Residents and conservation advisers fault Middletown over short‑term license for flower farm on conserved land

At Monday’s Middletown Common Council meeting, a steady stream of residents and members of the Conservation and Agriculture Commission criticized the city’s decision to approve a nine‑month license allowing a pick‑your‑own flower business to operate on the Geidas (Bridal) conservation property.

Residents and commission members said they were not properly consulted and called the license a troubling precedent for land the city bought with open‑space bond funds. "There was no public notice, no opportunity for the Conservation Commission to advise, and neighbors woke up to tractors in the fields," said Donna Drewen, who said her family sold 100 acres to the city for conservation. Multiple speakers urged that commercial sales not be allowed on land intended for passive recreation.

City planner and land‑use director Mary Kazakovsky told the council the city has two legal mechanisms — a multi‑year lease and a short license to access property — and staff determined a short license was the appropriate tool because it doesn’t create a legal interest in the land. Kazakovsky said the license began April 16 and was written for a single growing season (nine months), that legal counsel advised that a sub‑one‑year license required only the mayor’s signature, and that agricultural uses are permitted in the relevant zoning and wetlands rules. "The intent was to allow a trial season and reevaluate in the fall," she said.

Speakers including Diana Martinez, who identified herself as a member of the Conservation and Agriculture Commission, said commissioners had raised specific concerns in February — especially about relying on a nearby pond for irrigation — and that the city ignored those cautions. Martinez said some farmers already invested time and money and urged the council to make them whole if staff error cost a growing season.

Mayor Eugene Nocera acknowledged a process gap and said he met the growers on site. He recommended allowing the short license to continue this season while directing staff to bring back the Conservation Commission’s recommendations and a status report to the council in June. "We identified a gap in the process. We need stricter protocols going forward and better public notice," the mayor said.

Council members pressed staff on several operational details. Director Kazakovsky said the original plan to pump water from the pond was abandoned after conservation concerns; the growers will pursue a hydrant/meter arrangement through the Water and Sewer Department instead. She also said the city’s risk manager confirmed the growers have liability insurance and that the operation will avoid the walking trails and use minimal disturbance practices (no pesticides, no‑till, small fencing and a mowed parking turnout).

Several speakers asked the council to prohibit commercial sales on conserved parcels going forward. Council members agreed that the episode uncovered transparency and policy gaps: they asked staff to provide a formal list of licenses, recommend where short licenses should require additional commission review, and return recommended procedures in June. The mayor and several councilors said they support local agriculture but want clear, consistent review and notice for land uses impacting conserved open space.

The council did not revoke the existing license; instead members voted to accept staff’s plan to monitor operations and to receive a written status report and proposed protocol changes at the June meeting.