Residents urge board not to sell 100 Prospect Street, citing aquifer and blasting risks

The Seymour Board of Select Persons voted to authorize the chief administrative officer to solicit offers for 100 Prospect Street after debate and a prolonged public-comment period focused on environmental and neighborhood impacts. The motion authorizes a public solicitation of offers, with a stated intent to first offer the parcel to abutting landowners.

Neighbors who spoke at the meeting framed the issue as a public‑health and quality‑of‑life concern. "This is a horrible idea," said Debbie Zamoic, who gave her address on Cold Spring Drive and identified herself as working with Aquarion-related data; she cited Aquarian figures and said the local aquifer serves roughly 14,600 people and that some nearby neighborhoods rely on private wells. Carol Papale, who lives on Swan Avenue, recounted personal and family health and property concerns, warning that blasting could harm stone foundations, aggravate asthma and create silica dust that would affect children and residents.

Board members responded that 100 Prospect Street is a small, landlocked parcel the town acquired through foreclosure and that the town conducted due diligence including consulting DEEP and Aquarian (as referenced by residents). The first select woman said the town had an appraisal and that offering the parcel for sale — with an offer process that includes adjacent landowners — is the fairest way to resolve an asset the town does not use. She also emphasized that any new development on privately owned adjoining parcels would be subject to planning-and-zoning review and state agency approvals.

Several speakers pressed practical questions about truck routing, road capacity and noise. "Would they be going on Route 67 or up Johnson and Swan Avenue? Can these roads handle the size of the trucks that would need to be coming in and out of the quarry?" asked Elizabeth Rouchy, who identified a Swan Avenue address. Board members said traffic routes and site feasibility would be determined only if an applicant sought to develop the land and that planning-and-zoning review (and state agency signoffs where required) would apply.

The board emphasized the limits of its authority: selling the small parcel does not grant a buyer automatic rights to build; any development must proceed through the standard permitting channels and state environmental reviews where applicable. The motion approved at the meeting instructs the CAO to solicit offers; the board indicated abutting landowners would be given an early opportunity to bid. The board did not set an immediate deadline for completing the solicitation or a timetable for any subsequent planning-and-zoning review.

What happens next: the CAO was authorized to solicit offers and abutting owners will be included in the initial outreach. Any future development proposals would be handled through planning and zoning and, where applicable, through state environmental review.