P&Z Adopts Land-Use Map, Alters Park River Area

Planning and Zoning · Meeting of August 20, 2026

Bloomfield's Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously adopted an updated Future Land Use Map, shifting a contested open-space label near the Park River to mixed use. Commissioner Roger O'Brien, who made the motion, argued the open-space designation risked a taking of 47 privately owned parcels, warning the town could "run the risk of being sued by 47 homeowners that we designated their property a park." Commissioner Goff objected separately to a late-arriving alternative map for Duncaster Road, saying residents would ask "when did that happen" if density shifted without notice; that alternative was rejected and the corridor's existing designations stand. Environmental Planner Nicholas Kabuzda's revised draft also splits "mixed use" and "open space" into four more detailed categories and adds about 464.9 acres of conservation-easement overlay.

Commissioner James separately asked staff to draft zoning language preempting data centers, which staff said is already underway. The map now heads toward a 65-day regional and public review before a formal hearing.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 2,831 words

Source: the Planning and Zoning meeting of August 20, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

Checked against the record: before publication this article was automatically compared with the meeting transcript. It was corrected where it differed.

The Full Article

Roll Call and Agenda Changes

The commission's August 20 quarterly planning meeting began with a roll call of ten members: Lester, James, Bolton, Peters, Millett, Marshall Neely, Goff, O'Brien, Medwinter and Cotton. Bolton and Medwinter were marked absent, leaving a quorum of eight. The first scheduled item, review of the full Plan of Conservation and Development, was pulled because staff told the chair the document was not yet ready. The commission moved directly to item B, continued discussion of the Future Land Use Map, which has been before the commission across several prior meetings and carried the bulk of the night's three-and-a-half-hour session.

Revising Land Use Categories and Mapping Methodology

Background and stakes: Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-23e requires that a municipality's Plan of Conservation and Development include a map depicting the "appropriate and desired uses of land" for the community, and Section 8-3a requires the commission to consult that map when evaluating the consistency of any proposed zoning district change. Bloomfield's map is overdue for an update, and the commission has asked staff, including the town's planning consultant referred to repeatedly in the discussion as "Goman and York" (the spelling was not confirmed on the record), to revise the draft based on feedback from prior meetings.

The question before the body: whether the revised land use categories, acreage estimates and map details reflected the commission's direction from earlier meetings, and whether any further changes were needed before the map could move toward adoption.

Substantive content: Environmental Planner Nicholas Kabuzda told the commission the staff split the prior single "mixed use" category into Mixed Use 1 (residential and commercial) and Mixed Use 2 (residential, commercial and some industrial), and split "open space" into Open Space 1 (lightly developed land such as utility corridors, cemeteries, golf courses and active recreation) and Open Space 2 (natural resource conservation and passive recreation, such as hiking). Staff also added a non-land-use overlay layer showing existing conservation and recreation easements, based on 2021 data, which Kabuzda said covers roughly 464.9 acres of land otherwise labeled residential, mixed use or industrial. Agriculture was not given its own future land use category; Kabuzda said the firm advised that doing so could create "regulatory obstacles," though agricultural planning remains addressed elsewhere in the Plan of Conservation and Development, and staff said they are separately researching the town's agricultural resources. Kabuzda presented rough acreage percentages: approximately 36.2 percent open space, 42.2 percent residential, 7.4 percent mixed use and roughly 14.1 percent industrial, figures he described as estimates that exclude public road right-of-way, which he said could total roughly 1,000 additional acres townwide. Other catch-all changes included adding the Route 189/187 interchange, which had been omitted from the prior draft; removing "mixed-use nodes" and the Bloomfield Center District boundary overlay as redundant; and labeling the Farmington River.

The deliberation: Commissioner O'Brien opened discussion by telling the commission it had previously misunderstood the relationship between the land use map and zoning. "The land use map is informed by the zoning — it's actually the opposite. The zoning is informed by the land use map," he said, citing Sections 8-23e and 8-3a directly. Staff did not dispute the correction.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken on the definitions themselves at this stage; the commission moved into discussion of two specific "neighborhoods" where alternative designations were proposed.

Implications and what is next: The revised definitions and acreage data will carry into the adopted map and, eventually, into a planned rewrite of zoning regulations and district boundaries once the Plan of Conservation and Development is adopted.

The Park River and Granby-Cottage Grove Open Space Dispute

Background and stakes: On the current 2012 Future Land Use Map, the area staff informally called the Granby-Cottage Grove neighborhood, in the town's southeast quadrant near the intersection of Cottage Grove Road and Granby Road, is zoned industrial but shown entirely as open space, or in the 2012 map's terms, "park." Staff's new draft proposed keeping the whole area open space; an alternative Kabuzda presented would convert the western, already developed half to Mixed Use 2 while keeping the eastern half, containing wetlands and an intermittent stream draining to the Park River's north branch, as open space.

The question before the body: which designation, full open space or the split alternative, should appear on the adopted map for that neighborhood.

Substantive content: Kabuzda said the smaller, contested eastern portion includes 57 parcels, 12 owned by the town and 47 privately owned, some containing houses nearly a century old that predate current zoning. He said the area drains toward the Park River watershed and that the goal was not explicitly to create a park but to "acknowledge the existing natural resource constraints."

The deliberation: Commissioner O'Brien argued at length that labeling the 47 private parcels open space, when the proposed future land use categories do not permit commercial or residential development in open space, would strip owners of all economic value in their land, which he called an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. He cited existing protections, including a 100-foot wetlands upland review area, a 200-foot watercourse review area, a 500-foot vernal pool buffer, FEMA flood maps, Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permitting and jurisdiction from the Greater Hartford Flood Control Commission, arguing those controls already protect the river corridor without an open-space label.

"Run the risk of being sued by 47 homeowners that we designated their property a park."

[00:31:29] — Commissioner Roger O'Brien

Commissioner Goff pushed back on the takings framing directly: "This idea of takings because we label what a vision we are looking at is just not, I don't think, accurate. It's only a taking if you do not let the person do what is provided under their current zoning." He argued the map is a non-binding statement of community vision, not a rezoning, and that the commission is not obligated to let every parcel develop to its most intensive potential use. Kabuzda added that the open-space label does not require that the land become a town park, and that the category was renamed from the earlier "park/open space" specifically to avoid that implication; a staff member identified in the discussion as Kevin said the town does not currently have a zoning district called "park" and that implementing changes to the regulations, including defining open space more precisely, would follow adoption of the plan.

Procedural steps and outcome: No separate vote was taken on this item alone; it was resolved as part of the final motion on the full map (see below), which converted the eastern Park River parcels from open space to mixed use.

Implications and what is next: The reclassification removes the open-space designation from the contested parcels before the map goes to public hearing, but O'Brien said the commission could still write protective language limiting development near the river into future mixed-use zoning regulations.

The Duncaster Road and Western Bloomfield Density Alternative

Background and stakes: Staff circulated a second alternative map the night before the meeting, covering what staff called the western Bloomfield neighborhood along Duncaster Road, where the current draft shows a mix of low- and medium-density residential land. The alternative would align the corridor more closely with the existing 2012 map, which designates the full corridor low-density residential.

The question before the body: whether to adopt the density shift shown in the new draft, revert to the 2012 low-density pattern, or adopt some other configuration for that corridor.

Substantive content: The affected area is mostly zoned R40 or R80, the town's two least dense residential districts, with rural character, farms, state land and scattered utility parcels. Commissioner Millett asked whether utilities, particularly water and septic capacity, could support higher density on the northern portion of the corridor; staff member Linda responded that lots along the Duncaster frontage have existing water service, making a discussion of reducing density there "an appropriate area to have an honest discussion," while the larger lots to the north were "more appropriately" low density.

The deliberation: Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Goff both objected to the process by which the alternative arrived. O'Brien said he had attended every meeting since joining the commission in April 2025 and that no one had proposed changing the western corridor until the alternative appeared the night before the meeting.

"My question is, Nick, why? Why did that come out of nowhere last night?"

[01:21:31] — Commissioner Roger O'Brien

Commissioner Goff raised a related concern about the lack of a side-by-side comparison between the 2012 map, the prior draft and the new alternative, saying residents could be caught off guard by a shift from "moderate density" to "high density" in areas such as Wintonbury and Woodland without clear notice of when or why the change occurred.

"The public's going to go, when did that happen?"

[01:17:22] — Commissioner Goff

A staff member, addressed in the discussion as the director, said staff inherited an unfinished map a year earlier and had assumed, incorrectly, that it already reflected deliberate commission decisions departing from the 2012 map; staff said they offered the Duncaster alternative, like the Park River alternative, for discussion rather than as a formal recommendation, and that responsibility for introducing it late rested with staff.

Procedural steps and outcome: O'Brien moved to adopt the map as originally drafted, without the Duncaster alternative, with one change: converting the Park River open-space area to mixed use. Commissioner Millett seconded. Commissioner Goff then proposed, as an amendment, reverting the Duncaster corridor to the 2012 low-density pattern; O'Brien declined to accept it as a friendly amendment, and the chair ruled that because it was not accepted, the commission would vote on O'Brien's original motion rather than Goff's amendment separately. On voice vote, all members present, including any alternates seated for the meeting, voted in favor with no recorded opposition or abstention; the chair confirmed the motion carried.

Implications and what is next: The Duncaster corridor's existing low/medium-density pattern from the newest draft stands as adopted, not the 2012 low-density alternative Goff sought. O'Brien noted the map still faces a 65-day review by the regional council of governments and the town's legislative body, plus a required public hearing, before formal adoption, during which residents can seek further changes.

Commercial Zoning Representation and State Housing Law

Background and stakes: Commissioners raised whether the map should include a distinct "commercial" category, given that corridors such as Cottage Grove Road, Blue Hills Avenue and Dudley Town Road read to several members as purely commercial with no realistic residential component.

The question before the body: whether dropping a standalone commercial designation in favor of Mixed Use 1 and Mixed Use 2 accurately reflects those corridors, or whether a separate commercial category should be restored.

Substantive content: A staff member identified in the discussion as John explained that the shift away from a pure commercial category tracks recent state "middle housing" legislation, which he said mandates that housing be permitted in zones labeled commercial or industrial, making a purely commercial future land use designation legally inconsistent with the zoning that would have to follow it.

The deliberation: Commissioner Marshall Neely argued that corridors such as Cottage Grove Road function as commercial-only in practice, with "no one who's going to be living in a commercial only zone," and asked whether the map could still note areas as effectively commercial within the mixed-use framework. Commissioner O'Brien, in response to a related question from Commissioner Marshall Neely about an industrial-only node, noted that residential and affordable-housing proposals are already under discussion on both Cottage Grove Road and Blue Hills Avenue, where the town owns a sizable parcel. Staff member Linda added that the existing I-1 industrial district already allows limited commercial and retail uses, such as dry cleaners, serving as a de facto transition zone between heavier industrial areas and mixed-use corridors, a nuance she said the generalized future land use map does not capture.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken on renaming or restoring a commercial category; the commission directed staff informally to consider the transition-zone concern during the later zoning-regulation rewrite.

Implications and what is next: The map as adopted keeps Mixed Use 1 and Mixed Use 2 in place of a standalone commercial category; detailed treatment of commercial-to-industrial transitions is deferred to the zoning regulations staff will draft after the Plan of Conservation and Development is adopted.

Motion, Amendment and Vote

The formal motion, as moved by Commissioner O'Brien and seconded by Commissioner Millett, adopted the Future Land Use Map as presented, excluding the Duncaster Road alternative, with the single change of converting the Park River open-space area to mixed use (shown as pink on the draft). Commissioner Goff's proposed amendment to revert the Duncaster corridor to 2012 low-density designations was not accepted as a friendly amendment and was not brought to a separate vote. On the roll, all members present, including seated alternates, voted aye; no opposition or abstention was recorded, and the chair declared the motion carried. O'Brien noted for the record that the map will be posted on the town website, filed with the town clerk, and subject to a 65-day review by the regional council of governments and the town's legislative body before a public hearing scheduled alongside the full Plan of Conservation and Development.

Closing Business: Definitions Renaming and Data Center Policy

After the vote, Commissioner O'Brien asked staff to reconsider the names "Open Space 1," "Open Space 2," "Mixed Use 1" and "Mixed Use 2," calling the numbered labels "abstractions" and suggesting more descriptive names drawn from the written definitions, such as distinguishing by the specific use mix rather than a number. Staff agreed to revisit naming at a later date; the underlying definitions themselves were not objected to.

Commissioner James then raised a separate, forward-looking request unrelated to the map vote: she asked staff to research moratoriums and regulatory approaches other communities have taken on data centers, so Bloomfield could adopt zoning language proactively rather than reacting to an application, drawing a parallel to how the town handled cannabis-related zoning. A staff member confirmed text amendments that would bar data centers as a permitted use in Bloomfield are already being drafted and would be forthcoming to the commission.

WHO WAS THERE

Commissioner Lester — member, present Commissioner James — member, present Commissioner Bolton — member, absent Commissioner Peters — member, present Commissioner Millett — member, present, seconded the main motion Commissioner Marshall Neely — member, present Commissioner Goff — member, present, proposed rejected amendment Commissioner O'Brien (Roger O'Brien) — member, present, made the main motion Commissioner Medwinter — member, absent Commissioner Cotton — member, present Presiding chair — role referenced throughout as "Mr. Chairman"; name not stated in the transcript Nicholas Kabuzda — Environmental Planner for the Town of Bloomfield, gave the Future Land Use Map presentation Staff member referred to as the director (possibly surnamed Coleman, per one reference to "Director Coleman") — addressed takings and process questions Staff member identified only as Kevin — addressed zoning district implementation questions Staff member identified only as Linda — addressed Duncaster utilities and I-1 district transition uses Staff member identified only as Lynn — operated presentation slides and maps on screen Staff member identified only as John — addressed state middle-housing legislation's effect on the map Renee — attended remotely; chair confirmed no questions from her at the relevant point Desiree — attended remotely; chair confirmed no questions from her at the relevant point

ORGANIZATIONS AND DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

Planning consultant referred to variably as "Goman and York," "Gorman in New York" and "Global New York" in the transcript — retained by the town to help prepare the 2026 Plan of Conservation and Development and advised staff against a standalone agriculture land use category. Capitol Region Council of Governments (referenced as "the Council of Governments") — will conduct the 65-day regional review of the adopted map before the public hearing. Greater Hartford Flood Control Commission, formerly the Greater Hartford Park River Flood Control Commission — cited by Commissioner O'Brien as holding jurisdiction over development near the Park River. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — cited regarding Section 404 permitting for discharges into the Park River. Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps — cited as controlling buildable elevations near the Park River. Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-23e — cited by Commissioner O'Brien as requiring the future land use map to depict appropriate and desired land uses. Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-3a — cited by Commissioner O'Brien as requiring consistency findings between proposed zoning changes and the future land use map. 2012 Bloomfield Plan of Conservation and Development and Future Land Use Map — repeatedly used as the baseline for comparison in the Duncaster Road and Wintonbury/Woodland density discussions. State "middle housing" legislation (unspecified act referenced by staff) — cited as the reason a standalone commercial future land use category was dropped in favor of mixed-use categories allowing housing in commercial and industrial zones.