Groton — The town of Groton and Respler Homes are slated to enter “good-faith informal mediation” after continuing to disagree with each other’s obligations under a development agreement.

That is the first step in resolving disputes, as outlined in the agreement between the town and the developer proposing a mixed-use development at the Mystic Education Center property, but may be followed by formal mediation and ultimately a judicial proceeding, Groton Town Manager John Burt said. 

Attorneys and representatives for the town and Respler Homes will be involved in the informal mediation, but no date or place has been set yet, Burt said. “Due to the differences in opinion now requiring a legal process, the Town will release further information when there is either a resolution or further action is necessary,” he said.

Respler Homes declined to comment Wednesday.

The move to go into the negotiations comes as Respler Homes and the town have disagreed in letters sent by their attorneys over each other's responsibilities as outlined in the development agreement executed in February 2020.

In 2019, a committee of town and state representatives selected Respler Homes as the preferred developer for the vacant, state-owned Mystic Education Center, also known as the Mystic Oral School, property, after a request for proposals process. Respler Homes and the state have signed a purchase and sale agreement for the property.

After discussions in workshops, the town's Planning and Zoning Commission reached a consensus in June to not move forward with initiating a floating zone for the property. The tract currently is zoned as RU-80, "meant to accommodate one-family dwellings, agriculture and related activities, and other lower-density uses," according to the town's zoning regulations. Commission members indicated they were concerned about “overdevelopment” and would leave it up to the developer to return to the commission.

In a July 13 letter, Respler Homes’ attorney, Gary B. O'Connor of Pullman & Comley, requested that the town submit a zoning amendment application for the redevelopment of the property and wrote that the development agreement says the town “shall be responsible for amending its Zoning Regulations to provide for and permit, subject to reasonable conditions and approvals, the development contemplated in this Agreement.”

O’Connor wrote that “absent an approved zoning amendment, Respler Homes finds itself at a standstill. It cannot finalize its development plan or file applications for additional land use approvals and permits without a zoning amendment substantially similar to the Proposed Amendment.”

In a July 22 letter, an attorney for the town, Richard S. Cody of Suisman Shapiro, said Respler Homes was in default of the development agreement and needed to provide outstanding information for the proposed redevelopment within 30 days, or the town would consider ending the agreement. Cody said Respler Homes had not provided information, such as approximate locations of storm drainage improvements, utilities, roads and easements, the expected timeline for the project's phases and detailed information on tax increment financing needed for the project.

Cody said Respler “materially failed to fulfill its obligations relative to the preliminary Development Plan” and the development proposed in the draft master plan exceeded the parameters outlined in the agreement. Cody also said “there is nothing in the Agreement that requires the Town to adopt regulations or change a zone.”

Developer Jeffrey Respler told The Day last month that he disagreed with the letter and that Respler Homes provided a conceptual master plan with information to the town, but, until the town approves a zoning text amendment, Respler Homes cannot submit a final master plan because questions remain unanswered, such as what building heights and setbacks would be allowed on the property.

Burt said Respler’s attorney indicated in an Aug. 17 letter that Respler Homes disagreed with several of the town’s points and invoked the process for dispute resolution outlined in the agreement. He said the town's attorney reached out to Respler's attorney with potential dates for the good-faith negotiations.

Respler Homes’ letter

Burt said the town, which published both of the July letters on its website, is not releasing Respler's Aug. 17 letter at this point, after being advised by legal counsel, based on an exemption in the Freedom of Information Act for “Records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.”

Edward E. Moukawsher, an attorney representing neighbors of the Mystic Education Center and other people opposed to the project, sent the town manager and town councilors a letter on Tuesday evening that cited case law and said the letter is a public document. Rosanne Kotowski, one of the residents he represents, had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the document. Kotowski also is a Representative Town Meeting member for Groton’s District 5.

Moukawsher said he would appeal to the Freedom of Information Commission and seek civil penalties of $1,000 if the town does not release the document. 

Moukawsher said the exemption the town cited only “protects records 'pertaining to strategy and negotiations'” for pending claims and litigation. “Unless the attorney for Respler Homes has switched sides and has submitted a letter advising the Town of Groton as to strategy and negotiations with his former client there is no basis for involving (the exemption). Additionally, there is no evidence that a pending claim or litigation even exists. A difference of opinion is not a pending claim or litigation,” he wrote.

Burt said the Town Council, at its next regular meeting on Sept. 7, will be getting an update on the letter. He said he already spoke to the Freedom of Information Commission, which indicated the town’s attorneys have a strong case for an exemption, but the council will discuss whether or not to release the letter. He said, under the exemption, the town would be allowed to decide whether or not it’s necessary to keep the letter exempt as part of a potential legal process.

“We’re trying to be as transparent as possible while positioning ourselves just in case there’s further legal process involved,” Burt said.

k.drelich@theday.com