Shame, Shame…

[Opinion]

One senator and three representatives, all Democrats are about to give away part of a state park!

Why?

Because a developer built on the state park land.

The developer put a road and buildings on state park land, the Berlin Land Trust wrote…

Meriden Homestead II, LLC, Lamentation Mountain State Park’s southerly neighbor, has requested and received initial approval for the conveyance, or sale of 2.7 acres of state land.
 
Meriden Homestead II, LLC has illegally encroached onto Lamentation Mountain State Park by constructing structures and a driveway on park land.

Purchase of this land by Meriden Homestead II, LLC will avoid the legal consequences for encroaching on and using state owned land.

If successful, the 2.7-acre land purchase will cut off road and trail access to the park from the Berlin Turnpike.

The 2.7-acre acquisition has not been properly appraised, and the actual value of the land in this proposed sale has not been determined.

If this sale of land is granted by the state legislature, the encroaching individuals will be rewarded for their illegal trespassing. It makes absolutely no sense to set this precedent.

The Berlin Land Trust strongly opposes the sale of 2.7 acres of park land to Meriden Homestead II, LLC.?

It seems to me that it could be no accident, there had to be plans drawn up and you mean that no one noticed that it was on state park land. It seems to me that this was a case of go ahead and get permission later.

So I looked up the status of HB-5520… the hearing was already held and all but one person testifying was against the bill. The one that spoke in favor of the bill was the developer. The developer wrote,

My family homestead is located at 2209 North Broad Street (Berlin Turnpike) on the Meriden Berlin Town line. This property has been in my family for several decades. The property adjoins a second parcel in Meriden that was added to the Homestead and is connected to my original property. Our property abuts state land on the Berlin side of the town line, and we have the benefit of a 90-foot wide easement that crosses the southwest corner of the state land and provides access from the Berlin Turnpike to our land in Meriden. The proposed conveyance is approximately 2.7 acres of non-buildable property that includes the area of the existing easement and a triangle-shaped area between the easement and the boundary of our Homestead. If passed, this bill will resolve issues with the Homestead property line and any possible encroachments from the Homestead on to the state land. Through the years of owning this property we have invested in maintaining and improving the road over the easement on the state land; however, we have also experienced issues with people dumping trash on both the state land and our Homestead. While I have been dealing with this issue for many years, we are seeking a more permanent solution to this environmental, as well as the property line uses, which this conveyance would address.

If his family owned the land for so long you would think that he knew that the land abutted the state park. The state DEEP wrote in their testimony,

In December of 2022, a member of the public brought to DEEP’s attention the possibility of a large encroachment on the state park. DEEP investigated and hired a survey company to mark the boundaries of State land and identify possible encroachments. This survey map, which was used by the landowner in the application materials, identifies numerous encroachments on State property including four buildings, an extensive bituminous driveway, a basketball court, dumping, drainage improvements, lights and an extensive lawn area. Conveying this land to the encroaching party would set a concerning precedent, which could incentivize abutting property owners to misuse State land and then seek relief though the conveyance process.

This sounds a lot more that putting a road through on an easement… “four buildings, an extensive bituminous driveway, a basketball court...” It is not just a case of the “Right-of-way” but rather an encroachment.

Additionally, conveying this parcel of property at fair market value, without any additional penalties, would undermine the laws established to protect against these types of encroachments. Section 52-560a(b) of the General Statutes establishes that: “No person may encroach or cause another person to encroach on open space land , , , without the permission of the owner of such open space land , , , .” Additionally, this section states that a court shall order any person who violates the above provision to restore the land to its pre-violation condition or to award the landowner the costs of such restoration. The court can also award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and appropriate injunctive or equitable relief--and damages up to five times the cost of restoration. Conveying this land at fair market value without any additional fines would vastly underestimate the monetary repercussions of this landowner’s actions.

This sounds like where you do it and then beg forgiveness.

The developer who is a big political wheeler and dealer in Meriden is trying to use his influence and clout to get his way. It also sounds from the other testimony that the developer is underestimating the damage done to the state park.

I think the developer should be made to remove the buildings, tennis court and whatever else he did and restore the land back to it original state. Since he has an easement he should be allowed to keep the road, but that is all.

[/Opinion]