State files motion to dismiss Seaside State Park lawsuit
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
May 1—WATERFORD — The state, in response to a lawsuit filed against it in Hartford Superior Court for its planned demolition of several historic buildings at Seaside State Park, is asking the court to dismiss the case.
That case, filed by developer Mark Steiner on March 14, alleges that the state's failure to do upkeep on the property after it was abandoned in 1997 led to the buildings' decay.
In 2014, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy announced the state would designate Seaside as a state park, thus ending a sales contract with Steiner. Then in 2016, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection presented a master plan for redevelopment and renovation of the historic buildings on the site. But last year, DEEP announced that it was changing that plan and would instead use $7.1 million in American Rescue Plan funds to create a "passive park."
The passive park plan, released by DEEP the same day Steiner filed his suit, calls for the removal of "deteriorated buildings," along with new restrooms, picnic areas and walking trails, and improvements to shoreline and parking areas. It also said it had hired a contractor to "help facilitate public outreach."
Steiner sought an injunction against DEEP's proposed demolition of the five buildings at the park that are on the National Register of Historic Places and designed by renowned architect Cass Gilbert.
Steiner, in his suit, claims that under statutes defined in the state's Environmental Policy Act, the buildings on the national register are protected against "unreasonable destruction by the State."
Last week, the Office of Attorney General William Tong, on behalf of the state, filed a motion that the case should be dismissed because it has not met the necessary conditions to circumvent the state's sovereign immunity.
The motion notes that no work on the new park has begun.
"Sovereign immunity limits private litigation against the State, unless certain conditions have been met and the legislature grants approval," Elizabeth Benton, a spokesperson for the office, wrote in an email Tuesday.
"Our brief argues those conditions were not met, among a number of other arguments," she added. "The State's actions with regard to Seaside were lawful and appropriate and, we will continue to vigorously defend against this claim."
While the environmental laws cited by Steiner do incorporate a waiver of the state's sovereign immunity if the destruction is deemed to be unreasonable, the attorney general's brief in the case claims that the waiver doesn't apply because the demolition is not unreasonable.
"As alleged, there has been significant decline in these buildings, due in part to water infiltration, exposure to the elements and vandalism," the Tong wrote in the motion to dismiss. "Prior to its designation as a state park, the State Historic Preservation Office indicated to the plaintiff that the buildings were so structurally unsound that 'rehabilitation of existing buildings was no longer feasible and prudent.' "
While the attorney general's motion does not expressly address the second part of Steiner's claim — that the buildings deteriorated because of neglect by the state — it does acknowledge that it is Steiner's assertion, and the state "reserves all right to contest such assertions on the merits."
The state has concurrently filed a motion to stay any other activity in the case ― including April requests from Steiner for admission and to inspect the Seaside property ― until the court rules on the dismissal.
Steiner and lawyer David Sherwood, of Glastonbury-based Moriarty, Paetzold & Sherwood, have 30 days after April 24 to respond after which the court will schedule a hearing on the motion to dismiss.
The next court date is scheduled for May 9.
