The owner of a property abutting Robert Scinto’s Fountain Lake development has sued the city and Scinto over a proposed road on Scinto’s land.
Jeanne Shuster wants the road to extend to her 11-acre plot off Great Hill Road — giving her property access to the Fountain Lake Commerce Park.
But Scinto’s plans call for the road to stop before the end of his property on Fountain Lake — unless Shuster kicks in some money toward the more than $2 million it costs to construct the road.
Shuster’s attorney, George Mendillo, filed the civil suit at Superior Court in Milford last week seeking a ruling that gives her access to the proposed road, and at least $15,000 in damages.
The city is named in the suit because the Planning and Zoning commission approved Scinto’s site plans with the shorter road.
The complaint also claims the city would profit from any money Shuster paid Scinto toward the road.
Background
The complaint says Shuster’s property was part of the “Fountain Lake Commerce Park” subdivision approved in 1998 — before Scinto purchased the Fountain Lake Property from the city.
The proposal initially called for an access road connecting Route 334 to the two lots, Shuster’s complaint says.
But in 2006, the boundary for the commerce park project was changed to exclude Shuster’s land and the proposed road was shortened, the complaint claims.
Shuster’s land abuts Route 334 on one side, and a small private road, Friers Drive.
But access from either side is not possible because it doesn’t meet grading requirements and would cost more than the property value to fix, the complaint says.
Scinto’s Project
Scinto purchased the 44 acre-parcel from the city in 2006 for $1.12 million, according to an archived article of the New Haven Register.
In 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commissioner approved his plans to excavate the parcel and build an access road.
In an interview Monday, Scinto said the access road is being constructed now.
Scinto said he would only be able to build on about 12 acres of the 44-acre lot when the excavation is complete because of the rock ledge on the property.
He is seeking a tenant for the property now, and said he specifically wants a company that is looking to own a building he would tailor to the company’s needs.
Scinto said the land will be ready for building in a year.
Reaction
Scinto, who had not seen the complaint yet, called the suit “frivolous” and pointed out that Shuster’s land is not landlocked because of the Route 334 frontage.
In a legal opinion filed prior to the 2006 Planning and Zoning approval of Scinto’s site plans, city counsel Kevin Blake also pointed out the access to Route 334.
Scinto said because he is not subdividing his 44-acre parcel, he is not required to give access to neighboring properties. The offer to extend the road to Shuster’s land if she helps pay part of the cost still stands, Scinto said.
Blake declined to comment.
