This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
02/17/2017 03:17 PMWith a favorable state inland wetlands report issued Feb. 10, a 35-day clock is running for North Branford's Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) to take the next step in deciding whether to approve a zoning application for a 60,000-gallon bulk propane retail/storage facility at 40 Ciro Road.
The PZC decision needs to be made by March 17 and gets underway with a public hearing on Thursday, March 2, said Town Planner Carey Duques.
Due to strong community opposition drawing large crowds to past town meetings on the subject, the public hearing will take place in the cafeteria at North Branford Intermediate School (NBIS). It will be part of the regular PZC meeting set for Thursday, March 2, at 7 p.m.
Following nearly two years of stalled action at the town level, the PZC hearing date is the latest news amidst rapidly unfolding events. They began on Feb. 10, with the arrival of the state Dept. of Energy and Environmental (DEEP) hearing officer's final decision to issue the inland wetlands permit, provided 15 added conditions and stipulations are met by the applicant, J.J. Sullivan Fuel Co. (Guilford), which is doing business in this application as 2772 BPR LLC. See the full story here
Next, on Feb. 14, a grass-roots group, North Branford Citizens Against Bulk Propane Storage (NBCABPS), filed a lawsuit against Town of North Branford, its Planning and Zoning Department and 40 Ciro Road property owner/former Town Council member Donald Fucci.
Assisted by citizen and attorney Peter White, the NBCABPS suit includes numerous claims to show the defendants' actions "...were not done to promote the general welfare of the community and were not in conformity with the stated purposes of the zoning law, but instead was influenced by circumstances which should not have been considered."
The suit concludes the defendants' actions "... weakened public confidence and undermined the sense of security of individual rights," contending the "...change in the zoning regulations by the Town and the Department of Planning & Zoning must be declared to be invalid." See the story and related documents here
Further complicating the matter is a still-awaited declaratory ruling from the office of the DEEP Commissioner, which may not be received until May 17, 2017. The ruling will answer questions raised in a petition filed by White in November, 2016. The petition asks whether DEEP has jurisdiction over the inland wetlands permit and also points to differences between the application submitted to the town in 2014 and what was later submitted to DEEP in 2015. See the story and related documents here
Duques said there is no way of knowing what impact the commissioner's declaratory ruling could ultimately have. As a DEEP representative explained it to Duques, the ruling could simply mean "...slight modifications of a permit or conditions that are placed on something as a result of what they decide," Duques added.
Despite the lawsuit and pending declaratory ruling, state statutes do allow the PZC to proceed with its review of the zoning application for 40 Ciro Road, she added.
"The Planning and Zoning Commission is still able to review the application, even there are other proceedings pending," said Duques. "Per statute, we can continue, unless we're directed by the court to stop these proceedings. So we take the (Feb. 10) report that we got from DEEP and that's part of the information that they'll look through."
When the town received the DEEP wetlands report on Feb. 10, that "started the 35-day clock" for a PZC decision on the zoning application for the proposed facility; and no time extensions can be allowed, Duques added.
"We started counting on the 11th (of February); so we have until March 17 to actually make a decision," said Duques. "There are no extensions that can be granted, because it's been sitting there for two and half years."
Although faced with a condensed decision window, the PZC is determined to provide a thorough review, and opportunity for public input that could include continuing the public hearing on additional dates, if needed.
"The chairman has been very adamant in saying we're going to start with March 2nd, and if we need to have another meeting on the 9th we'll do that; and if we have to have another one on (March) 16th, then we'll do that," said Duques.
Duques said she anticipated the March 2 hearing will open with an overview from the applicant, followed by questions and comments.
"It's been such a long time since the commission has heard their actual proposal, it would make sense, as a kind of refresher for them; [and] then to allow public comment – which is not typical and not required under site plan review. But the commission wants to have transparency and wants to get input from the public," said Duques.