is intended to “enhance pedestrian access and safety, strengthen community connectivity” and comply with the town’s sidewalk ordinance. “The total estimated project cost is $1,034,832,” she said, noting the grant would cover approximately half of that amount. Town engineer Russell Arnold explained why the plan stops at Wisteria Lane: extending to Route 177 would trigger state Department of Transportation requirements for a new traffic signal and full intersection improvements, which the town did not budget for now.

The presentation prompted a lengthy public-comment period in which residents split sharply. Supporters — including parents and people who walk or bike in the corridor — said the road is narrow and fast and that a continuous sidewalk would make walking to Westwoods Upper Elementary School, the Farmington Canal Heritage Trail and nearby parks safer. “Without a sidewalk, pedestrians are forced to walk along the side of the road, putting them dangerously close to moving traffic,” said Katie Zadrazne, a Meadow Road resident.

Opponents, many of them abutting property owners and farmers on the south side, raised concerns about maintenance, legal liability and the project’s selected alignment. Eris Krell, who said she and her husband together have more than 350 feet of frontage affected by the proposal, told the council the current ordinance places responsibility for snow removal, repair and related liability on abutting property owners and warned that seniors and farm operations would bear an unfair burden. “We do not want to lose everything we have because someone sues us when they get injured on the sidewalk,” Krell said.

Speakers representing Hine Farm and other agricultural properties said the design would require excavation, grading and removal of perennial plantings and that curb cuts and access for equipment are unresolved. Several speakers also highlighted wetlands and easement questions and said they had not received direct notice early enough in the process.

Council members and staff discussed alternatives, including placing the sidewalk on the north side for part of the route, where more residents live, or modifying crosswalk locations to reduce the number of mid-block crossings. Arnold said moving the alignment north through parts of the corridor would reduce steep retaining-wall needs in some areas but could introduce other grading and tree-removal impacts. He also said that a change in alignment or major plan edits could require re-approval from the state grant agency and a new public hearing with certified notices.

Council members repeatedly framed the choice as weighing the public benefit of connectivity and safety against the private burden placed on abutting owners under the town’s current ordinance. Several members supported proceeding to design but asked staff to prepare alternate schematics — including a north-side option near Judson/Wakefield — and to return to the council for further review. The council discussed a likely timeline of final design in 2026, bidding in late summer or early fall, and possible construction in 2026–27.

The hearing closed after extensive comment and council discussion. No formal vote on the sidewalk itself occurred at the April 28 meeting; council members directed the town engineer to refine plans and present adjusted schematic options at a future council meeting, with a likely follow-up public hearing and certified mailing if the design changes.