Public Meetings - Middletown, Connecticut

The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) met on Thursday, September 3, 2026, at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall. The meeting was called to order by Chair Callie Grippo. Board members present included Richard Pelletier, Nick Ficaro, Gary Middleton, Andrew Santaniello, and staff Tom Hazel (Zoning Enforcement Officer). The meeting adjourned at 6:40 PM. Consent Calendar - Approval of Minutes: The board unanimously approved the minutes of the July 8, 2026 special meeting. (Motion by [member], seconded, all in favor.) Public Comments & Testimony - Fence and Shed Variances (66 Nathan Hale Road): James Reeve, representing his son (neighbor), spoke against both variances. He stated that a 6-foot fence was already present and that the applicant had added 4 feet to it, calling it a "spite fence." He also noted the shed was placed too close to the property line (about 2 feet) and that issues with thrown items predated the fence. - Digital Sign Variance (181 Randolph Road): Deputy Fire Marshal Ryan Parmalee (South Fire District) spoke in favor, describing their own digital sign as less distracting than temporary yard signs and beneficial for public safety messages. Former Mayor Sebastian Giuliano also spoke in support, emphasizing the school’s role as a community facility and the sign’s ability to convey information quickly. Discussion Items - Variance for 10-Foot Fence (V2026-4): Jose Tapia, the applicant, explained he erected the 10-foot fence for privacy and safety after neighbor disputes and police advice. Staff noted the fence was built without a permit, added to an existing 6-foot fence, and placed on the property line (code requires 4-foot setback for a 10-foot fence). Board members expressed sympathy but concluded the hardship was personal, not tied to the land’s physical characteristics. The variance was considered inappropriate under zoning code requirements. - Variance for Shed Setback (V2026-5): The 7x10-foot shed was attached to the garage on the south side, built with a permit but placed too close to the property line (estimated at 1.9 feet, code requires 10 feet). Staff acknowledged that the GIS aerial photo used in permitting was imprecise. Board members noted the neighborhood’s pre-zoning era structures and the small lot size, finding a hardship related to the land’s dimensions and consistent with neighborhood character. - Variance for Digital Sign (V2026-6): Xavier High School, represented by attorney Rich Corella and school officials, requested a digital message sign to improve visibility of the school entrance and reduce accidents on Randolph Road. The sign would be 27 square feet (code allows 18 sq. ft. for institutional signs) and 6.5 feet tall (code allows 6 ft.). The slope of the land was cited as a hardship for height and size. The digital aspect is prohibited under current code (Section 4.18.7.3) but allowed as an institutional sign if defined as illuminated. Staff clarified that digital signs are not considered internally illuminated and have been previously allowed only through error (e.g., Beaman School). The board deliberated on whether the digital feature constituted a land-based hardship or was better addressed via a text amendment. Key Outcomes - Fence Variance (V2026-4): Denied. Vote: 5–0 against (all members opposed). The board found no hardship tied to the land. - Shed Variance (V2026-5): Approved. Vote: 5–0 in favor. Board cited small lot size and neighborhood precedent. - Digital Sign Variance (V2026-6): The board voted separately on two components: - Size and height (overall 27 sq. ft., 6.5 ft. tall): Approved 5–0. - Digital message capability: Approved 3–2 (Callie Grippo, Richard Pelletier, and Andrew Santaniello in favor; Gary Middleton and Nick Ficaro opposed). The board conditioned the sign to be on a timer with no lights after school hours.

This was a special remote meeting of the Middletown General Council Commission held on August 27, 2026, though the transcript indicates the meeting took place on Wednesday, August 26 at approximately 6:33 PM. The chair noted that all commissioners were present except Councilman Pellino. The meeting covered approval of previous minutes, a correction to a tax abatement ordinance for a historic property, and an executive session resulting in a resolution. Consent Calendar - Approval of Meeting Minutes (July 16, 2026): The commission unanimously approved the minutes from the July 16, 2026 meeting via a motion and second with no discussion. Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public were present to comment. The chair confirmed with Attorney Watsneski that no attendees were in the virtual meeting. Discussion Items - Historical Structure Rehabilitation Tax Abatement Amendment for Aaron P's House (116 Washington Street): Attorney Watsneski explained that the commission had previously approved a tax abatement for this historic lawyer's office. During final paperwork review, the Economic and Community Development (ECD) department found that only $175,000 of the $239,000 in repairs qualified under the historic rehabilitation guidelines. As a result, the abatement was adjusted from 70% over 10 years to 65% over 9 years, which was noted to be more favorable to the city. The amendment had already passed through ECD and the Finance, Government, and Design Review committee. The commission heard no questions and unanimously approved the amendment to replace the original ordinance. - Executive Session: The commission voted to enter executive session with Attorney Watsneski. The subject of the executive session was not publicly disclosed. After reconvening, a motion was made to approve a resolution that was discussed during the session. Key Outcomes - Minutes Approved: Unanimously approved. - Ordinance Amendment Approved: Unanimously approved the correction to the historical structure rehabilitation tax abatement for Aaron P's House, reducing the qualifying amount to $175,000, with a 65% abatement over 9 years. - Executive Session Resolution Approved: Unanimously approved a resolution discussed in executive session. The content and implications of this resolution were not publicized. - Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned shortly after the resolution vote.

The Middletown Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on August 26, 2026, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers and via WebEx. The primary agenda item was a continued public hearing on a petition by Wesleyan University to rezone multiple parcels on Church Street, High Street, and William Street from the Downtown Village District (DVD) to the Institutional Development District (ID), with one parcel rezoned to the MXC zone. After extensive public testimony and commission deliberation, the petition was unanimously denied. Public Comments & Testimony - The public hearing drew approximately 20 speakers, including Wesleyan students, faculty, residents of the Traverse Square neighborhood, and community advocates. Every speaker opposed the rezoning. - Jennifer Alexander (110 Washington Street) argued that the DVD zone has successfully protected the historic fabric and warned that rezoning would strip the Design Review and Preservation Board (DRPB) of its authority. - Brendan Barry (Wesleyan student) criticized the lack of specific project commitments, calling the rezoning a "blank check" that would allow Wesleyan to build oversized structures inconsistent with the neighborhood. - Melissa Shulke (3 Hubbard Street) cited a local example of unfulfilled development promises and urged protection of the village district. - Diana Martinez (143 Prospect Street) accused Wesleyan of ignoring community input and pointed to past failures, such as the closure of Green Street Learning Center, and demanded a binding community benefits agreement. - Aria Dancing Honey (72B Home Avenue), a Wesleyan student and Traverse Square program coordinator, highlighted community distrust and asked for denial. - Maya Nelson (Wesleyan student) testified about negative impacts on Traverse Square families, including increased noise, dust, and health risks from demolition. - Renee Treber (10 Coval Hill Road, Portland) noted that the DVD provides vital community review that would be lost. - Rowan Angela Raudebush (Wesleyan student) raised environmental and health concerns, particularly lead dust from demolition of 1970s buildings. - Krishna Winston (655 Bow Lane) emphasized historic preservation and the value of older homes. - S. Stokes (Wesleyan student) argued that the DVD holds Wesleyan accountable and that the university has acted in bad faith on labor and community issues. - Steve Beeblitz (Glastonbury) pointed out that the four houses on William Street are restorable and urged their preservation. - Sam Bretschneider (Wesleyan student) opposed the rezoning as inconsistent with the POCD and harmful to Traverse Square. - Lucas Holman (Wesleyan student, student government) called the proposal a surrender of city control to a non-taxpaying institution. - Catherine Johnson (161 College Street) argued that the ID zone would allow a five-story dorm incompatible with the scale of the neighborhood. - Yael (recent Wesleyan graduate) described how Wesleyan's development has not benefited the community and urged retention of DVD oversight. - Ed McKeon (76 Pearl Street) worried about long-term change in leadership and the loss of protective zoning. - Liam Dorian (Wesleyan student) asked the commission to reject the rezoning without binding community benefits. - Saul FairhealthCon (49 Home Avenue, Wesleyan student) requested a denial without prejudice and demanded a project labor agreement and community benefits. - Blythe Lavin (Wesleyan student) stated students do not want to live in dorms built without community support. - Evie Lee (41 Lawn Ave, Wesleyan student and union member) cited lack of transparency and Wesleyan's budget cuts to community programs. - Hannah Frank (35 Foss Hill Drive) emphasized the unequal relationship and asked for denial. - Coco Raleigh (185 High Street) argued that the rezoning would enable development without meaningful community input, especially for Traverse Square. - Casey Dunning Soray (Wesleyan student) said Wesleyan does not consider student or community needs in major decisions. - Uma Sinderham (49 Brinyard Avenue) urged denial until binding agreements are in place. - Trevor Brooks (227 Pine Street) cited Wesleyan's past funding cuts to community partnerships. - Several other online speakers echoed similar concerns. Wesleyan representatives (Jesse Langer, Jeff Murphy) presented a slide deck and responded to criticism, arguing the rezoning would allow for a 200-bed replacement project, streetscape improvements, and that the ID zone still permits site plan review and public hearings. They acknowledged not having a specific project yet and noted they had engaged with some community groups. Discussion Items - Director Kozikowski advised the commission on the legal framework for zone map amendments, noting 11 criteria under Section 7.3.2, and reminded them that the decision cannot be conditioned and that they have 65 days to decide. - Commissioner Eckstrom (Vice Chair) stated the rezoning is not in line with the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) and that the DVD zone has served its purpose; he would not support the change. - Commissioner Pattavina (Chair) echoed Eckstrom, saying the proposal does not advance community connections and is inconsistent with the POCD. - Commissioner Monarca said the rezoning does not benefit the historic value of the area. - Commissioner Regan emphasized protecting the DVD to preserve commission powers. - Commissioner McAvoy noted Wesleyan should work within existing zones. - Commissioner Cunningham stated the applicant did not meet the burden for a zone change and requested more community outreach. - Commissioner Szynkowicz concurred that the sweeping change was not in the spirit of the original village district. Key Outcomes - Vote on Z2026-5 (Petition for Zoning Map Amendment): The commission held a roll-call vote on a motion to approve the rezoning. The motion failed unanimously (7 opposed, 0 in favor). All voting members (Chairman Pattavina, Vice Chair Eckstrom, Commissioners Monarca, Regan, Szynkowicz, Cunningham, McEvoy) voted nay. - The public hearing was closed before the vote, and the application was denied. - Other Business: The minutes of the August 12, 2026 meeting were approved with one abstention. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30 PM.

The City of Middletown's LGBTQI Plus Commission met in regular session on August 20, 2026 (the transcript lists August 19; the date of record is August 20) in a hybrid format. The commission unanimously approved a series of community events, received a comprehensive training on FOIA, ethics, and Pride history, and initiated work on commissioner resources. Agenda Amendment - Commissioner Angela Crowe moved to add three new-business items: a new commissioner guide, an event-planning guide, and a directory of community resources. The motion was seconded by Beth Shapiro and passed unanimously with the required supermajority. Consent Calendar - The minutes of the July 15, 2026 regular meeting were approved unanimously without discussion. Public Comments & Testimony - Beatrice Stacker, facilitator of Feminine Domain and affiliated with Trans Haven and Peer Pride, spoke in support of that event, describing its positive community impact for trans women and trans feminine people. She said attendees frequently tell her it is the first time they have been in a room with so many people like them. Discussion Items - FOIA, Ethics, and Pride History Workshop: Assistant General Counsel Christopher Ford covered the commission's origin, structure (13 members: 11 from the public and 2 common council members), term limits (three consecutive three-year terms), quorum (7 of 12), and state minority-party representation (no more than 8 Democrats). He explained FOIA requirements: meetings must be noticed, agendas posted 24 hours ahead, and all communications (email, text, social media) are public records. He also reviewed the ethics code, including personal and financial conflicts, gifts, and the need to avoid the appearance of impropriety. On Middletown Pride, he explained its public–private partnership model, the $51,000 city contribution, the sharp decline in sponsorship, and the need to identify about $50,000 in budget cuts or new revenue by December. - Financial Overview: Commissioner Beth Shapiro reported that Wesleyan University had reconfirmed its partnership and its employee resource group, Pause Pride at Wesleyan, would set up quarterly meetings. She noted the city's investment is not unique—citing the Anti-Racism Task Force's $80,000 funding—and that the commission remains financially stable. - Community Event Approvals: The commission reviewed event applications on a month-by-month basis while the fiscal agent search continues. It approved: - Trans Game Night (Sept 10, 6:45–9 p.m., at Albert and Hall, Wesleyan University): $115 food plus $50 stipend. Presenter Pax reported average attendance of 18 people, per-head food costs of roughly $7, and a survey comment from a participant who travels up to 50 miles. - Middletown Teen Group (Sept 16, 6–8 p.m., at Revive Art & Craft Supply): $425, for ages 13–18. - Feminine Domain (Sept 26, 2–4 p.m., at Perk on Main, referred to as "Pergon Main" in the transcript): $75. - Guardian Group (Sept 16, 6–8 p.m., at Revive Art & Craft Supply): approved for one session (cost not restated). - Parent/Caregiver Mixer (Aug 29, 10 a.m.–noon, at Revive Art & Craft Supply): one-off event. - Annual Stargazing (Oct 9, 8–11 p.m., at Van Vleck Observatory): amended from $600 to $450 after Commissioner Laura Simmons expressed concern about cumulative spending. The amendment and the final approval passed unanimously. - Fiscal Agent RFP: No bids have been opened; the deadline is the end of September, with action expected at the September meeting. - Working Groups: Angela Crowe proposed three informal working groups to create a commissioner guide, an event checklist, and a directory of partner organizations. She and Beth Shapiro volunteered for the first; Christopher Ford offered existing checklists and contacts. The commission agreed to keep these as informal groups (under quorum) to avoid FOIA meeting requirements. - Old Business: Commissioner Angela reported on the recent Trans Game Night: 36 people attended, including three commissioners, and the event went well. The commission also noted the removal of item 5B (report) and no update on the Pride Fellowship Program. Key Outcomes - Agenda amendment and July minutes approved unanimously. - Six community events approved unanimously, with the stargazing amount set at $450 after an amendment. - Events will be submitted and approved monthly while the commission completes its financial review. - Informal working groups were established for commissioner resources; initial volunteers are Angela Crowe and Beth Shapiro. - The fiscal agent RFP remains open with bids due in late September.

The Common Council held a special meeting on August 20, 2026, at 6:00 PM to consider two proposed bond ordinances for referral to the November 3, 2026 ballot and to approve mayoral appointments. After public testimony and extensive discussion, the council approved a $30,426,000 bond for the Board of Education infrastructure project (amended to remove the “Phase I” label) and sent it to voters. The proposed $38,000,000 bond for a downtown parking arcade failed on a 3‑8 vote, thus not proceeding to referendum. The council also approved a special event permit for Zion First Baptist Church and confirmed multiple mayoral appointments. Public Comments & Testimony - Roger Pilant (80 Round Hill Road) spoke in opposition to the $35–38 million parking bond, citing a pattern of poor capital planning, unfulfilled past promises (e.g., the boathouse project, the original 2020 Cork Street parking arcade replacement), and the need for a line‑item audit of the original $20 million parking allocation. He urged the council to deny referendum authorization until such accountability is provided. - Paul John Frito (369 Pine Street, former mayor) expressed concern about the cumulative debt burden on taxpayers, noting that the two bonds together would add approximately $50 million net cost to the city. He suggested delaying the parking garage, exploring private sector investment, and considering 20‑year bonds to reduce annual costs. He also highlighted rising evictions (about 150 per year) as a sign of affordability stress. - Pam (chair of the Parking Advisory Committee, business owner on Court Street) read a letter from the committee supporting both the parking garage at the arcade site and the parking deck at Millily Lot. She emphasized the parking deficit downtown and the negative impact on businesses since the old arcade was demolished. Discussion Items Board of Education Bond Ordinance ($30,426,000) - Superintendent Joseph McCary and Facilities Director Marco Gaylord presented the proposal: a $30.426 million bond for district‑wide infrastructure improvements (roofs, HVAC, building management systems, security upgrades, and oil tanks/boilers). The state would reimburse 67.14% (approximately $20.4 million), leaving a net cost to the city of about $10 million over 2–5 years. - Council members questioned the “Phase I” designation, the prioritization of projects, and the scope of security upgrades. The council voted unanimously (11‑0) to amend the ordinance by removing the words “Phase I” to avoid voter confusion. The amended ordinance was then approved 11‑0, and the resolution to place it on the November ballot passed 11‑0. Downtown Parking Arcade Bond ($38,000,000) - Mayor Nocera and Economic & Community Development staff (including an online representative) described “Option C” for a parking garage behind the police station. The ground level would provide 165 spaces, with a second level that could add up to another 165 spaces (exact number to be determined during design). The project would also serve as a platform for a future pedestrian bridge over Route 9 to Harbor Park (funded by the state) and as seed money to attract developers and state/federal grants. - Councilwoman Salafia expressed concern that the concept plan left the upper level ambiguous (“to be determined”) and that the city was not maximizing parking spaces despite a claimed parking deficit. She also noted that the site had been vacant for 10 years. Other council members questioned the overall cost, the need for the garage, and the potential for private development to contribute. - After a recess, the council voted on the bond ordinance: 3 ayes, 8 nays, 1 absent. The motion failed, so the parking bond will not appear on the November ballot. Zion First Baptist Church Special Event - Resolution 3D approved a free end‑of‑summer concert, “Soul on the Green,” on August 29, 2026, from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM on the Middletown Green. The city waived Showmobile and personnel fees, capping expenditure at $1,000. The motion passed with one abstention (Councilman Lafredo, who raised procedural concerns about bypassing committee review). Mayor’s Appointments - The council approved appointments to the following commissions/boards (with votes as noted): Harbor Improvement, Human Relations, Inland Wetlands, LGBTQIA, Long Hill Estate Authority, Mattabassett District, Middletown Commission of the Arts, Preservation Design Review Board, Sustainability Commission, Parking Advisory, Public Safety Telecommunications, Walter C. Jones Fund, Youth Service Advisory, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Cross Street Fire House Building Committee. Councilwoman Sweeney voted against several appointments, citing a lack of Republican input in the selection process. Key Outcomes - Board of Education Bond Ordinance – Approved 11‑0 (as amended to remove “Phase I”). The resolution to place the $30,426,000 bond referendum on the November 3, 2026 ballot passed 11‑0. - Downtown Parking Arcade Bond Ordinance – Failed 3‑8 (ayes: Lafredo, Spatola, Ford; nays: Blackwell, Fulton, Gennaro, Hart, Mangifico, Polino, Salafia, Sweeney; absent: Faulkner). The related resolution to send it to referendum was not acted upon. - Zion First Baptist Church Special Event – Approved with one abstention (Lafredo). - Mayoral Appointments – All appointments were confirmed, with some dissenting votes regarding representation process. - Next Steps – The BOE bond question will appear on the November 3, 2026 ballot for voter approval. The parking garage project will not proceed to referendum at this time.

Note: The agenda for this meeting originally listed the date as August 5, 2026, but the user-provided meeting date is August 18, 2026. This summary uses the user-provided date. The meeting was called to order with the Pledge of Allegiance. All members were voting members. The agency discussed a new 76-unit multi-family development, a pending notice of violation, and various agency review items. Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public spoke during the public open forum for items not on the agenda. Discussion Items - Notice of Violation – Amy and Erik Peterson, 120 Chamberlain Hill Road: Chair Carta reported that the notice has not yet been served (by police or marshal) because the property owner refused. He stated that the owner allegedly filled the pond despite being told not to. No further action was taken; the matter is expected to proceed with police presence. - New Business – 76-unit multi-family development (W2026-7): Richard Reynolds of Inland Land Design presented the project at 500 Washington Street, within the existing mobile home park. The proposal involves two multi-story residential buildings (56 one-bedroom, 18 two-bedroom) on the north side, with parking, access drives, and stormwater management. No wetlands will be disturbed; work is limited to the upland review area. A stormwater management area on the east side will be excavated to the high groundwater line and planted as a wetland to compensate for fill placed in the floodplain. Existing structures and debris along the brook will be removed. The agency discussed floodplain issues, backwater flooding from the Coginchaug River, and benefits to downstream properties. A motion was made to accept the application and set a public hearing. Because the next regular meeting date (September 2) conflicts with a car show, the agency voted to cancel that meeting and schedule a special meeting on a date to be determined. - Agency Review – Cromwell Warehouse Project: Environmental Planner James Sipperly reported receiving a notice from the Town of Cromwell about a proposed warehouse within 500 feet of the Middletown corporate border. The project is adjacent to an existing pond and about 100 feet from the Mattabesset River. He is reviewing the plans for potential comments. Another item on Randolph Road was briefly discussed; the city attorney has requested an updated observation letter to be sent certified. - Communications – Pond and Lake Treatments: The agency noted upcoming treatments: Slider's Bar and Grill pond (Cypress Pond) on August 7; West Lake pond and Pistol Creek; Jonas Center Pond and Mattabesset River Coves (where hydrilla has been spotted). The treatment uses a calcium sulfate product. Chair Carta noted concerns about public notices for kayakers and said he would follow up with the treatment coordinator. - Other Business: Member Jennifer reported progress on contacting the DPW about regulations; she will submit electronic notice soon. The Chamberlain Hill violation (above) was revisited. Key Outcomes - Application accepted for public hearing: The agency voted unanimously to accept application W2026-7 (76-unit development) and set a public hearing for a future date (special meeting to be scheduled). - Minutes of July 1, 2026 approved: The minutes were approved with a correction of the name "Scoot O'Brien" to "Scott O'Brien." The vote was unanimous. - Directives: Chair Carta and James Sipperly will draft an updated observation letter regarding the Randolph Road matter for the city attorney. Sipperly will also contact the pond treatment office about public notices. - Next steps: The September 2 regular meeting is canceled; a special meeting date for the public hearing on the 76-unit development will be announced. The violation notice for the Peterson property will be served with police assistance.

The Fair Rent Commission of Middletown, Connecticut, convened on August 17, 2026, at 7:06 PM, adjourning at 10:20 PM. The meeting addressed several complaints, stipulations, and a bylaw amendment. Commissioners voted to dismiss one complaint for lack of jurisdiction, approved two stipulations, tabled two other matters, and amended the rules for reviewing new complaints. Consent Calendar - Minutes Approval: The commission unanimously approved the minutes from the June 8, 2026, regular meeting. Public Comments & Testimony - A member of the public (speaker unidentified) expressed frustration about receiving nearly 600 pages of documents (250 pages plus a 350-page manual) the night before the meeting, arguing it was an abuse of the commission’s time and that parties should exchange materials a week prior. The commission acknowledged the issue and noted that late submissions are admitted at the commission’s discretion. - Both a respondent (Alan) and a complainant (Jennifer) voiced similar frustrations about late notice and documents, but no further action was taken. Discussion Items - New Complaint Review: The commission reviewed eight new complaints. One complaint (Pollock) was retroactive, alleging excessive rent and repair issues from 2023; the tenant had moved out three years ago. The commission voted 5-0 to dismiss that complaint. The remaining seven complaints (three against Alpha Capital at 693 Washington Street, three against Rapallo properties, and one retaliation claim by Tillman) were accepted for further proceedings. - Reconsideration – Nestor v. Housing Authority: Ms. Nestor requested reconsideration of the commission’s June 8 dismissal, which had ruled the commission lacked jurisdiction because the Housing Authority was not her landlord and her rent (subsidy) change was not a rental charge. Nestor argued the rent had been raised from $530 to $1,995 after retaliation. The commission, after hearing from both sides (Nestor and Housing Authority attorney Estrella), declined to reconsider. A motion to not reconsider passed, and the case was dismissed. Commissioners suggested Nestor seek help from legal aid, Connecticut Fair Housing Center, or state representatives. - Stipulation – Curran v. Alpha Capital (693 Washington Street): A stipulated order was presented: rent set at $1,150/month from August 1, 2026, to January 31, 2027, with no retroactive rent, and completion of repairs (two windows to be replaced by Oct 31). The tenant, Ms. Curran, stated she was told the rent would rise again in January. Commissioners expressed concern that a six-month term violated the usual one-year term unless there was good cause. After debate, the commission voted to table the stipulation to allow the parties to discuss a one-year term, with the risk it could go to a full hearing if not resolved. - Tillman v. Harris (Retaliation): Ms. Tillman alleged retaliation by her landlord after she complained about numerous violations. The landlord argued the notice to quit was solely for non-payment after the housing authority suspended its subsidy due to tenant-caused problems. The commission heard lengthy testimony from both sides. Key disputes: whether the housing authority’s letter (Exhibit F) telling Tillman she was responsible for full rent was sent in error. The commission voted to table the matter to the September 9, 2026, meeting to hear directly from a representative of the Middletown Housing Authority (Isabel Pike) to clarify the subsidy status. - Stipulation – Roa/Moda (Caravana): Approved: rent set at $1,580/month from August 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, with no rent increase before July 1, 2027, and no retroactive rent. Unanimously accepted. - Stipulation – Hogarth: Approved: tenants to vacate by September 30, 2026, in exchange for no rent due for July, August, and September, withdrawal of retaliation claim, and no eviction before October 1. Unanimously accepted. - Stipulation – Northwood Apartments: Approved: no rent increase under current lease; any new lease starting November 2026 will have a maximum increase of $75, plus completion of seven work orders by September 30, 2026. Unanimously accepted. - Bylaw Amendment – Section 6.1: The commission discussed and approved an amendment to the complaint review process. Under the new rule, if any commissioner sees a potential jurisdictional issue in a new complaint, they can flag it for a specific hearing; otherwise, complaints will be accepted without detailed public review. The motion passed after a technical amendment was also approved. Key Outcomes - Dismissed: Pollock complaint (excessive rent/repairs from 2023) – voted 5-0. - Reconsideration Denied: Nestor complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction – motion to not reconsider passed. - Tabled: Curran stipulation – to allow landlord to consider one-year term; status September 9 meeting. - Tabled: Tillman retaliation complaint – to hear from MHA representative; status September 9 meeting. - Approved as Stipulated: Roa/Moda (rent freeze), Hogarth (cash-for-keys), Northwood (rent cap + repairs) – all unanimous. - Bylaw Amendment Passed: Section 6.1 revised to streamline complaint review. - Next Regular Meeting: September 9, 2026, at 7:00 PM in the same room.

Middletown Code Enforcement Meeting - August 14, 2026\n\nThe Middletown Code Enforcement Committee met on August 14, 2026, at 9:03 AM. The meeting focused primarily on the status of 142 South Main Street, including inspections by fire, health, building, and land use departments. Other items included a proposed fire pit ordinance, updates on 455 and 465 Middlefield Street, and a municipal cannabis ordinance. Public comments were heard regarding increasing code violation fines to the maximum $2,000 per day.\n\n Consent Calendar\n- Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the previous meeting were approved unanimously. (Motion by Dean, second by Scott).\n\n Public Comments & Testimony\n- Sarah Truex (representing the tenants union) asked for clarification on the process for increasing fines to $2,000 per day. She noted that the maximum penalty per state statute is $2,000 per day, as discussed in the July 1st meeting, and sought to understand the next steps.\n- Troy Guswin (resident of 142 South Main Street) expressed full support for increasing the existing fine of $100 per day to the maximum of $2,000 per day, stating that it would force landlords and code violators to address problems in a timely manner and benefit the city.\n\n Discussion Items\n- Update on 142 South Main Street: The mayor requested a coordinated response to resident concerns. Fire Marshal Chris reported a recent fire and life safety inspection: no major violations, a 30-day abatement given, with reinspection scheduled for September 8. Health Department representative Tanil reported that a follow-up inspection found all health code issues addressed except for a stairwell and roof leak (under building code). Building Official Dean noted that a permit was pulled to locate and fix a roof leak, and that the elevator was decommissioned by the state due to the building's pre-1971 construction; all affected tenants were offered alternative apartments. Land Use (zoning) reported the exterior was well-maintained. General Counsel Brig (Brig Smith) noted the need to clarify enforcement mechanisms and fines for violations by a tenants association, and will coordinate with the fire marshal and mayor.\n- Proposed Fire Pit Ordinance: The draft is still under review by the fire marshal's office; no update at this meeting. The item will be followed up offline by Christopher.\n- 455 and 465 Middlefield Street: No update from the mayor's office; the case is in court with appeals ongoing. A brief has been filed.\n- Municipal Action Against Landlords Renting to Businesses Selling Cannabis Without a License: No update. An omnibus public cannabis ordinance is being developed; the Board of Health will review it next month, then it will go to Public Safety, General Counsel, and Common Council.\n\n Key Outcomes\n- Minutes approved.\n- Fire inspection follow-up scheduled for September 8 at 142 South Main Street.\n- General Counsel (Brig Smith) will research and provide a clear definition of enforcement and fines for code violations, including the process for levying fines (current $100 per day, with discussion of increasing to $2,000 per day per state statute). This will be coordinated with the fire marshal and mayor, then brought to the appropriate committees and Common Council for approval.\n- Building code permit for roof leak repair at 142 South Main Street is in progress; Dean will follow up.\n- Next meeting scheduled in one month (approximately September 14, 2026).

No agenda, minutes, or transcript were provided for this meeting. Therefore, no summary can be generated.