Litchfield committee weighs buying state highway parcels to preserve right-of-way to Route 102

The Litchfield Circumferential Highway Exploratory Committee discussed whether the town should seek to acquire state-owned parcels tied to a stalled circumferential highway project so it can preserve a right-of-way to Route 102 and protect future access.

Committee members and Jay Manara of the National Regional Planning Commission spent most of the meeting reviewing maps, a recent site visit and video, and policy tools the town could use. Manara told the committee that “under state statute, the town does have the ability to ... create a business and industrial development authority” through a warrant article, and that an authority or the town itself could acquire land for a municipal purpose—including laying out a right-of-way—and later transfer surplus land for commercial use.

Why it matters: Speakers said the key municipal interest would be preserving or securing a corridor from Route 3A to Route 102 so that, if development is ever feasible, the town would retain access. Without a right-of-way, they warned, future buyers could place development where the town cannot easily require the access it wants.

What was discussed: The committee reviewed the history of planning for the circumferential highway (a concept dating to the 1980s) and a current set of state-owned parcels that the state may appraise and put up for sale. The largest parcel discussed is a combined 110-acre property (previously split as ~87.37 and ~34.57 acres); committee members also focused on a smaller 3.13-acre parcel that campus members described as the likely gateway or right-of-way. Manara said asking the state to prioritize an appraisal requires the town to formally express interest; once the state appraises, the town can decide whether to pursue purchase or let the state put parcels to bid.

Constraints and trade-offs: Members repeatedly flagged constraints that would limit large-scale industrial development, notably limited sewer capacity (an 8-inch sewer exists on the Hudson side but Hudson cannot accept more flow), wetlands on portions of the properties, and infrastructure costs. As one member put it, major manufacturing would be difficult “without sewer.” The group noted that conceptual engineering, wetlands mapping and some preliminary design work would be necessary to determine technical feasibility, and that those studies carry nontrivial costs.

Policy tools considered: In addition to direct purchase the committee discussed alternatives: laying out a town-owned conceptual right-of-way without buying all holdings, creating a business and industrial development authority to acquire and manage property, rezoning to align with a desired future use, and forming a tax-increment financing (TIF) or development district to capture future tax gains to finance infrastructure. Manara explained that a TIF allows a community to use increases in tax revenue from new development to pay bonds for infrastructure and that such districts and warrant-article actions require voter approval.

Public concerns: Property owner Callie Malik, who said her house at 19 Charles Bankra sits adjacent to the discussed right-of-way, asked how the town would handle current uses of the informal road and expressed worry that people treat the dirt road as a parking lot, “which they shouldn’t,” blocking access and creating safety concerns. Committee members replied that Noel’s Tree Farm has a legal access right but that parking and obstruction complaints are matters to be resolved; they directed staff to check deeds and registry records and to follow up with the state about the deeded right-of-way.

Next steps: The committee agreed to research deeds and assessed values for the priority parcels (notably the 3.13-acre gateway lot, the 110-acre parcel, and a 37.7-acre river parcel), confirm right-of-way language, and ask the state to appraise parcels if the town signals interest. Members also asked for conceptual mapping and for a brief list of options to present to the select board at its next meeting. No motion or formal vote was taken.

Context: Committee members noted the town’s limited infrastructure (sewer capacity and school/municipal service impacts) and public sensitivity to large residential development. Several speakers emphasized the need to present a clear vision to voters if the town is to commit public funds to buying land or funding engineering work.

The meeting closed with assignments for deed research, map updates and a plan to report back to the select board; the committee scheduled a follow-up meeting next month.