Resident urges Somers selectmen to correct land‑use record after alleged contradictory cease‑and‑desist

Sean Curtis, a Somers resident, told the Board of Selectmen on July 16 that the town’s land‑use office failed to correct an inaccurate record before the planning and zoning commission voted on land‑use application 25‑006.

Curtis said staff acknowledged errors in writing — including that a property owner had buried stumps and other organic debris and that inspectors had tasted a liquid on site — but that the written corrections and an attorney review he was promised were not presented to the commission before its vote. “Mistakes happen. Integrity is what kicks in when those mistakes are recognized and corrected,” Curtis said.

Curtis said a cease‑and‑desist order issued May 21, 2026, was internally contradictory because it both ordered activity to cease immediately and tied enforcement to a modification request before the planning and zoning commission while allowing a 15‑day appeal to the zoning board of appeals under section 8‑7. He told the board he received follow‑up emails documenting staff acknowledgements but that the commitments to share correspondence with the commission and to forward questions to the town attorney “were simply not honored.”

Chair (speaker 6) and other selectmen acknowledged the concerns and thanked Curtis for speaking; later in the meeting Director Cadlock issued a general statement defending the land‑use department’s conduct. Cadlock said the department follows prescribed procedures, consults the town attorney as needed and that in disputes “you’re ultimately gonna have one dissatisfied party.”

The board did not take formal action on Curtis’s request at the meeting. Selectmen reiterated that zoning enforcement and planning decisions are handled by the planning and zoning commission and that, by law, the selectmen’s role is limited to appointing members. Selectmen said they would note the concern and oversee whether the record was corrected, but no formal direction, enforcement action or vote to reopen the application was recorded in the transcript.

The issue raises procedural questions about how the town documents site visits and how written clarifications are routed to decision bodies. Curtis asked the selectmen to exercise oversight responsibilities and to ensure records and attorney reviews promised in writing are delivered to the planning and zoning commission.

The selectmen’s next steps on this specific complaint were not specified at the meeting; Curtis said he had submitted email exchanges into the public record and asked for an on‑the‑record response.

Ending: The board moved on to other agenda items; no vote or formal referral on the Curtis complaint appears in the July 16 minutes in the transcript.