Excavation details approved for two Torrington companies
TORRINGTON — The likely merger of two adjoining quarry
operations between Haynes Aggregates and O&G Industries on Winsted Road
prompted the two companies to seek a joint application for excavation.
The Planning and Zoning Commission on Wednesday unanimously
approved the application for a joint stone excavation plan following a hearing
that included criticism from the previous quarry owner, Holly Blinkoff.
The commission’s approval was for a special exemption for
excavation and four waivers, including slope levels and setbacks.
The ultimate plan is to merge the two properties over the
next two to five years with a single owner, according to comments by Ken Hrica,
project engineer and surveyor for the two quarries.
“There’s a lot of logistical reasons why they can’t merge
the properties today or in the immediate future,” Hrica said during the
meeting.
The excavation will continue on the Haynes Aggregate
property and eventually move on to the O&G quarry nearby.
It’s estimated 150,000 to 300,000 cubic yards of material
will be removed per year, with approximately 100 to 160 truckloads per day, the
same as it is now. The maximum number of truck loads is 250 per day.
O&G asked to be allowed to continue some excavation in
its area. Hrica said O&G continues to do some work at its own quarry, which
is set further back from the Haynes property. There is a long, steep road
accessing the O&G quarry, making it more difficult to remove materials.
“The ultimate plan is to allow the two (companies) to keep
working while they work out the necessities of the joint merger, and eventually
the quarry will be mined from the Haynes (site), moving into the O&G
(site),” Hrica said. “In the long run, there’s going to be a single operation.”
Blinkoff noted O&G’s quarry is listed as abandoned by
the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, the federal agency that
oversees quarries and mines.
O&G spokesman Seth Duke said the term “abandonment” is
used by MSHA to label a site that isn’t in daily use.
“The site is fully permitted for mining operations and has
been used on an intermittent basis,” Duke said.
For the past seven years, the two companies have a business
relationship in which Haynes owns and operates the quarry, while O&G
operates the scale house.
“That’s it. That’s why the sign is there,” said Ken Faroni,
a recently retired O&G employee who continues to do work for the company.
The comments Wednesday night were in response to additional
claims by Blinkoff that O&G operates the Hynes quarry without approval from
the city based on photos of O&G signs at the property.
Faroni noted O&G has a similar relationship with a
quarry in Waterbury and a previous relationship with a quarry in Monroe where
it only operated the scale house.
Biden gears up to push behemoth infrastructure plan
Krystal Hur As President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill heads to his desk this week, his administration is preparing to introduce a massive infrastructure relief bill sometime this month.
During the 2020 election, Biden ran on his Build Back Better plan that promises to create “the jobs we need to build a modern, sustainable infrastructure now and deliver an equitable clean energy future.” While the plan is priced at around $2 trillion dollars, the White House has not yet decided on the package’s exact size.
The recent snowstorm in Texas that left millions without power and dozens dead highlighted the need for an infrastructure overhaul, some say. But the United States’ crumbling infrastructure has long been a pressing national issue. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave American infrastructure a cumulative C- grade on its 2021 Report Card, citing frequent water main breaks, poor road conditions and more. The organization is currently running online advertisements in Washington, D.C., calling for infrastructure legislation.
Recent Biden hires suggest that the president is gearing up to tackle infrastructure issues. The White House recently hired three women for the National Economic Council perceived to be focused on infrastructure: Elisabeth Reynolds is principal research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and executive director of the school’s Industrial Performance Center. She is joined by Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority official Samantha Silverberg and former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau administrator Leandra English.
Biden met with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and eight members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on March 4 to discuss the impending infrastructure package. Biden previously met with a group of senators on Feb. 11 to discuss infrastructure concerns.
According to the Associated Press, Biden stated that the Thursday meeting with lawmakers was about “what we’re gonna do to make sure we once again lead the world across the board on infrastructure,” adding that “it not only creates jobs, but it makes us a helluva lot more competitive around the world if we have the best infrastructure.”
Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), a lawmaker present at the Thursday meeting with Biden in the White House, told The Hill, “I thought it was good, it seemed to be productive. The president was very engaged and very open. Nobody got into any fights.”
Many business groups have urged the Biden administration to pass sweeping infrastructure changes. On Feb. 17, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce-spearheaded campaign, Build by the Fourth of July, sent Congress a letter urging it “to enact a fiscally and environmentally responsible infrastructure package that stimulates the economy and improves the quality of life for every American” by July 4. The initiative has gained 310 partners, including the American Public Transportation Association and the American Society of Civil Engineers, since Feb. 22.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent nearly $82 million lobbying in 2020 and undertook several infrastructure-related issues such as transportation. The big business group regularly tops all lobbying spenders, but was the No. 2 spender in 2020.
Laborers make up a key part of Biden’s base, and many groups that represent them have rallied for an infrastructure overhaul. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris met with leaders of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), AFL-founded North America’s Building Trades Union and other unions on Feb. 17 to discuss coronavirus relief and infrastructure.
The meeting appeared to be cordial. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, who last month expressed disappointment that Biden canceled permits for the Keystone XL pipeline, tweeted after the meeting that it was “the most productive Oval Office meeting in years.” AFL-CIO spent about $5.3 million on federal lobbying efforts in 2020.
Republicans and Democrats have long sparred over how to tackle infrastructure issues. Former President Donald Trump blamed House Democrats for not being able to follow up on his 2016 promise to pass infrastructure relief legislation during his years in the White House, making his administration the butt of the “infrastructure week” joke.
Last summer, a $1.5 trillion dollar infrastructure plan to spend billions on clean energy projects, low-income schools and more, passed the House Democrats but was struck down by the Senate Republicans.
Biden’s infrastructure relief package will likely be met with mixed reactions from both sides of the aisle, with its key tenet of addressing climate change expected to cause the most friction. While lawmakers including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have long championed sweeping legislation to address sustainability issues such as environmental racism, Republicans remain more skeptical.
Graves said in a statement that “a highway bill cannot grow into a multi-trillion dollar catch-all bill, or it will lose Republican support… Republicans won’t support another Green New Deal disguising itself as a transportation bill.”
If Biden can’t drum up bipartisan support for his bill, Democrats would have to use the budget reconciliation process to pass the bill with a simple majority and no filibuster. While Biden has vowed to push for bipartisan cooperation, Senate Democrats already resorted to using the rule to pass his $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) told Axios that he would help block Biden’s infrastructure package if Republicans aren’t happy with it, adding that he will support tax increases to help pay for the plan. He also said he believes he will be able to use his position as Energy Committee chairman to sway Republicans’ stances on climate change issues.
“I’m not going to do it through reconciliation.” Manchin said. “I am not going to get on a bill that cuts them out completely before we start trying.”
Mark Zaretsky NEW HAVEN — Tania Giacomini says she can smell jet fuel from her home on Townsend Avenue, depending on which way the wind is blowing.
Plus, Giacomini said, in addition to “a lot of concerns
about the fumes,” and “chemicals that are being released by the jets,”
neighbors continue to have “many concerns” about noise coming from Tweed New
Haven Regional Airport.
Giacomini and other area residents and officials offered
opinions during a presentation on the soon-to-be final version of the airport’s
20-year master plan update — with proposals to move the airport’s main entrance
and terminal to the East Haven side and extend the main runway from 5,600 feet
to 6,635 feet. The master plan is anticipated to gain final FAA approvals by
early summer
The airport is owned by New Haven but straddles the New
Haven-East Haven border, with much of its private aviation side — plus the
proposed new terminal and entrance locations — located in the town.
The master plan’s proposal to lengthen the runway by paving
portions of the unpaved runway safety areas on either end follows a federal
court decision in Tweed’s favor that opened the way to runway extension. The
U.S. Supreme Court last year declined to hear the state’s appeal of the
decision.
The public
East Haven resident Patrick Rowland, for instance has lots
of questions about access to the airport, which Airport Executive Director Sean
Scanlon had said would likely be off Hemingway Avenue and Proto Drive. Rowland
said, “...I don’t see why anyone in East Haven would support this at all?,”
Rowland said.
“How do you plan on getting (to Tweed) from the west?”
Rowland asked. “It isn’t any easier and just as complex and contributes to the
extensive traffic — eastbound on I-95 is already heavy. Adding additional
traffic is simply moving it from one state road (Townsend Avenue is a state
road) down past the gas stations, traffic of the stores and all that.. all the
way up to turning right on Coe and Hemingway.
“Has anyone who looked at this proposal ever driven on these
roads?” he asked. “It would make matters worse.”
“We get all the bad stuff and Morris Cove vis a vis Townsend
Avenue and all that in Martin Looney’s back yard is saved from traffic,”
Rowland said.
Scanlon said that “this master plan is what would be our
ideal scenario to happen ... and there’s a lot of ground that we have to cover
... If it’s a traffic study for Exit 52,” that can happen, he said. “Maybe we
need to have a conversation with East Haven about what they’re getting.”
Since Tweed first opened in 1931, the main entrance has been
on Burr Street, accessible by traveling on narrow residential streets off
Townsend Avenue on New Haven’s East Shore.
Even with FAA approval, “It won’t happen without significant
buy-in from East Haven,” Scanlon said.
Kevin Rocco, meanwhile, was one of several people who
offered support for the idea of an expanded Tweed.
“It seems like I am likely in the minority here, but I
really hope to see an expanded Tweed within the next 10 years,” Rocco said.
“Real cities need real airports within reasonable distance. An expanded Tweed
could do this for the Greater New Haven area. Bradley is way too far, and all
the travelers going to Bradley or NYC airports are actually much worse for our
traffic and pollution.”
City and airport officials have said they need to extend the
main runway to at least 6,000 feet in order to attract additional commercial
airlines.
Service
Steve Haddon, an East Haven resident and member of the
town’s Economic Development Commission, said he questions the airport’s
assumption of how fast the airline industry will bounce back from the
coronavirus pandemic and said, “I have serious doubts about the forecast of
numbers that you’re putting up now.”
Scanlon responded, There’ s no question that “we are all
sort of figuring this out on the fly.”
Jeff Wood of McFarland Johnson, the consultant the Tweed New
Haven Airport Authority hired for the master plan update process, said that in
drafting the plan, the consult revised the forecast for 2020 enplanements,
originally estimated to be 65,659, down to about 13,000.
The airport, which lost service from its one commercial
airline, American, which formerly offered multiple flights a day to
Philadelphia and one flight a week to Charlotte, N.C., for about a month before
the last stimulus bill resulted in American restoring flights to Philly,
actually ended the year with 11,400 enplanements, a consultant for the airport
said later.
About the timeline going forward, Wood said they anticipate
final FAA approvals of the master plan update would be in place by early
summer. Meanwhile, “an environmental assessment we anticipate would kick off
fairly quickly,” he said.
The assessment would have to be complete within a year of
beginning, he said. “After that, design and construction can begin.”
“How much funding is going to be coming from tax dollars?”
asked resident Charlotte Beals.
Scanlon responded that “the runway itself will be funded
primarily through” funds from the federal government, while building a new
terminal “would most likely be funded through a private investor.” He did not
name any particular investor.
While no East Haven officials spoke during the presentation,
Mayor Joe Carfora and state Rep. Joe Zullo, R-East Haven, both offered emailed
comments afterward.
“My position remains unchanged from the comments that I made
at the start of the public hearing this past January,” said Carfora, who said
at that time that “the expansion of this airport must not be placed solely on
our backs of my constituents, and too often it seems as though everyone overlooks
that. It’s simply not going to happen. Our quality of life will be impacted,
and it matters.”
That said, “I will reemphasize that East Haven wants to be a
good and productive neighbor; however, the town and its taxpayers must be
protected and treated equitably,” Carfora said. “While my position might seem
aggressive, and one-sided to some, my concern is our community and its
well-being.”
Zullo said East Haven needs assurances that the Tweed master
plan “will improve the community’s bottom line, increases residents’ quality of
life and expand economic and job opportunities in town and across the region.
“As the airport continues to develop its master plan, it is
important for East Haven to have ‘a seat at the table’ — but that seat alone is
meaningless if it is not accompanied by concrete, substantive action by the
state, the City of New Haven, the airport and other regional players to ensure
that our residents’ quality of life concerns are addressed and respected and
that the airport’s master plan stands to tangibly benefit our residents and
taxpayers.
“To date, we have heard that a self-sustaining, profitable
airport will save the City of New Haven and the State of Connecticut the need
to pay millions of dollars in subsZullo said he thinks the subsidies “should be
phased out in the long term.” However, he said, in the immediate short term,
“the portion remitted by the state should be redirected to the Town of East
Haven or to a special development district encompassing the areas surrounding
the airport, to revitalize those neighborhoods and help increase property
values, especially along our West End corridor and feeder streets like Charter
Oak Avenue and Dodge Avenue.”
Zullo also wrote that the state, “as a partner in this,
should also study the feasibility of building new transit-oriented development
in East Haven, including any opportunities for rail service in non-residential,
undeveloped areas of town.”
Southington approves a $125,000 state grant to help fund sewer line extension
Brian M. Johnson SOUTHINGTON – The town council has approved a $125,000 state grant which will help to fund a long-sought sewer line extension over the Spring Street Bridge and to Smoron Court. The extension, which town leaders hope will encourage development of the area, will require bridge renovation which will occur this year.
In total, the renovation project will cost $250,000. The grant, which was approved by the Town Council Monday, will pay for half of the costs while the rest has been budgeted as part of the town’s planned road and bridge repairs this year.
Lou Perillo III, economic development director, said that this sewer line extension has been on the town’s agenda for more than a decade.
“The state paying for half of the project is a big boost,” he said. “We couldn’t do anything until the sewer came over the river on that bridge. The cost of bringing a sewer line under a river, or over it by hanging it on a bridge and redoing the bridge, had been prohibitive in the past.”
This particular area of town has had to rely on septic systems in the past, which Perillo said has been a limiting factor when trying to attract developers to the area.
“This project will carry the line over the bridge to Smoron Court,” said Perillo. “We’re hoping that another developer could then carry it to residential homes. Long-term, we’re hoping to be able to connect the line to West Street. When we have the infrastructure in place, it will make this area significantly more attractive and help us to land prospective tenants.”
Jim Grappone, assistant town engineer, said that the first phase of the project, which has been contracted to Dayton Construction Company, Inc. of Watertown, will begin in April of this year.
The first phase of construction, which will run from April 1 through Sept. 16, will see alternating one-way traffic and the installation of a temporary traffic signal.
The second phase of construction will run from Sept. 16 of this year through July 16 2022. During that time, the road will go back to two-way traffic and the temporary signal will be removed.
The work is expected to be complete in Aug. 2022.
Grappone added that Spring Street may see additional work this summer.
“We’re very close to getting Department of Transportation approval for providing an exclusive right turn lane on Spring Street and Queen Street near the Plan b restaurant. This is intended to eliminate the backup of traffic that is occurring now as you’re exiting Spring Street and turning onto Queen Street.”
Grappone said that the town sought a permit for this work last winter and is hoping to bring a contractor out to start the work in early April.
Perillo said that numerous companies have expressed an interest in coming to town and that he is working with them to find suitable locations. Perillo said that these prospective companies include four restaurants, a solar company, three landscapers, medical offices and market rate apartments.
“There is also a gas station that is looking to open on Meriden-Waterbury Road opposite of Manor Inn,” said Perillo. “They are in the process of submitting plans for a modified zone there.”
Perillo said that interest is “remarkably strong” coming off of the pandemic.
“People have had a year to think about what they want to do and they see Southington as a worthwhile market to do business in,” he said. “We have steady taxes and you get a good value for what you pay for. Southington is also becoming quite well-known as a restaurant destination. People are coming here from all over because our restaurant quality and variety is great.”
The Common Council approved Wednesday to refer the item to the Consolidated Subcommittee for further review on the resolution’s language and make potential amendments.
Alderwoman Sharon Beloin-Saavedra said the resolution was made in response to a few issues, to clear up cloudy language in the ordinance, clarify contradictions between the ordinance and the city charter, and address recent disputes between the city and New Britain Schools on how the ordinance is interpreted.
Referencing to three different lawyers from both the district and the city that concluded with three different opinions on the meaning of the ordinance, Beloin-Saavedra said the language needs to be clarified and determine the roles and responsibilities on who can do what.
For those reasons, she urged her colleagues to support the referral to committee in order “to discuss the language and its impact.”
The initial dispute was sparked by the SBC’s hiring of a retired school facilities director last year to lead the Chamberlain Elementary School renovation project and reroofing projects at Pulaski and Slade Middle School. Both city and school district officials questioned the legality of the committee to hire the position.
The SBC is a non-paid 7-member organization appointed by the city, according to the city’s ordinance. It is responsible for developing preliminary plans and cost estimates for each school construction project and reports are made to the Board of Education, the Common Council and the Mayor’s Office.
One of the key points of concern for several city officials and community members was the removal of the BOE and the Common Council’s authority to determine financial expenses, specifically towards hiring positions. Another concern was altering the committee membership by eliminating Common Council appointments.
According to the current resolution, the employment of architects, engineers and construction representatives are subject to the approval of the BOE and the Common Council. With the amended resolution, the employment of contractors was added to the list and the authority of the BOE and Common Council were removed.
The amended resolution states “the school building committee shall engage, select, and enter into or continue all necessary contracts with contractors, architects, landscape architects, or engineers, and within the limits of the appropriations made by the council, this committee shall engage and fix the salary of one or more construction representatives who shall be responsible to the school building committee.”
Several callers dialed in to express their worries about the suggested changes. BOE Member Gayle Sanders-Connolly described the amendments as “incautious” and former BOE member Jim Sanders Jr. said it is disingenuous to the taxpayers who elected both bodies to watch over the tax dollars.
After public participation, Alderman Aram Ayalon said, “there is a lot of responsibility on us to any contract that the city is involved with, especially when it’s involving millions of dollars.”
“If there are contradictions between the ordinance and the charter, we should change the charter,” he said. “To allow a committee to run amok on its own is very irresponsible.”
Alderman Kristian Rosado expressed his concern about the constant back-and-forth between elected officials on this subject and hopes to clear the air by continuing civil discussions about the resolution.
“We have plenty of time to discuss this and I believe as time goes on, something better will come out of it,” he said.
Lamont should justify tens of millions in utility subsidies
David Collins In the world of excessive government spending and corporate welfare, I'd say Gov. Ned Lamont has won the sweepstakes, maybe not just for Connecticut but for every state in the country.
Just last week, Lamont barely hesitated after a reporter popped a surprise question about the skyrocketing cost of the governor's State Pier remake during one of his COVID-19 briefings, which he otherwise seems to enjoy.
The question: Are you comfortable with the new price point of $200 million for the pier project?
Yes, the governor responded to the query about the latest surge of more than $40 million in the estimated cost of the project, calling the money a good investment.
In my mind he's largely investing in the hugely profitable wind farm projects of two rich utilities, one foreign, which are also eventually going to charge consumers above-market electric rates for the cost of building them, while taking a profit.
One outrage of this hose-the-consumer/taxpayer plan is that neither the utility nor the state will even tell us how much we will pay for this offshore-generated electricity, despite the fact that they already know the price and have committed Connecticut residents and businesses to paying it.
Why doesn't Lamont just brand the Capitol with a giant Eversource billboard and admit he's handed the state over to the utility and its shareholders?
First of all, even if the State Pier project and escalating subsidies were sensible, the delays and cost overruns, which Lamont agreed to have paid entirely by the state, have been staggering.
When the project was announced in 2019, it was going to cost $93 million, and construction was supposed to begin in January 2020. The public/private cost sharing was then close to being equal, with the utilities actually paying more.
The cost is now at $200 million, according to the governor, and maybe climbing, with the state absorbing all the overruns.
How is this not a giant boondoggle, even without factoring in all the corruption at the port authority, which created the deal.
The big lie about the need for the state to pay for this project is one the governor repeated in his answer to the surprise question at his pandemic briefing.
"It is necessary to get wind power going over the next 10 years," Lamont said.
No it's not. And the governor must know this.
The expensive rebuild of State Pier to suit the rich utilities has absolutely nothing to do with whether the state has access to the renewable energy of offshore wind. Plans to build big wind farms by these and other utilities do not depend in any way on whether Connecticut spends a big part of $200 million making the New London port wind utility friendly.
Indeed, there is nothing in the deals committing the state and the utilities to the offshore wind electricity purchases that require the state to spend so much money rebuilding the port of New London.
If Lamont chooses to walk away from the spending overruns for the pier project, which the deal gives him the right to do, the utilities will just have to go somewhere else to do the work. It's their problem.
And there will certainly be other places to go. Other states are preparing their ports for wind work, seemingly at lower prices than are projected for the New London project.
New Jersey appears to have made progress toward a commitment from the industry for some actual wind component manufacturing, which has eluded Connecticut.
Indeed, the number of estimated jobs for the assembly work planned for New London, some 400 with the rosiest projections, are hardly more than you would get with a new Walmart.
Gov. Lamont needs to explain why he's spending more than $120 million to create some 400 new jobs while at the same time eliminating many others, given the shutdown of existing businesses to make way for the project.
The idea that the pier will be improved for when wind assembly is finished is misguided because so much of the cost is related to the specific needs of the utilities. You could rebuild the port for traditional uses without removing a huge hill and filling in 7 acres of harbor.
Where are the studies explaining why the state should subsidize so much of the utilities' costs in building their profitable farms? Where is the analysis of justification?
This is an enormous amount of money that Lamont is shoving across the table to players who don't need it, at the same time he is trying to squeeze more taxes from an American Indian tribe that is a large employer and significant contributor to the state's budget.
And where are the legislators who should be asking why all this borrowed taxpayer money is being spent to subsidize rich utilities, one foreign, instead of being invested in Connecticut communities?
This is the opinion of David Collins.
USA Hauling plans $30M state-of-the-art recycling facility in Berlin
Matt Pilon Enfield-based USA Hauling and Recycling plans to invest $30 million to build what it says will be one of the largest and most technologically advanced recycling facilities in New England.
The company announced that its Murphy Road Recycling subsidiary has partnered with Norwalk-based Van Dyk Recycling Solutions, the largest equipment supplier materials for recovery facilities (MRFs) in the country, to build the materials recovery facility.
Frank Antonacci, chief operating officer of USA Hauling, said in a promotional video distributed with the announcement Wednesday that the facility will be “a keystone for the entire recycling infrastructure in the Northeast.”
The so-called All American MRF, slated for completion in early 2022, is designed to improve the purity of the sorted materials it produces, which will help them fetch higher prices from commodities buyers.
The plant will make use of optical scanners to identify and separate single-stream recycling materials based on their chemical makeup. Robotics and artificial intelligence will provide additional scrutiny of recovered materials before baling.
The facility, employing about 50 people once complete, will have the capacity to process about 50 tons of material per hour, or at least 200,000 tons annually, which the companies said would help Connecticut reach its longstanding goal of shrinking -- through recovery of recyclables and organics -- the amount of waste it burns or landfills by 60%.
“We are pleased that Murphy Road Recycling has decided to expand their operations here in Berlin,” Mayor Mark Kaczynski said in a statement. “They have been a great asset in town and we are thrilled that they are making such a large investment in Berlin including the creation of additional jobs.”
The investment comes at a time when many recycling operations are struggling with depressed commodity prices due to China’s crackdown, starting several years ago, on contamination limits in bales of recyclables it will accept.
That’s forced MRF operators to take pains to remove as much unintended material as possible from bales of cardboard and other recyclables.
There’s also been a significant shift in the mix of materials in consumers’ single-stream curbside bins. There’s less newspaper and more small cardboard boxes and envelopes, a result of what’s known as “the Amazon effect.”
“Today’s curbside material isn’t what it was 10-15 years ago,” said Jonathan Murray, Murphy Road’s operations director. “It was heavy on newspaper and relatively clean. Today, everyone reads news online and orders everything from the internet.”
USA Hauling’s newly announced investment in Berlin comes after the company, needing more space for a growing number of employees, acquired the former LEGO headquarters in Enfield for $1.9 million
East Haven wants the lawsuit to end. The Farm River Rock quarry owner wants $27 million.
Mark Zaretsky EAST HAVEN — Three years ago, the town could have settled a federal lawsuit filed by the owner of the Farm River Rock Quarry for $3 million, according to that owner.
But now, as a U.S. District Court judge considers what the
plaintiff’s lawyers say what could be the final motions in the case before
it heads to trial, another figure looms: $27 million.
That’s what it could cost East Haven taxpayers if Judge
Janet C. Hall rules in Farm River Rock, LLC’s favor in the suit, in which the
plaintiff alleges the town illegally shut down the quarry at 1 Barberry Road in
a remote section of town straddling the North Branford line north of Route 80,
depriving the company of its property rights. The town had found in 2017 that
the quarry use violated town zoning regulations.
Both sides said in interviews that they’re willing to
settle.
In the most recent action in U.S. District Court in
Bridgeport, the town filed a 27-page motion asking the judge for a summary
judgment.
Farm River then offered a 48-page
response, backed by 1,600 pages of exhibits.
But in settlement discussions, Farm River managing member
John Patton and his attorney, Peter Alter, and town lawyers and officials — not
the same ones who were involved when the
case began during the administration of Republican former Mayor Joe
Maturo Jr. — both say they have remained far apart.
Patton also is managing member of One Barberry Real Estate
Holding LLC, which also is part of the suit, which originally was separate
lawsuits filed against the town and then-Mayor Maturo and three other town
officials, accusing them of shutting down the quarry for political reasons. The
two suits have since been consolidated, according to Garrett Denniston, one of
the lawyers representing the town.
Denniston did not give a figure but said the town’s estimate
of what the damages might be should the court rule in Patton’s favor was
considerably less than Farm River Rock’s.
Alter, of the Glastonbury law firm of Alter & Pearson,
said in an interview, “We have been ready, willing and able to meet with the
town ... any time they expressed willingness to do that.”
But “those have not been productive,” he said. “The town
simply will not respond to any reasonable demand that we’ve made.”
Patton, who lives in Willington, said he reached out to
Hearst Connecticut Media Group through a private public relations firm because
“the people of the Town of East Haven really ought to know what their exposure
is. This could be potentially a very bad situation for the town...”
Any potential settlement “is not going to get cheap” — and
“it’s not getting any cheaper,” Patton said in an interview. “It’s going to be
expensive for the town of East Haven because it was expensive for me ... I’m
trying to tell you — I’m shouting it as best I can ... You’re in a very bad
situation.”
He said he made the $3 million offer three years ago through
the court, but the town never responded.
Patton first leased the property in 2013 and bought it in
March 2016.
Town Attorney Michael Luzzi, who got involved with the case
when Democratic Mayor Joe Carfora took office in late 2019, referred detailed
comment to Assistant Town Attorney Hugh Keefe, whose firm is handling the case
for the town.
“It’s pending litigation. We’re defending it. The matter
continues in litigation,” Luzzi said in a phone call. “The matter continues to
be defended in federal court. We’ve had a number of scheduling conferences; a
number of settlement conferences, as well.”
Keefe, of law firm of Lynch, Traub, Keefe and Errante in New
Haven, said in a phone interview that, to him, the case “has every look and
appearance of a case that looks like it’s going to go to trial. East Haven has
no problem settling any cases if the other side is fair and not difficult to
deal with.”
But in Farm River Rock’s case, he said. “It’s about money —
it’s about the plaintiff wanting more money from the taxpayers of East Haven.
“In fact, the town of East Haven and the officials have done
nothing but tried to protect the citizens of East Haven ... who by the way
cannot afford private PR people to manage their affairs,” Keefe said, referring
to the Hartford lobbying and public relations firm Sullivan & Leshane,
which represents Patton.
Keefe said, in a call that also included Denniston, the
attorney in Keefe’s office who is taking the lead on the case, “the litigation
itself is pretty simple. Like most litigation, it boils down to credibility —
the credibility of their witnesses versus the credibility of our witnesses.”
While the quarry was initially shut down, it recently has
begun quarrying again on a limited basis under the name East Haven Trap Rock
Quarry, with new partners from New York in control and Patton now having a
minority stake, Patton said.
“The quarry is in operation. It’s making stone,” Patton
said. “It takes a long time to start up an operation.”
Farm River Rock Quarry had previously shut down after it was
issued a cease-and-desist order in 2017 and ordered to stop operating after the
town ruled that the quarry wasn’t an allowed use. This occurred— even though
the fire marshal previously had issued 37 blasting permits and it had been
allowed to take out more than 28,000 loads, Patton has said.
The Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the cease-and-desist
order, but a Superior Court judge in 2019
ruled in favor of Farm River Rock, finding the site had been used as a
quarry for more than 75 years and the operation was a “legal pre-existing
nonconforming use.”
While quarries are not allowed under current town zoning
regulations, under Connecticut law, such regulations cannot stop property uses
that predate them, according to the judge.
The lawsuit also seeks punitive damages and attorney’s fees.