Residents warn council over commercial license on protected open space; request FOIA records and non-renewal

During the second public hearing of the July 6 meeting, residents raised sustained concerns about a license granted for commercial activity on property they described as protected open space (referred to in testimony variously as Gata/Guided Farm or associated with the Bridal family). Rogers Pilant told the council his Freedom of Information Act request filed April 29 received a response seven weeks late and omitted foundational acquisition documents the speaker said define the land as protected for passive recreation.

Pilant said the missing documents (described in testimony as 1991–1997 Gata Farm acquisition intent materials) establish that commercial activity is inappropriate and that the public and appointed commissions were bypassed: “The license chosen suspiciously — taxpayers deserve better than decisions made through loopholes,” he said, urging three commitments: that the license not be renewed, that no commercial business be allowed on protected property in the future, and that all documents be released promptly and fully.

Sebastian Giuliano and Rob Van Rhine also addressed the council. Giuliano noted the planning-and-zoning process, invoked Connecticut General Statute 8‑24 and questioned why a transaction that functions like a lease did not go before the Planning and Zoning Commission; he said past administrations also sought procedural workarounds and urged better compliance with the law’s spirit. Van Rhine urged honoring the Bridal family’s original intent, saying the family sold property at below‑market value so the public could preserve it for passive recreation.

Mayor Nocera responded that the administration is reviewing the process, said the property will be returned to its original condition, and noted that the conservation commission had lacked a quorum to consider the matter earlier. The mayor said alternative sites are being explored and that the administration had heard public concerns. The mayor did not state a date for release of the documents Pilant requested nor commit in the record to a non‑renewal date for the current license.

No formal action was taken during the meeting to alter or revoke the license; council members asked for additional information and the mayor pledged follow-up and further review.