This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
08/08/2017 12:00 AMThe latest development of the Farm River Rock Quarry situation took place at a special meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) on Aug. 3, where Zoning Enforcement Officer Christopher Soto and his attorney, John Conway, presented their rebuttal to information presented by quarry majority owner John Patton and his attorneys at a meeting on July 13.
Patton and his attorney Peter Alter’s argument revolved around the quarry being a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and therefore not subject to the special exemptions stated in the cease and desist (C&D) orders. Zoning Enforcement Officer Christopher Soto and his attorney John Conway argued that the C&D orders were handed out because the quarry was not operating in a safe manner, and questioned the pre-existing, nonconforming status of the quarry.
The quarry has filed two lawsuits against the town; one for $25 million against East Haven Mayor Joseph Maturo, Jr. and three other town officials (including Soto), and a separate one for $30 million against the town itself, alleging that the quarry was illegally shut down.
At the Aug. 3 meeting, Conway noted that at the previous hearing, the appellants stated that Soto had made a mistake issuing C&D orders to the quarry, or did so by improper, politically motivated interference by the town.
“The facts that I will present to the board will prove that Mr. Soto’s issuance of the C&D orders were the result of his decision, based on...facts observed by him, that the appellant’s conduct constituted violations of the town’s zoning regulations, and more importantly, that he concluded that if the appellants were not ordered to cease their reckless, unregulated operations, the safety of persons in the town would be jeopardized,” said Conway.
An Issue of Safety
Conway said that when Soto first began his career in East Haven in 2015, he toured the town and viewed the quarry’s property. Conway said Soto recalled the south side of the property included a forested area, and that he did not observe any quarry activity in the area.
In response to a call to his office by a resident in February 2017, Soto went to the property and took photos (presented at the hearing), which showed the area barren of trees. Conway said Soto determined the conduct going on at the property was slashing of trees, which is prohibited by town zoning laws unless a special exemption is obtained.
On April 20, Soto received complaints from neighbors about trees being disturbed and soil being removed, which allegedly caused a large rock to roll down a hill and onto the road. Soto believed the removal of trees exacerbated a safety problem.
An amended C&D order issued by Soto added that any measures taken to protect the safety of the general public must be verified by a professional to comply with the order.
Soto said he met with Patton at the quarry on-site and told him that what the quarry was doing presented an unsafe situation. Specifically, Soto said he wasn’t sure that earthen berms the quarry had created would be sufficient to prevent rocks from falling into the road.
Soto said he asked the quarry to supply some sort of engineering documentation to show the berms would be proper protection; as of the Aug. 3 meeting, he hadn’t received any engineering documents that showed the quarry would operate in a safe manner.
Establishing Existing Usage
At the prior hearing in July, one of the major points discussed by Patton’s attorney Alter was that the quarry was a “pre-existing, nonconforming” use, which meant the quarry operated prior to town zoning laws that would prohibit it from doing so.
Conway questioned the quarry’s status as pre-existing, nonconforming use. He said that the town had zoning regulations regulating the removal of sand and gravel dating back to 1936.
“I believe in order to carry their burden they have to show that prior to 1936, this property operated as a quarry,” Conway said.
Conway and Soto presented aerial photos of the property, one of which was from 1965, which Soto said show that there was no quarry on the site.
Another point that Alter made at the previous hearing was that since a decision regarding the pre-existing, nonconforming use was published in a legal notice in the New Haven Register by previous zoning official Frank Biancur, Jr., and the decision was not contested, the decision stands.
Steven Sosensky, an attorney representing residents in the area of the quarry, said if the notice was not published in the newspaper within 15 days of the action taken on the quarry, it may be invalidated or not enforceable. He said the notice was published “far beyond” that 15 day period.
Also, Conway said Soto found a letter from Biancur written in 2013 that “provides the exact opposite opinion that Mr. Biancur issues in a Nov. 10, 2014 letter,” according to Conway.
Several residents from North Branford attended the meeting, since the quarry also straddles that town’s border. Residents brought up concerns that blasting was affecting their homes; trucks—and debris falling off of them—were not only affecting roads, but making residents feel unsafe walking. They questioned when the property officially began operating as a quarry.
Conway said the quarry hasn’t proven a pre-existing, nonconforming use and hasn’t proven that Biancur’s notice is binding because it hasn’t proven that Biancur acted in good faith or was within the scope of his authority (Biancur resigned following charges of seeking bribes, for which he was later found guilty). Conway also said the C&D should be upheld because the quarry was required to seek a special exemption and didn’t do so.
The ZBA made a motion to continue the public hearing to Thursday, Aug. 10 to allow Alter to present a rebuttal to Conway and Soto’s testimony. Alter said his team will address Conway’s comments and the matters he put into the record.
“We’re going to address the legal issues that we think he’s got wrong, and present all that to the board so they have a full picture and can make a fair decision,” said Alter.