The property at 6 Commerce Road, conveyed to the town by the state in 2003, was deeded to the town with a caveat that it be used for economic development. Now, the town is looking to change that after more than 20 years of the property remaining vacant.

The Board of Selectmen at its October 7 meeting voted 2-1 to write a letter to the state legislature requesting that the economic development requirement be removed from the deed.

Selectmen Michelle Embree Ku and Dan Cruson voted in favor of writing the letter, while First Selectman Jeff Capeci voted against.

“This was designated for economic development and we need that for tax reasons,” said Capeci. “This parcel has water, sewer, and power on location and it’s been on the books for economic development for 20 years. The original intent of the state was for it to be used for that, and I think we should honor that.”

Embree Ku expressed some concerns about the process and making sure the public had ample opportunity for input, but both Capeci and Cruson believed that people had been weighing in on the issue for the last few meetings.

It was also noted that having the economic development restriction removed doesn’t mean it can’t, in the end, be used for economic development, just that it doesn’t have to be used for that purpose. The Conservation Commission and some members of the public have been speaking in favor of keeping the parcel as open space.

Resident Dan Holmes said that the parcel, located adjacent to the Catherine Violet Hubbard Animal Sanctuary, should remain as open space.

“I don’t understand why the town is hellbent to develop untouched spaces,” said Holmes. “We can’t live in an unrealistic world where we cease all development, but there are plenty of other spaces that could be developed. This open corridor of land should not be viewed as ripe for development.”

Dave Ackert, a member of Newtown Conservation Coalition, a local grassroots group separate from the town’s Conservation Commission, said he had a petition with 130 signatures gained over just 12 hours asking the Board of Selectmen to consider the Conservation Commission’s request. He also had a petition with 515 signatures asking that the BOS express its opinions on the recommendation, and asking if they support it to approach the state legislature to do whatever it takes to make that happen.

Resident Ned Simpson asked that the town “stay the course” with using the property for economic development and felt that use was best for the town.

“I think that the town relinquishing this property to a use that is unproductive taxwise and passing on development opportunities before looking at all the opportunities is premature,” said Simpson.

The Conservation Commission recommendation states that when the 6 and 8 Commerce Road properties were conveyed to the town in 2003, that it was “clearly intended that our town receive 34.44 acres for preservation as open space.” It notes that 8 Commerce was given to the town for open space and 6 Commerce for economic development. While there are provisions for the land to be returned to the state if 8 Commerce was not used as open space, there is “no such provision” if 6 Commerce is not used for economic development.

“While 6 Commerce Road was conveyed to the town for the purpose of economic development, no special act requires the 37.54 acre parcel to revert back to the state nor is there any other penalty if it is not used for the purpose of economic development,” states the recommendation.

In 2006, the town asked the state to reallocate a $500K STEAP grant from 6 Commerce and use it towards the Fairfield Hills property. In 2011, the Conservation Commission learned that paperwork from the Connecticut legislature, intended to convey the 34.44 acre property for open space, had been in the town’s possession since 2009. In 2014, the 34.44 acre parcel was conveyed to the Catherine Violet Hubbard Foundation for a sanctuary.

The Conservation Commission in its recommendation felt that the economic development parcel should have been given to the CVH sanctuary, since it could count as economic development.

“In our view, the Hubbard Foundation should have received a parcel properly designated as economic development,” states the recommendation. “It cannot be considered open space since it does not have the protections given to open space and is not town-owned property. It is a fact that our town lost out on the 34.44 acre open space parcel as originally intended by the state. It is also clear that the state gave serious consideration and direction that this parcel should be preserved as open space by inclusion of a requirement that the parcel would revert back to the state if not used for this purpose.

It ends by recommending that the town reverse its decision designating 6 Commerce as economic development and use it for town open space for recreational purposes.

Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.