Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Commission - Regular Meeting

Make me the co-host.

Yes, one moment. Okay.

Make me the. Okay. Okay.

Okay, it is streaming live.

Yeah, if you just click on the three dots after my name, it'll say promote to co-host.

Okay. I had to reclaim host in order to do the live stream.

That's fine. That's good. Okay. So we're good now.

We're good. And I believe record to the cloud smart recording is enabled.

Right. There was a question from... We are good to go. All right. I'll start the meeting then. Let's do it that way. All right, I call this special meeting of the Bloomfield Inland Wetlands Water Course Commission to order. Today is June 24th, 2026. The time is 7.05. In attendance, we have, who do we have? We have myself, Steve, Adam, Kevin.

Do you take the roles?

I'm doing it now.

Okay, sorry.

Byron and Paul. I got two Kevin Wilcoxes. And I said David, right?

No. But you did now, so it's good.

Okay, David. All right. Absent is Rebecca, our recording secretary, and Peter Castaglia. And Glenn. Yeah. Oh, and Glenn has, uh, recused himself. Um, we have Nick, uh, why don't you introduce yourself, Nick and your title?

Sure. Thank you. Uh, Nick Kapusta, environmental planner, town of Bloomfield.

Okay. And Linda.

I am Linda Laureano, assistant director of building and land use and planning. Um, and, uh, staffing commission along with Nick.

Okay.

All right.

Let's remove from the table the applicant of 141 Wittenberry Avenue. Is there a motion to remove from the table? So moved. Seconded by Paul. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstain. There is a question from the public. They want to know if the public will have their names attached to their Zoom.

I can respond to that. Okay. You know, just managing this. So we have five attendees, and if they are registered, they're gonna be registered and it's made part of the record that they've registered with the name that they registered with. So for instance, I'm just gonna put this as an example. The applicant is registered. His name is Kevin Costello and he is under the attendees. So he will, your name will show up in the form that you've registered under.

Okay, so now we have to promote Kevin to a panelist. I promoted Kevin.

Okay, so the applicant.

Right. And who else do we have to promote?

So the motion was made to continue the open public hearing, correct?

Yes.

Okay, the application was continued. I know I it was mentioned that it was tabled. But just for clarification of the record, this is a public hearing that was open and remained open and continue to today.

Okay, thank you. Kevin, Kevin, do you have a camera?

I do.

Oh, could you please turn it on?

As far as I can tell, it's on it. This happened, I think the last couple of meetings too. Um, Oh, there we go. I apologize. It's down here.

Um, if I may, um, commissioner, I know that normally the applicant, uh, presents first as part of, you know, the, uh, order of, of the meeting, um, uh, and, and the agenda as well. Um, I do wanna clarify for the record, because this is a procedural question, whether or not postings of the public, we did not receive a sign affidavit today stating that the sign has been posted on the property for 10 consecutive days prior to this hearing. Well, and for the remainder of the public hearing. So from the moment that the public hearing was to open, um, and remain open public hearing signs had to remain on the property, uh, and posted on all frontages, uh, visible to the public. Um, and it has, it was discovered that there were no public hearing signs today and no sign affidavit. And I want to confirm with the applicant, whether or not, um, you know, that noticing requirement per section 9.3 of the inland wetlands have been satisfied. I just want to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to that requirement.

Yeah. Yeah, so I think just a little confusion here. We did post signs at the beginning of the public hearing, I believe back in February, and the signs were returned to Bloomfield on the 16th, the day of the hearing. Returned those, I think, back to Peter himself, and they gave us our deposit back, which I have here. So was there a need to repost new signs? Is that what you're saying?

No, the signs have to remain for the remainder of the public hearing. As long as the public hearing remains open, the sign must remain on the property per Section 9.3. When the public hearing signs are returned, that means that the application and public hearing has been closed. and no longer remains open. If the admin staff here accepted your signs, it was because they probably assumed in the front that your application was completed, and they normally give back your deposit. But provided with what has been just confirmed, staff finds and believes that you know, noticing is now defective and insufficient and does not comply with the requirement. And so, you know, staff recommends that the commission makes a determination based on the fact that that procedural and required notice requirement in Section 9.3 of the regulations have been met. And if you find that it has not been met based on tonight's confirmation, then staff would recommend, unfortunately, a denial without prejudice to allow the applicant to reapply or to apply for proper noticing. As I believe that the Section 9.3 is a mandatory requirement. Failure to post or require sign results, again, in the defective in a defect of the public hearing notice process. And unfortunately, the notice defect cannot be cured because all available statutory extension have been exhausted, I believe, and that's why we're here tonight. And as a result, the commission is unable to proceed with any legal sufficiency for public hearing record. Unfortunately, this was discovered today. Had it been discovered before by staff prior, we would have let the applicant and commission know. But I'm bringing this to your attention so that you can make an informed decision based on what was just recently discovered and also provided to you. I wrote after we discovered it and I wrote just an amendment to the report regarding today's findings. I can share that with the commission.

So my question to the commission members are, do we proceed with the public hearing, which has a defect, or do we end it now? Which I think we have to. Go ahead, David.

So based on what Linda said, it sounds like we don't have a legal public hearing right now, which means that there's the potential that there's people of the public who were not informed of the meeting by posting. So it's not fair to those potential people out there and the legality of it for us to continue.

And there is a prior case law in the town for defective noticing. So therefore...

So what Linda's recommending is that we deny it without prejudice so they can resubmit it for next month, next meeting. But how many days do they need for signs?

Well, it has to be 10 consecutive days. So the next hearing would be July 20th.

There's time to post. It just has to be posted for 10 days prior to.

Because they've exhausted their legal extension under 8-7D, we cannot extend it for another week. It's either today or not. Denying without prejudice allows them to come back for next month. with the resubmission of the application.

Is there enough time for them to resubmit? I mean, I know it's going to be the same application, but is there, on the staff side of it, is there enough time for the process to play through for the submittal?

Well, the submittal is going to be based on the regulations where it would be accepted by the commission. And I'm not sure... know procedurally under the i believe under the uh the bylaws on on how you hear it but i believe it's accepted and then heard but in this case uh given that it was just a defective notice i'm not sure i would defer to peter on how you handled this in the past if if at all um

To answer your question, David, the clerk can publish a notice within five days. Okay.

No, the 15th. The 15th and 5th. I see what he means. Yeah. If they reapply, we would have enough notice to post it for legal advertisement is what you're stating. Yes. The legal advertisement would be the week of July 6th and then again the week of July 13th. The last notice published in the paper can't be less than two days prior to the public hearing. So there is sufficient noticing for legal notice requirements for both in the paper to the abutters mailings and also for the town clerk and the posting of the signs on the property with proper affidavit notarized.

Yeah. All right. Is that the general consensus of the commission? Byron, have you ever run into this?

No, we haven't. But I think what David was saying is correct. If we was to proceed, and if we, for whatever instance, passed it, it could certainly be appealed.

Yeah.

So I don't think we can really go forward.

Yeah.

Okay.

So how do we go about denying it? What's the procedure?

I would say we close the public hearing. Who had a question?

No, I was just going to say, just make a motion explaining why it was denied.

Well, we have to close the public hearing first. Yeah.

Yes, you have to close it, the public hearing.

It's not de facto closed?

I do have a recommended motion that could be used based on the findings, if I'd like to share with you.

Wait a minute.

How about one thing first? Should we close the public hearing first?

Let's close the public hearing.

All right, I move we close the public hearing.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Byron. It was made by Kevin Wilcox, by the way. Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

It's unanimous. Okay. So now as far as the application goes, Linda, you have something you want us to put into the record?

Yes. Now you've all received the staff report ahead of time by Peter. This was just an amendment based on today's discovery. and finding.

That's all really mute because that was all in an improper public hearing and it's just what we need now is the motion to deny it.

Okay, give me one minute.

Does this have to be made into positive?

No. No, not in this case.

Okay.

Okay, can you all see the shared screen?

Yes. That's not the whole motion, is it?

No, no, the most recommended motion is at the end. This is just based on the failure to comply with the public hearing notice on the regulations. Yes.

Peter's memo was dated June 4, with his staff reports.

Okay.

Yeah.

Can you make that a little bigger?

I think you can pinch it to zoom out to Alan on your screen if you have that.

Yeah, I can't.

There's a little, if you move the cursor over the image, you may have a zoom button.

Linda, you can also click where it says view at the top. You see what I'm talking about? The little ribbon.

The ribbon. Doc. You see the content being...

It says, like, file, home, insert, design. You see, like, at the very top.

Oh, you mean my, yes.

Yeah, if you go to view, you can click on that.

So I can read that if you want. You don't have to make it any larger. I can make the motion and we can move on.

Are you bragging?

I'm not bragging.

I don't even have my glasses on.

Well, I mean, if someone can, if someone can read it, then, yeah.

All right, Kevin, go for it.

I move that the Bloomfield Inland Wetlands and Water Courses Commission deny the IWWC application for the property located at 141 Wintonbury Avenue, Bloomfield, Connecticut, for the following reason. The basis for this denial is the applicant's failure to comply with the mandatory public hearing notice requirements set forth in section 9.3 of the Bloomfield Inland Wetlands and Water Courses regulations, including the failure to post the required public hearing sign or signs on the subject property and failure to provide the required affidavit of compliance. Further finds that the clients with section 9.3 is a mandatory requirement of the commission's regulations to the failure to post the required signs resulted in a defect in the public hearing notice process. Three, the notice effect cannot be cured because all available statutory Extensions have been exhausted for as a result, the commission is unable to proceed on a legally sufficient public hearing record. Therefore, the application is denied without prejudice to the submission of a new application. Okay.

Is there a second to that? I'll second it. Second by David, any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Abstain? It's unanimous.

So Mr. Costello apparently has a question.

Yeah. Mr. Costello.

Or he'd like to fume at us. No, no, certainly not. Actually, I wanted to start the meeting off by thanking everybody for their time on such short notice on this beautiful evening. I'm sure everybody had something else they would rather be doing tonight. So we do thank the commission for their time. I was just a little, just for clarity's sake, are we saying that the signs were never posted or that they weren't posted for the duration that they were supposed to be posted?

I believe it was a duration.

Yeah, I noticed in our bylaws, it looks like it has to be not removed later than three days after the public hearing completed. I'm guessing that was part of the explanation. I'm sorry, Stephen, go ahead. I don't know if that was part of the explanation, but I know we definitely spoke of it being, you know, for the duration, but it's like three days after, at least as of whatever version I have, I don't think they've been amended.

Basically, that is stating just for clarification that the signs, you know, after the completion of the public hearing, you know, has to be submitted back within three days.

Okay. Was there just some confusion when we brought them back? Because we brought them back on the day of the initial public hearing. I'm just wondering why this is coming up now and not then. We would have loved to have avoided this.

So that was discovered today. I'm not sure why it was brought back. I don't know who instructed you to bring them back. The instructions, from my knowledge, has always been that you return it when the public hearing is completed and closed. Um, and I'm not sure what was, what was said. Um, I don't know who, you know, what, what confusion was there prior. Um, unfortunately Peter's not here. Um, and this was discovered, you know, during his absence. Um, So that's just basically it. Staff in the front, they normally just take it in. If you're returning your sign, they don't really track all of the legal notice, the statutory requirements. They just basically accept it. If you want to return it, then here's your deposit back. These are assigned back.

but I'm not sure I get that from, from staff, but I, I'd given these, this was directly to back to Peter. So I would, you know, I would just would have thought that even though the onus, the onus is apparently on me for that. Just another quick clarifying point. So are we basically going to need to start the process all over again? If we resubmit the application.

Okay.

That being the case, just, okay. Thanks Linda. Just, just so I'd understand. So in the future, We would not return the signs until the completion of the public hearing. They would remain in the ground.

That's correct. For the remainder of that, it remains open. Yes.

And I think we can incorporate some of the other public hearing into this. I'm not sure. I have to look into that. Some of the other meetings into the new application, so we don't have to go through all that.

I don't know. This is a new application. I mean, it's considered a new application. So you would have to, for the record, treat it as a new application.

Okay. Yeah. There's my answer.

All right. One other question related to that. There were two things initially. We had a wetlands map amendment in the application. The wetlands map amendment was approved. So that is still... That's still in effect. Great. Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah. This is for this particular public hearing.

And that also required signs too.

Yes. And I believe that maybe that's why it was returned. Was it returned after that amendment was approved? I mean, that's a possibility.

I can't speak to that. I just know that we returned them the day of the initial public hearing, which I believe was on the 16th.

Yeah.

So one other quick jump, kind of springboarding off that last question I had, would the signs be updated in the event that the public hearing continues? Would we need to come back and post new signs with new information on them? Or would the original signs be sufficient?

The signs would be sufficient. It's all the same. Basically, it's saying there's a pending application for public hearing, a land use pending application on this property. And The abutters, you will have to send out the letters again, as well as the town will then also send the legal notices out to be published in the current.

You'll have to fill out the conflict of interest form again, too.

That's correct. Yeah.

Yeah. So just basically, you know, the whole application. Okay.

And you can request a waiver of the fee. You'll have to pay it when you put the application in, but you can request a waiver of the fee.

Thanks, Al.

Okay. I don't know if I'll vote for it, but you can request it.

You can try. Thank you, though. I appreciate that. Nice, Alan. Very nice.

Well, thank you all for your understanding. I apologize that, you know, this, you know, I apologize for the confusion, Kevin, and you know, let us know how we can help you move forward.

Yeah. It looks like there's a question from the public. I'm not sure if it's appropriate.

Robert Dickinson.

No, that's the same question from before.

I think that was, will he be able to see the names of anybody speaking? Oh, yeah.

I apologize.

Yeah.

All right. So is there a motion to adjourn? So moved.

I'll second.

Seconded by Paul. Thanks, Paul. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstain? It's unanimous. All right. Thank you all for coming, making the effort.

I appreciate everyone's time tonight. I know it was a hassle to, you know, so close to the holidays, making the meeting. So we do appreciate everybody's time. So I apologize for not being able to make the last meeting.

I can never be mad at another Kevin.

All right. Can I, can I get a confirmation that the commission or who can be attendance for the July 20th meeting?

Kevin, I expect to see you at the next one.

Thank you all. All right. I'm going to stop the live stream.