Correct State Statute Needs To Be Applied To Proposed Development
To the Editor:
At the June 3rd Board of Selectmen meeting, upon the advice of the town attorney, the First Selectman asked for a motion to refer a private developer’s request to discontinue the undisturbed portion of historic Reservoir Rd. to P&Z, under CT General Statute 8-24, even though 8-24 deals with road abandonment, not road discontinuance. This happened after the former BOS granted the same request, from the same developer, last fall, after failing to follow the steps required by the correct statute, CT GS 13a-49, presumably based on the same high-priced legal advice.
I’m not a high-priced attorney. I’m not an attorney at all. I’m just a small businessman who knows how to use Google. Anyone who enters “CT road discontinuance” and “CT road abandonment” into their web browser can see that these are entirely different actions, governed by different statutes with different procedural requirements.
The developer did not ask the town to abandon historic Reservoir Road/Washington-Rochambeau Trail because he would have to prove that it was abandoned many years ago and remained unused. Our historic road/trail has been in continuous use for centuries, including by the Aquarion Water Company, hikers and bikers, and it is regularly maintained by the town’s Public Works Department and Bike & Trails Committee, with plans for it to become a part of a historic loop trail connecting to historic Main Street.
Road discontinuation is governed by CT GS 13a-49, which makes no mention of any referral to a planning commission. Doing so wasted a lot of time for a lot of people. More importantly, the Planning Commission’s vote to approve has created bias among actual decision makers, creating additional grounds for appeal should it be approved by the BOS and at a town meeting … both of which are required by 13a-49.
Under 13a-49, if the BOS denies the developer’s request to discontinue our historic road, it’s over. If the BOS approves it, the state provides 120 days for anyone to appeal … and appeal they will, making the town’s budget deficit even worse, and the town attorney, even richer.
With an appeal, the court appoints a three-person panel of disinterested individuals to answer one question: “Is the road of common convenience and necessity to the public?” — a question clearly answered by its inclusion in the National Registry of Historic Places alone. Discontinuance would be convenient for the developer only, because taking ownership of our historic road makes his land more valuable, and his project more profitable. Discontinuance is not a necessity for anyone because he can conserve just as much land without taking ownership and control of our historic road away from the public, and by developing his two properties individually.
Mr Capeci recently revealed that the town was $60,000 over budget for legal fees alone, much of it wasted on faulty or incomplete advice/opinions on land use issues like this. The Board of Selectmen can end this cycle of wasted taxpayer money and unnecessary community anxiety on 7/15 if two of them vote “NO.”
Dave Ackert
Sandy Hook
How about letting our local, Home rule system work, rather than threatening lawsuits and legal expenses. The builder’s plan is to make almost 70% of the land open space, that’s 90 acres, has warranted that the trail will be protected. and all the property along the Lake would be in the open space. Cluster housing was developed so that smaller lots would create open space rather than the entire property being McMansions on 1 or 2 acre lots. .The town grows and open space is created and preserved. The NCC wants all the land preserved without offering to pay for it. Seems to be a pattern developing that a small group can simply take over private property. What’s next a 10 acre piece of land because it has a view? Our town officials do, as the NCC says, represent all the residents, and I venture to say most residents will view this as a very reasonable way to develop property that is already zones residential. I’ve said it before,this is a win win for Newtown.
Have you ever attended an NCC meeting? You really shouldn’t speak on about or on behalf of any group or their intentions from behind a keyboard without any first hand knowledge. That’s called trolling and is not a good look. Same goes for town issues. Why haven’t you attended any town meetings and shared your opinions or listened to others? Is it becuase you have to state your address to speak at a meeting, and everyone would know that you live on the other side of town and would not suffer any of the negative impacts that people who live in and downstream from the Borough will suffer so that a developer profit $15MM instead of a ‘mere’ $6MM, the latter being what would be the case if the town keeps this historic road on the map, and he had to develop his two properties individually, which would enable him to build about 40, 1 acre homes and conserve the same 90 acres. Stop the fear mongering and start the fact finding. This is about what’s best for Newtown. Not what’s best for a developer.
This issue is starting to feel less and less than “what’s best for Newtown” and more about winning.
If you are not an attorney it is dangerous and wrong to be giving legal advice that you yourself have admitted you have googled. Let’s leave it to those who understand the law.