Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement And Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press town over alleged processing, enforcement failures at large site
Summary
Residents told the commission the town has failed to enforce a cease‑and‑desist at a large site where they allege commercial processing, uncovered debris hauling, and possible pollution; they urged more rigorous investigation, lab testing of suspicious surface liquids, and clearer written enforcement records.
Residents urged stronger enforcement and clearer documentation after describing ongoing, large‑scale activity at a site they said has been operated like a processing facility in a residential zone. Speakers described repeated complaints to land‑use staff and state agencies, a town cease‑and‑desist order that was not appealed, ongoing site activity, and what they said were inconsistent enforcement responses compared with other local cases.
One resident summarized the sequence for the commission: the applicant requested an exemption at a planning and zoning hearing, the town later issued a cease‑and‑desist with a 15‑day appeal window that was not appealed, and planning and zoning then scheduled a public hearing to review permit modifications. Residents said work continued despite the cease‑and‑desist.
Neighbors described material they characterized as excavation debris, concrete forms, piping and uncovered truckloads being hauled through the neighborhood. “They're using it as a processing facility. They've taken a residential zone and turned it into a commercial operation,” a resident said, summarizing neighbors' observations.
Speakers raised health and environmental worries after reporting dark surface liquids in places on the site. One participant referenced on‑site sampling behavior during a town visit: “...we were asking the property owner about it and um and then he did taste it, which we kind of chuckled…,” the resident said, relaying the visit's exchange and questioning whether on‑site visual checks were adequate. Residents urged the commission and staff to arrange laboratory testing rather than relying on ad‑hoc field checks.
The group also raised concerns about inconsistent enforcement practices, asking why some properties received stricter action than the site under discussion. They asked for clearer written reports from site visits by the CEO, land‑use director and enforcement officers so the public can see a paper trail of complaints and responses.
The transcript records residents referring the matter to state divisions for stormwater and solid‑waste enforcement; speakers said those offices acknowledged backlogs and limited capacity. The meeting record also cites Connecticut General Statute 8‑12 as a statutory route toward injunction or further legal remedies, but town officials said state enforcement often will not meet the standard for an injunction without additional evidence.
Next steps noted in the meeting: planning and zoning has a scheduled public hearing to further consider permit modifications; staff will follow up with state contacts and the resident reporters asked staff to pursue lab testing and clearer documentation of site visits.
