Land Use-Urban Redevelopment Committee Meeting – July 23, 2026

Note on date: The transcript and minutes indicate the meeting occurred on July 22, 2026, but the provided instructions specify the meeting date as July 23, 2026. This summary uses the instructed date but notes the discrepancy.

The Land Use-Urban Redevelopment Committee of the Stamford Board of Representatives met remotely to consider a single agenda item: Ordinance LU32.009, which would establish a Conservation Commission. After extensive debate, multiple amendment attempts, and procedural votes, the committee approved the ordinance as written and advanced it to a public hearing before the full Board of Representatives.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Richard Freedman (Board of Finance member and President of Garden Homes Management) expressed strong opposition to the ordinance as written, arguing that even an advisory commission could be weaponized to delay housing development. He proposed two specific restrictions: (1) the commission shall not make recommendations to zoning, planning, or wetlands agencies on proposed land use changes; and (2) the commission shall not review land use or building permit applications of any type. He stated that because Stamford plays a singular role in constructing housing for the state, different safeguards are warranted.
• Ralph Blessing (Land Use Bureau Chief) and Eleanor Blomstrom (Environmental Sustainability Coordinator) spoke in support of the ordinance, emphasizing that the commission would focus on big-picture conservation policy, grant applications, and studies—not individual project review. Blessing noted that current staff lack bandwidth for open space planning and coastal resiliency work.
• Robert Clausi (Director of the Environmental Protection Board) supported the split, explaining that the EPB is overwhelmed with wetlands permitting and cannot dedicate time to conservation work.
• Cynthia Anger (Assistant Corporation Counsel) provided legal opinions throughout the meeting, stating that the amendments proposed by Freedman and others likely exceed what state statute authorizes and could create legal ambiguity.

Discussion Items

• Presentation by Rep. Camporeale (sponsor): She explained that the Conservation Commission is authorized under Connecticut General Statute §7-131a, is purely advisory, does not issue permits, enforce regulations, or make binding decisions. The ordinance simply separates existing conservation functions from the EPB’s regulatory duties. She argued that the commission would help the city apply for grants, study natural resources, and provide science-based advice—without impacting housing development.
• Rep. Field’s motion to approve as written (seconded): He argued that all questions had been answered by city professionals, other towns haven’t added restrictions, and the commission structurally cannot stop projects. He urged sending the ordinance to a public hearing immediately.
• Co-Chair Hughes’ concerns: He questioned the origin of the ordinance (asserting it was requested by a private citizen, not the EPB) and expressed concern about potential misuse. He proposed an amendment to restrict the commission from acquiring land or easements and to limit acceptance of gifts. He also noted that any addition of a commission means more referral letters and steps in the development process.
• Rep. Boudreau’s initial amendment (failed for lack of second): Would have given the mayor veto power over land acquisitions approved by the Board of Representatives. He withdrew after no second.
• Rep. Gardner’s amendment to Hughes’ amendment: Incorporated Freedman’s language (no recommendations on land use changes and no review of land use/building permits). The amendment was read into the record. Corporation Counsel opined it was likely unlawful. The amendment failed 3-4-2 (Hughes, Adams, Gardner in favor; Price, Beckham, Field, Finkel against; Boudreau, Pelliccia abstained).
• Co-Chair Hughes’ amendment (as originally proposed): After Gardner’s amendment failed, the committee voted on Hughes’ original amendment (restricting land acquisition and easements). It failed 4-5-0 (Hughes, Adams, Gardner, Pelliccia in favor; Price, Beckham, Boudreau, Field, Finkel against).

Key Outcomes

• Main Motion to Approve Ordinance for Public Hearing passed 6-2-1 (Price, Adams, Beckham, Boudreau, Field, Finkel in favor; Hughes, Gardner against; Pelliccia abstained). The ordinance will now proceed to the full Board of Representatives for a public hearing.
• Meeting adjourned at 8:57 PM.