Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Conveyance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plymouth conveyance draws split public testimony: neighbor seeks control to deter trespass; conservation groups urge state to retain forest land
Summary
Representative Hawkes testified in favor of HB 7,282 to convey a small parcel of state forest land in Plymouth to an adjacent owner who says he will steward the plot and prevent repeated trespass and littering.
Representative Hawkes, a state representative, testified that he supports HB 7,282 to convey a small parcel of state land in Plymouth to a neighboring property owner so that the owner can better prevent trespass and cleanup repeated litter and partying on the site.
Why it matters: The parcel lies adjacent to Mattatuck State Forest and is reported by the proponent to have recurring trespass and disorderly conduct that affects an adjoining campground and private residence. Proponents said local stewardship and daily presence on the land would better protect the parcel.
Opposition and public-interest concerns: The Connecticut Forest & Park Association (CFPA) and Save the Sound testified in opposition, saying parcels within state forests deliver public benefits including recreation, wildlife habitat, forest connectivity and carbon storage. CFPA urged deed restrictions, reverter clauses, and caution when transferring land with significant road frontage to private ownership. Save the Sound noted a lack of posted supporting documentation for the conveyance in the committee record and asked for more transparency.
Clarifying details: The proponent, Dan Gentile, said the parcel is rocky and largely ledge, and he offered to pay fair-market value and accept deed restrictions that maintain open-space use. He told committee members he had previously called police about trespassers and that the parcel’s proximity to his residence and campground made stewardship by a private owner practical.
Formal action at hearing: The hearing recorded testimony only; no committee vote took place. Opponents asked that the state evaluate alternatives to conveyance (for example, enforcement action or forest management) and recommended reverter language if a conveyance is approved.
Ending: The committee did not take a vote; several members asked DEEP and local officials to provide maps, surveys and a recommendation about whether conveyance is consistent with the state’s long-term land-conservation goals.
