Petition succeeds Land Trust proposal up for reconsideration

WINSTED — Laurel City residents have successfully petitioned for a special town meeting on Thursday, April 7, to discuss a proposal by the Winchester Land Trust that was rejected by the Board of Selectmen.The call for the meeting at 7 p.m. at The Gilbert School will be to override the selectmen’s rejection of the Winchester Land Trust’s plan to acquire 360 acres of town-owned land in a deal that would give more than $400,000 to the town.The plan includes the trust acquiring a conservation easement on 356 acres surrounding Crystal Lake, which is the town’s main drinking water reservoir, and land bordering the Algonquin State Forest.The money for the deal would come from an already approved state grant of $500,000, awarded in December. Winsted would have received more than $400,000 for the easements, but the land would have remained owned by the town.The plan was originally approved by the selectmen in January, but was rejected by the board at two subsequent meetings in February for various issues including potential expenses, homeland security concerns with the town’s water supply, whether or not the selectmen had the authority to grant the easement and the issue of public access to the land.At the end of February, supporters of the land trust, led by Community Lawyer Charlene LaVoie, submitted to the town a petition with 492 signatures calling for an override of the selectmen’s rejection.However, at the March 7 meeting, Town Attorney Kevin Nelligan explained that a town meeting vote by residents does not mean the land trust’s plan would be approved.Nelligan explained that, due to the way petition reads, an affirmative vote at the town meeting would mean that the original motion, which was voted on by the selectmen at the Feb. 22 meeting, would be canceled out.Due to regulations in the town charter, Nelligan said that 5 percent of the town’s registered voters, approximately 350 residents, would need to attend the meeting in order for the vote to be valid.Also, only registered voters who are on the town’s registry of voters list will be allowed to vote at the meeting.Nelligan explained that, due to the town charter, property owners who are not listed on town’s voter registry will not be allowed to vote.If enough registered voters attend the town meeting, and if the majority of the voters approve the motion to null the selectmen’s previous vote, then the board would be able to go back to square one and could review and vote on the land trust’s plan all over again.“It’s a lot of rigmarole to go through just to get back to the same point we were at before,” Nelligan said. “This petition has been submitted and it needs to go to town meeting.”He explained that if the land trust’s proposal comes before the selectmen again, and if once again the selectmen reject the proposal, then, yet again, another petition can be submitted and the whole process could be repeated.However, if enough registered voters voted to nullify the selectmen’s vote at a town meeting for a second time, the same vote could also set up a third town meeting to, in Nelligan’s words “settle it or not.”After Nelligan’s explanation, the selectmen proceeded to debate a date for the special town meeting.Mayor Candy Perez made a motion to have the meeting on Saturday, April 9, at 10 a.m.Perez and Selectmen Michael Renzullo and George Closson voted for the motion.However, the four selectmen who voted against the land trust’s proposal, Ken Fracasso, Glenn Albanesius, Karen Beadle and Lisa Smith, voted against the motion.Fracasso then made a motion to schedule the vote on Thursday, April 7, at 7 p.m.An audience member yelled, “Anything to shut the people up!” after Fracasso made his motion.The selectmen approved Fracasso’s motion by a vote of five to two, with Perez and Renzullo voting against the motion.During the selectmen’s meetings in February, residents took turns during the public comments portions of the meetings to speak either strongly for or against the land trust’s proposal.The March 7 selectmen’s meeting was not any different, and several residents, including a lawyer hired by two residents, spoke out about the proposal.Resident Glen Zeh told the selectmen not to forget about the power of residents in making decisions on the town’s land. “When [the selectmen] look at the petition, you need to remember that the town is as much of a governing body,” Zeh said. “The enumerated power of the town is to decide the conveyance, sale and use of land. That power does not solely lie within the Board of Selectmen.”Former Selectman John Gauger once again repeated his calls to defeat the land trust’s proposal.“Everyone has been running with the notion that this is a petitionable item, that it falls under the open rule statute, but it doesn’t,” Gauger said. Gauger then restated his opinion that it should be the Water and Sewer Commission’s decision on whether or not to approve the land trust’s proposal.“This is not an issue for the Board of Selectmen,” Gauger said.Resident Alan DiCara was blunt about his opposition of the land trust’s proposal.“I think this is a totally bogus way to get $400,000 to the town,” DiCara said. “The key to this is public access. If you go to the boat launch at Highland Lake or if you look at the milfoil at Park Pond or Winchester Lake, you can see what public access has done. I don’t think the town should take a bribe from the state that is sponsored by the Winchester Land Trust.”The next person to speak was Hartford attorney John Horak.Horak, who works at Reid and Ridge Counsellors at Law, said he was hired by residents Marsha Sterling and her husband, James Roberts, to conduct a legal review of the proposal and the petition.Horak restated Gauger’s concerns about whether or not the plan should be the Water and Sewer Commission’s decision about public access.“Where I used to live in West Hartford, a bicycle rider on public access land drove into a pylon,” Horak said. “She was injured and received a multi-million dollar judgement.”Community Lawyer Charlene LaVoie spoke next.“This is really stunning. You guys are pretty clever up there and you can find all kinds of way to stop the petition,” LaVoie said. “What you have before you is 492 signatures. Not everyone who signed the petition agreed with [the land trust], but they all agree it should be a town meeting decision and not simply a four-to-three decision. You can go ahead with all you your lawyer machinations. All of this just to get this to town meeting. What are you afraid of?”