This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
04/06/2018 12:00 AMThe battle over a proposed recycling facility to be built on Route 145 will continue at a third public hearing before the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) on Tuesday, April 17.
This meeting is a continuation of the April 3 meeting, where time contraints resulted in many community members not having a chance to speak. IWC Chairman David Radka said that comments from the public will top the agenda at next week’s hearing.
Strong Public Opinion
At the public hearings, opposition to the proposed project has been vigorous, with concerned residents citing traffic, noise, and environmental concerns. As a board, the IWC can only consider impacts to wetlands.
The April 3 hearing began with new information presented to the public about possible effects on Clinton’s shellfishing industry. A lengthy letter from the Connecticut Department of Agriculture was read into the record; the letter stated in part that if the facility is permitted, “a potential outcome of this assessment is the downgrade of the Hammock River and/or adjacent water to prohibited classification, which would require that only seed oysters (juvenile oysters <2.0”) in length be legally harvested from the river.”
While the majority of community members seeking to speak did not get the chance that night, the public comments made were united in opposition to the proposal.
Attorney Campbell Hudson, who represents two intervenors with property next to the proposed facility (Demco, LLC, and Herb Clark), drew applause from the audience when he said that his clients “understand the need for this kind of facility” but don’t like the location.
Clinton resident Don Mikalsen said, in regard to the facility operators keeping the wetlands safe, he does “not believe it for a minute. I think it would irresponsible for this commission to approve this.”
The Applicant Presents Its Case
The majority of the meeting was taken up with a presentation by Loureiro Engineering Associates, a company that has represented the applicant, Shoreline Rail and Recycling, LLC (SRR), in front of the IWC.
Most of the board’s questions to the engineers focused on plans in the event of a significant flood. The proposed facility is located in a 100-year flood plain, described on the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection website as a storm that “has a one-percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.”
Andrews said when such a storm is forecast, the facility would place liquids on a rack system that would elevate it 13 feet off the ground, and the majority of waste would be removed from the site. The applicant’s claim that precautions would be taken 10 days ahead of a predicted flood event came into question.
“I agree 10 days is aggressive” said Andrews.
Andrews also said that calculations for how high materials need to be placed to be safe did not take rising sea levels into account.
“We have not met with the town to look into rising sea levels,” Andrews said.
Loureiro representative George Andrews told the IWC that the applicant had listened to many of the comments from the board and removed plans for an outdoor stockpile of waste materials from the proposal. Andrews also said that the company is now proposing to put screens over the door of the facility to limit the amount of debris that can get out.
The public was also informed that SRR has retained the law firm of Cronan and Shields, LLC, to assist in representation before the IWC.
Attorney Timothy Shields addressed the commission, stating that the commission’s regulations “prohibit the applicant from providing any demonstrable evidence…to support their application unless they’re submitted 15 days prior to the hearing. We feel that is a significant infringement on the due process rights of the applicant. We want to make that issue clear in the record so we can preserve that issue for appeal if necessary,” Shields said.
Shields was booed by the crowd when he asked the commission to consider only expert testimony, and not the opinions of the public.
Richard Kowaleski, who identified himself as the owner of the property, expressed his frustration, stating that in the past he has completed outdoors construction work on the property and he wasn’t met with opposition.
“Now I want to build a facility and run it inside of the building and now everyone [including] the commission wants to give me a hard time,” Kowaleski said.
According to the project application, the owner of the site is Old Post Realty LLC. Property listing from the site’s 2014 sale list Douglas Dobriner of New Jersey as the company president and Rick Kowaleski of Clinton as his consultant. At press time, Kowaleski had not returned calls seeking clarification in the matter.
The Path Forward
According to Land Use Technician Sherry Hynes, state statute requires the public hearing must be closed 35 days after it is opened.
“Statutes also state that there is a total of 65 days extension time to open a public hearing, close a public hearing, and for the decision. It is possible for an applicant to grant an extension to close the public hearing,” she wrote in an email.
Hynes also noted that the commission has 65 days from when the public hearing is closed to make its decision, unless granted the extension.
Should the proposed project be approved by the IWC, the developers could file an application with the Planning & Zoning Commission, and another public hearing would be held. If the application is denied, the applicant could amend the proposal and refile the application.
The next hearing of the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) meets at The Morgan School, 71 Killingworth Turnpike, on Tuesday, April 17 at 7 p.m.