A lawsuit filed last month accuses Suffield’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) of accepting a subdivision application that illegally splits a 61-acre parcel of land placed under a Farmland Preservation agreement in 2013.
“The actions and inactions of the Commission members, and/or others acting in concert with them, in approving the Subdivision Application are illegal, beyond their limited authority prescribed by law, and opposite the well documented plans, goals, and priorities of the Town of Suffield and The Bielonko Brothers Farm Trust,” alleged Attorney Steven Camerota, in the complaint he filed on Dec. 15, 2025.
The suit was filed by Camerota and Michael Stephen Steinberg, both of whom own properties neighboring 190 East St North, the parcel they allege is being illegally divided. 190 East St North is owned by Benjamin Bielonko II, a Suffield farmer whose family has cultivated the property since his grandfather emigrated from Poland in the early 1900’s. On March 1, 2011, Bielonko II submitted a Farmland Preservation Application to the State’s Department of Agriculture (DOA), originally offering to sell the development rights for 56 acres of land.
“We would like to see any land that we own stay in agriculture production, not development,” wrote Bielonko II on the application.
Connecticut’s Farmland Preservation Program, administered by the DOA, works to preserve the state’s prime agricultural soils by purchasing the development rights of agricultural parcels from interested landowners. Any agricultural landowner can apply, and if their property meets the state’s criteria, the DOA’s Commissioner can accept their application. Once accepted, the two sides negotiate a price and terms for a formal agreement surrounding restrictions placed on the properties’ use. These Land Preservation Agreements (LPA) mandate that a portion of the property remain perpetually deed-restricted for agricultural use, preventing the property from being later sold for the purpose of commercial or residential development. The landowner retains ownership of the property and may also choose to sell it, but they and any other future owners of the property must abide by the restrictions of the Agreement and must act as stewards of the land’s agricultural maintenance.
Bielonko II’s application was accepted, and an LPA was finalized between Bielonko II, in his capacity as a trustee of the Bielonko Brothers Farm Trust, the Town of Suffield, and the state on Dec. 6, 2013. The town and state agreed to pay Bielonko II $782,096 for the development rights of a little over 58 of the parcel’s 61 acres, stipulating he must “protect agricultural soils, agricultural viability, and the general productive capacity of the Premises in perpetuity.” Camerota’s complaint highlights that one of the LPA’s many stipulations was a prohibition of the property’s subdivision.
“The Premises shall be conveyed or transferred as a unit, whether or not said Premises are described herein, or have been described in any prior deed, as more than one piece or parcel of land,” reads the LPA. “No subdivision or division of the Premises, or any portion thereof, shall be permitted.”
On September 11, 2025, an application to subdivide the property was filed with the town, and ultimately approved by Suffield’s P&Z Department on Nov. 17, 2025. The application sought to subdivide a 2.3-acre, non-preserved portion of the parcel, which currently remains undeveloped. A public hearing for the application was held on Oct. 20, 2025. Brian Denno, a land-surveyor who helped Bielonko II form his proposal, was quoted as saying that this portion of the parcel “was excluded to allow for potential residential development,” though he noted that “no house plans are proposed at this time,” per the hearing’s meeting minutes. Denno said the proposal had already been approved by Suffield’s Conservation Commission and water authority, and noted the application also requested waivers for gutters, curbs, sidewalks, lighting and open space requirements.
Despite the application clearly being placed by Bielonko II, Camerota claims the application was written in a manner that obfuscates the property’s true owner, as well as the stipulations of the parcel’s preservation status. The application contained a record owner’s signature of “BGBII,” and the applicant was named Brick Turf LLC. Camerota’s complaint contains a copy of a quit-claim deed signed by Bielonko II, which transferred the parcel’s ownership to Brick Turf LLC for $1. Brick Turf was incorporated on Nov. 29, 2022, with Bielonko II as the registered agent, a day after the quit-claim deed was notarized by state officials. Camerota noted that per state statute, Bielonko II must have provided DOA officials notice 90-days in advance of any transfer of ownership. Camerota claimed that a DOA Attorney he corresponded with, Carole Briggs, told him that the DOA did not appear to receive any notice of the transfer prior to it occurring
“The Subdivision Application makes no mention of the Bielonko Brothers Farm Trust and purports that the 190 East Street North property is now owned by an entity named “Brick Turf LLC” through a quit-claim deed by Benjamin J. Bielonko II, Trustee of The Bielonko Brothers Farm Trust,” reads the complaint. “The application states that Brick Turf LLC (and not Benjamin J. Bielonko II, Trustee of The Bielonko Brothers Farm Trust) is owner of record, but does not provide any information to show how that could be true or lawfully correct.”
Camerota asked why Bielonko II, and his brother John, Bielonko Brothers’ other trustee, would “ever need to transfer the property to themselves” if they already own it. Camerota notes that farm trusts typically “require the care, loyalty, candor and many other fiduciary duties” required of preserving farmland, while LLCs act to shield owners from liability.
“The evidence to date does suggest that the avoidance of these on-going fiduciary obligations could very well be the true purpose of the alleged transaction represented by the quit claim deed at issue,” wrote Camerota.
Camerota’s complaint further alleges Bielonko II’s application of obfuscating the land’s status as preserved farmland, of containing “numerous false statements” pertaining to the parcel’s zoning and location in a historic district, and of omitting information necessary for the board’s consideration and required by Suffield’s town ordinances. On the application, Bielonko II listed the parcel as being zoned residential and as not belonging to any historic district. Camerota argued that the Town’s own ordinances demand that any parcel placed in an agricultural conservation easement is required to be zoned in Suffield’s Farmland Preservation (FP) district, and noted that the property is listed in the state’s Historic Resource Inventory.
“The purpose of the Farmland Preservation (FP) Zoning District is to perpetually protect and preserve land in Suffield for agricultural use,” reads Suffield’s town ordinances. “Only land containing a permanent conservation restrictive covenant or easement shall be made part of the Farmland Preservation (FP) Zone.”
On Suffield’s Town Assessor’s website, as well asSuffield’s P&Z map, 190 East St North is listed as belonging to a residential district, while “all the other maps published by the town and this commission that show the properties in the FP zone,” show the property as being in the FP zone.
“Every single other parcel in the Town of Suffield that contains a permanent conservation restrictive covenant or easement has been properly colored on the Zoning Map to show that it is (and MUST be) within the FP zone – all, except this one,” wrote Camerota. “This includes properties that were preserved prior in time to 190 East Street North, as well as properties preserved later in time to 190 East Street North.”
Furthermore, Camerota acknowledged that while Bielonko II did check a box on the application to confirm that the property has easement or deed restrictions, he did not provide “the required list and disclosure of such restrictions” with the application. Camerota claimed to have requested a copy of this list from P&Z officials prior to the application’s public hearing, held on Oct. 20, 2025, and was allegedly told “it does not exist.”
“The Subdivision Application is omissive and clearly incomplete, and should have been rejected for this reason alone,” wrote Camerota. “It does not provide material information that is required by the application and by town ordinance.”
At this hearing, Camerota and Steinberg both spoke into the record to share their concerns. Meeting minutes reflect that Steinberg “referenced the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development with respect to preserving views, emphasizing farmland preservation and the taxpayers’ contribution to purchasing the development rights.” Minutes also state that Camerota “expressed concern over what he considers insufficient notice of the meeting, questioned the legality and completeness of the application, and argued that the subdivision could impact the viability of the surrounding farmland.”
In Camerota’s complaint, he alleged that town officials provided him too short of notice prior to the public hearing to properly compile documentation, accused two Commission members of cutting his presentation of the above points short, and of initially refusing to include his presentation, which is included in the complaint, into the public record of the meeting. He also alleged that at the public hearing, Commission members, “made reference to and sought to rely on unspecified verbal agreements or unspecified recollections of ‘side agreements’ that they had made or were speculating others to have had made, all of which were outside the covenants and terms of the deed.'” Meeting minutes do not contain any references or reflect any reference to these alleged “side agreements,” nor has any recording of the meeting been published.
During the public hearing, Suffield’s Director of Planning and Development, Bill Hawkins, provided a memorandum in which he cites an email exchange he had with DOA officials as proof that DOA approved of the subdivision. Camerota noted that Hawkins memorandum did not include the email communications, as if it did, it would show a statement by Cam Weimar, a DOA official, which said, “Whenever areas are unrestricted from the PDR (purchased development rights) terms, but tied to the farmland premises, they must remain in title, within the same land ownership.” Camerota received the emails himself after contacting Briggs.
Despite this exclusion, in the next email provided to Camerota by Briggs, DOA official Denise O’Meara states that the subdivision plan “appear to be in order and consistent with the PDR deed,” and asked only for confirmation that any future utility connections not be made through the preserved land.
A recording of the P&Z meeting on Nov. 17, 2025, has been published online and offers insight into the approval of the application. At the meeting, P&Z Vice Chair Erin Golembiewski said the “only issue she potentially saw” was with the property’s title, but that she thought “I don’t think that’s even the for this commission to make any determination in that regard.”
“The case law on this issue is very, very clear that Commissions do not get into questions or issues of title,” said Carl Landolina, Town Counsel. “It’s not part of your authority, it’s not within your jurisdiction to determine whether somebody owns property or doesn’t own it.”
Landolina also said that even if the property were to be deemed located in a historic district, that wouldn’t preclude any subdivision outright, it would just require “another step in the chain” of the approvals process, and would be an issue for consideration by the town’s Historic District Commission, not P&Z. On the topic of deed restrictions, Landolina said that if Commission members believes the plan “satisfies your requirements, that’s your decision to make.”
Regarding Camerota’s complaints about whether or not the parcel was properly zoned, Landolina said that since Suffield’s ordinance regarding zoning of its FP district notes that “only land containing a permanent conservation restrictive covenant or easement” is included, then the non-protected portions of the parcel should not be included in the district, and instead be subject to “whatever is allowed” in the “underlying zone.”
“So at that point, you know, whether that’s colored blue, or green, or whatever in the zoning map really makes no difference,” “It’s in the zone then it’s in the zone, and so if it’s not in the farmland preservation zone, it still remains in the underlying zone.”
As it stands currently, Camerota’s suit requests that the Superior Court, “quiet the title and fiduciary interests of the Bielonko Brothers Farm Trust with respect to 190 East Street North for the perpetual preservation and conservation required by trust, by deed, by law, and well paid for already by the people of Suffield.”
Bielonko II, Camerota, nor Suffield officials could be immediately reached for comment for this story.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
