Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Board of Landscape Architects approves several applicants for licensure and exam eligibility
Summary
At its May 20, 2025 meeting, the Connecticut State Board of Landscape Architects approved multiple applicants to sit for exams or receive licensure, including a conditional approval that requires an updated CLARB record.
The Connecticut State Board of Landscape Architects on May 20 approved several applicants to sit for licensure exams or receive licenses, and conditionally cleared one candidate pending an updated verification record from CLARB (the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards).
The approvals matter because state licensure determines who may legally practice landscape architecture in Connecticut and how the board verifies experience and education for candidates.
In old business the board considered an application held over from a prior meeting for a candidate identified on the record as Krista Ott. The applicant joined the meeting and said, “That is me. If you have any questions, that's why I joined today.” Board members noted gaps and unverifiable items in the CLARB-transmitted employment history; the board agreed to allow Ott to sit for the exam provided that the applicant submits an updated CLARB record showing the missing employment entry. A board member moved to approve Ott to sit for the exam on that condition; the motion passed by voice vote.
Under new business the board moved through four additional applicants. The board approved Lorelei Williams to sit for the examination despite noting that two exam sections had been taken before the candidate had accrued the full two years of requisite experience; a board member explained the panel expected to see more such cases as applicants adjust to the rule requiring two years of qualifying experience before sitting. The board then approved three more candidates in a grouped motion: Zinni Zau (licensure), Michael Rataco (licensure), and Rashim Baerga (to sit for the exam). The grouped motion passed by voice vote; the chair characterized the vote as unanimous among members present.
Board members and staff repeatedly emphasized that CLARB verification records are a crucial part of the licensing file and asked staff to follow up when CLARB’s record is incomplete. The board also stressed that approvals to “sit for the exam” are different from final licensure decisions and that applicants must still meet documentation requirements.
No disciplinary or complaint items influenced the licensing votes; the board’s DCP (Department of Consumer Protection) investigation division reported no new complaints at the start of the meeting.
The board adjourned after completing licensing business.
