Groton Open Space Association

GOSA Submits Brief Supporting Its Appeal Of Planning Decision On Merritt

NORWICH–The Groton Open Space Association has submitted a brief supporting its appeal of the Groton Planning Commission’s Feb. 19, 2002, decision to allow 48 houses to be built on the 75-acre Merritt property on Fort Hill in Groton. The brief, to the New London Superior Court branch in Norwich, is dated Nov. 26, 2003.

GOSA had appealed on March 7, 2002. The appeal process has been delayed in the courts since then. The delay has been caused in part by tumultuous developments surrounding the property.

MacPherson-Johnston, the original would-be developer, let lapse its contract with F.L. Merritt Inc., the property owner, in 2002. GOSA and Merritt signed a contract April 14, 2003, for GOSA to buy the property for $1 million. Ravenswood Construction LLC then blocked the sale, asserting in a suit dated April 15, 2003, that it has a de facto contract with Merritt to buy. Ravenswood and Mystic Estates Partners, the latter a successor to MacPherson-Johnston, filed a SLAPP suit June 5, 2003, against GOSA and nine individuals, alleging tortious interference with what it said was its planned purchase. They withdrew the SLAPP suit July 11, 2003, when threatened with a countersuit.

In the brief, GOSA and individuals supporting the appeal make five main arguments:

–That MacPherson-Johnston was not a corporation, as it claimed to be, and had no legal interest in the Merritt property when it filed application to develop the property and when it received approval for the houses.

–The Planning Commission erred in giving the applicant permission to reduce its plan by 4 building lots (from the originally applied-for 52 to the finally approved 48) without insisting on seeing the reduced plan.

–The commission impermissibly delegated too many details and conditions to the staff of the Office of Planning and Development Services (OPDS).

–The approved plan failed to satisfy several subdivision regulations, including those limiting the number of building lots allowed on dead-end streets.

–The commission didn’t consider reasonable and prudent alternatives to the developers’ plan before finding that the plan would not pollute or impair the environment.

In a separate development regarding the Merritt property, a Superior Court judge in New London on Dec. 8 denied F.L. Merritt Inc.’s second motion for a summary judgment against Ravenswood’s suit blocking the sale. Paul M. Geraghty, attorney for Ravenswood, asked Judge Elaine Gordon to assess legal costs against GOSA, but the judge turned down the request.

The next pre-trial development in the case was expected to take place Dec. 15, when F.L. Merritt Atty. William Kroll argues in Superior Court, New London, for sanctions against Geraghty and James Miele, another Ravenswood attorney, in connection with their conduct at a deposition by Merritt and GOSA of Miele Oct. 16, 2003.