To The Editor:

Several members of the public want to know why a P&Z application to build apartments on the former McGuire’s Alehouse Property under the State’s 8-30 affordable housing statute, across the street from wetlands and Pond Brook itself, did not come to the Inland Wetlands Commission first, and why no IWC public hearing about it.

Given the project’s proximity to the wetlands and to Pond Brook, and the amount of earth that will need to be disturbed, I assume there was an IWC application, and that the Land Use staff decided to grant it ‘short form’ approval. But a search of meeting minutes turned up no details for any short form approvals.

I’m not sure how there could be any doubt about public interest in a project of this magnitude and proximity to wetlands — let alone it being an 8-30g project — but apparently, the Land Use staff had doubts and decided to keep this from the public, and from the commission.

Why are no details made public about these Land Use department decisions? Why aren’t they attached to any meeting minutes? Why can’t the public link to an electronic folder that is updated with these decisions in real time? This is 2025!

Unless/until you include/invite ‘public comments’ on your regular meeting agendas (as IWC’s in other area towns do), how is the public supposed to communicate with you and demonstrate their interest in any applications (short form or long form) to help you decide whether or not a public hearing should be held?

Unless/until your meeting agendas include electronic links to all application files (like other towns do), how is the public supposed to become informed enough to know whether or not to attend your meetings?

Do you even receive/read these communications? You never mention or review them in your meetings like other boards/commissions do, and you never respond or acknowledge their receipt, or include them in your meeting minutes for the public record. Again, we aren’t allowed to speak at IWC meetings, so I cannot ask about this in person.

Unless/until you provide reasons for people to attend your meetings, by granting us easier access to public records, and allowing us to participate in your regular meetings, people aren’t going to attend or participate. Perhaps that is how some of you, and/or Land Use likes it, but let there be no doubt that continuing to restrict access because ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it,’ is not in the public interest, and frankly, not in the commission or the Land Use department’s best interest either.

At minimum, until you evolve and grant residents the same access to public information that people in other towns enjoy, I recommend that the IWC automatically require public hearings on anything 8-30g, and on anything with wetlands or brooks in the upland review area. Failure to do so only serves to keep the public even more in the dark, creating even more mistrust.

Thank you for your public service.

Dave Ackert

Sandy Hook