Groton Open Space Association

GOSA Urges State To Prevent Use Of Land For Parking Lot

GROTON–The Groton Open Space Association has urged the State to veto a plan approved by the Town Council to create a 100-space “temporary” parking lot on Fort Hill land that was acquired with funds raised by a bond issue approved in 1988 for buying open-space, conservation and recreational acreage.

Priscilla Pratt, GOSA president, said in a letter dated Sept. 20, 2005, to the Department of Environmental Protection that creation of the parking lot would violate the citizens’ trust in the 1988 bond issue referendum and “would set a dangerous precedent and open the door for future requests.”

The state has a say in the matter because some state money was involved in the purchase of the 35-acre Merritt property along Route 1. (This is not the 75-acre Merritt property that GOSA has a contract to purchase.)

The Town Council had approved the parking lot by a 7-2 vote Sept. 20, 2005. The lot was described as “temporary” for use during construction work at the school, but “temporary” was not defined. Councilors Elissa Wright and Paulann Sheets cast votes against.

In a Sept. 22, 2005, editorial, the Mystic River Press opposed the plan, asking “when will the Merritt property stop being a parking lot? What will it be used for once the cars go away?” It noted that bus service is available to the school. “Instead of a temporary parking lot, perhaps it would be wiser to have a temporary moratorium at Fitch, prohibiting some or all of the student body from driving to school until the construction is completed.”

The Merritt property was one of six lands, acquired with 1988 bond money, that Councilor Wright sought earlier this year to protect more securely. Ms. Wright tried to have strong language inserted into the land records noting the purpose for which the lands were acquired. Instead, the council passed a watered-down measure sponsored by Councilor Natalie Burfoot-Billing that did not mention the Merritt property.

During the debate on Ms. Wright’s proposed resolution, Councilor Thomas Skrmetti dismissed supporters of her measure as “special interest groups,” and he contended the issue of protection was “an engineered crisis led by a small group of people.”

In a letter published in the Mystic River Press Sept. 22, 2005, Noank resident Edward R. Johnson said he would “go so far as to say that the timing of the recent Council vote in favor of the … [Burfoot-Billing] proposal, combined with this latest maneuver to alter the use of the Merritt property, seems suspicious.”