To the Editor:
I have written to Wilton’s Board of Selectmen about whether the Town has an enforceable legal interest in the Declaration of Land Use Restrictions recorded against the School Sisters of Notre Dame property in 2013. Assistant town counsel has advised that it does not. I disagree.
My letter to the board is included as a PDF below and I encourage everyone to read it.
According to Town records, that advice rests entirely on the Declaration’s failure to name a beneficiary or recite consideration. Such a limited analysis appears contrary to the leading Connecticut Supreme Court decision on enforcing land-use restrictions, Wykeham Rise, LLC v. Federer, 305 Conn. 448, 52 A.3d 702 (2012), which held that whether an unnamed beneficiary can enforce a restriction requires considering other evidence, including the circumstances surrounding its creation. On that basis alone, a second opinion is warranted.
The Declaration states clearly that it was intended to limit future changes in the property’s use and building size; to bind the School Sisters, the property and future owners; and to “run with the land” for 50 years. Under Connecticut law, those statements of intent carry real weight and are not diminished by the absence of consideration or a named beneficiary. I believe they would bar the School Sisters from unilaterally withdrawing the Declaration from the land records. Town counsel’s advice should be re-examined.
I have asked the Board to obtain a reasoned second opinion that considers applicable law, the Declaration’s stated intent and the circumstances of its creation, including correspondence and negotiations between the Town’s and the School Sisters’ counsel, the sewer-approval records and related emails.
I take no position on any development proposal or on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s process. I agree with assistant town counsel that the commission has no authority to interpret, waive, modify or eliminate private rights held by third-party beneficiaries. Connecticut courts have consistently held that zoning approval does not override or extinguish private restrictive covenants. Commission approval removes only the zoning obstacle; it does not clear or diminish any title obstacle created by a private restriction.
Restrictions negotiated on the public’s behalf have lasting value only if the Town understands, preserves and enforces them when warranted. A change in ownership or a development proposal some may find desirable should not by itself erase protections secured for the community.
The board should obtain a second opinion, explain its reasoning and conclusions to residents and act to protect whatever enforceable rights the Town and its agencies hold. Residents should be confident that their elected officials will not surrender bargained-for restrictions without a sound legal basis or community consent.
Patricia Frisch
