Church & Neighbors Oppose Blasting At Killam’s Point

A plan to blast a small ancient mountain in the historically scenic community of Killam’s Point has sparked a battle that pits the First Congregational Church and a group of abutting neighbors against the owner, who wants to substitute a two-story two-car garage for a roughly 20 foot-high solid-rock mountain.

The dispute came to light during a hearing last week before the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z). Killam’s Point, an undisturbed woodland that contains a salt marsh, a rocky tidal area and one narrow road owned by the church, lies off Long Island Sound. It also contains nine private homes, plus a few apartments. The church owns 55 acres of the nature preserve.

One of the nine homeowners, Mary Early, who, according to land records, lives in Woodbridge, purchased the 1898 house at 15 Killams Point in 2000 for nearly $2 million. She did not attend the meeting. She was represented by Scott Small, an architect, who asked the P&Z to grant a special exception to remove over 200 cubic yards of what Small described as a rock outcropping. A blasting expert told the P&Z that the rock is quite ancient. This photo shows where the garage would sit.

Early’s abutting neighbors say she and her attorney husband, James F. Early, one of the nation’s leading experts in asbestos litigation, rarely stay at their Killam’s Point home. Small said the couple plans to winterize “the cottage,” bringing in permanent utilities for the first time. Small said despite numerous efforts he could not find a different spot for the two-story garage.

At the outset of his presentation Small (pictured) addressed the issue head on: “I knew we would have a public outcry here, and it probably should be because it is a gorgeous area and this is a pretty aggressive undertaking.”

Opposition Emerges

Those who oppose the project, the abutting neighbors and church representatives, called “aggressive undertaking” an understatement.

All three neighbors and church representatives expressed dismay and fear that blasting a rock mountain of this size and nature could well harm homes, the only road into the area and the environment. They also noted that zoning rules ban such blasting within 50 feet of the abutting landowners. John Riley, who lives on the other side of the road from the Early house, told the P&Z: “It is really 500 cubic feet and that is a lot of rock to remove.

Riley, who has retired as a law partner at Simpson Thatcher in New York, told the commission: “This raises several concerns. First, there is the runoff of storm water drainage.

“I find it hard to believe you will take out that much ledge rock along with the trees and not have an effect on the run off. What does that do to the landscape and to the environment? Our area is a really large, natural environment. The people who live here, the permanent residents, have tried really hard to honor the uniqueness of the area and not to disturb it. Once you remove that much ledge rock it is gone, it is gone forever.” 

Bruce Ackerman, who lives on the other side of the Early house, is one of the best-known constitutional law professors in the nation. He teaches at the Yale Law School. He argued that the proposed application violates the P&Z’s own regulations.

The regulation says “no excavation or blasting on a rock slope shall be permitted within 50 feet of any side or rear property line. (The commission may specify a greater distance if necessary.)” 

Ackerman told the P&Z: “We have no mathematical formula to tell me that my house is not in danger. We are within 50 feet of the blasting. That is why the regulation is there. I think this should be rejected on the regulation.”

The third neighbor who owns land that abuts the blasting area is Peter Jackson, an architect. He told the panel that the Early house is “a side property on two sides with the Ackerman’s on one side and the Riley’s on the other side. Two properties are affected. They are each within 50 feet of any blasting. And that is exactly what you can’t do, according to the regulation,” Jackson told the panel.

Here is a drawing of the house with the proposed garage. Jackson said in a subsequent interview: “Given the picture of the house and garage it makes perfect sense to put a garage there. But it is maniacal because there is a mountain there and they have to destroy the mountain.” In this instance, he added, the mountain is being portrayed as a molehill.

Church Weighs In

Another opponent, Betsy Hyde, a member of the church council, told the P&Z that she was delegated to speak on behalf of the church. The road and the causeway, the only roads into Killam’s Point, she said “are owned by the church.” She told the panel that road surfaces have failed four times in 10 years and then only with normal traffic.

“I have extreme concern about the heavy equipment going in and out. During the drilling and the blasting we will have no access, no egress, and no emergency vehicles going in and out. The First Congregational Church is in opposition to this application.”

Another church official told the panel that as road owners, “We need to protect the road from the liability that could ensue. We would need an engineering analysis before and after, if approved. The road is the only access for residents and for the summer day care operation, which runs in July and August.” He was referring to the Killam’s Point Day Camp Vacation Bible School for young children. “We also have weekend rentals. Damage would be disruptive. The revenue we receive from these entities is crucial to our operation.”

Garage Architect Disagrees

Architect Small argued that the blasting activities are not covered by the P&Z regulations because the rock doesn’t count as “ledge rock” under the regulations.

From Small’s perspective, a rock slope is similar to the giant wall behind Starbucks on North Main Street. The difference between a rock slope and a rock outcropping, Small said, “is that a rock outcropping does not have the ability to accidentally collapse and start shearing apart.”

At issue is whether the site is a rock slope, as Ackerman and Riley and Jackson say, or whether it is a rock outcropping, as Small says. A rock slope falls within the town’s regulation regarding blasting within 50 feet of a property line; a rock outcropping sits outside the regulation.

Jackson told the panel that “I wasn’t going to speak about this but there can’t be any doubt that this is a rock slope. You wouldn’t let your kids climb this thing,” he said.

Before the commission acts, Ackerman asked that it obtain an opinion from an independent geologist. That expert would determine the impact on neighboring houses if a huge chunk of rock is blasted and removed from the ground. We need to know if our house is safe,” he added. “There is no mathematical formula presented here.”

At one point, Small observed that “we wouldn’t even be here if this was a rock slope.” Small said he had a meeting with Town Planner Jose Giner and his staff and apparently came away from that meeting believing the small mountain was not a rock slope. Small made this assertion several times.

At the P&Z meeting Giner set Small straight.

“We didn’t approve anything. We listened to the applicants on why they didn’t think it was a rock slope. I want to advise the commissioners. I want to make this clear.”

In a subsequent interview, Giner said it is up to the P&Z to resolve these types of issues. “Ultimately the commission interprets its own regulations since they wrote them.”

Blasting Away

Richard M. Hosley, Jr. (pictured), who is the president of the Connecticut Explosives Co., and defined himself as a third-generation blaster, gave a power-point explanation of the blasting process. He noted that the rock on Killam’s Point was especially ​“fissiparous,” meaning it ends up breaking into many parts. He said he could not predict impact from blasting. But during his 40-minute talk he cited his many credentials and assured the panel this was a safe operation.

Ellsworth McGuigan, the chair of the P&Z (pictured left with Town Planner Giner), asked how long the blasting would go on. Hosley said the drilling on the rock would go on throughout the day. The actual blasting would be brief, he adding, saying it was a “multi-stage job.” Overall the whole process might take a total of five days, perhaps once or two days a week over a number of weeks.

Another section of the P&Z regulations centers on scenic protection. It says: “Appropriate consideration shall be given to the protection, preservation, and/or enhancement of natural, scenic, historic, and unique resources including, where appropriate, the use of conservation restrictions to protect and permanently preserve natural, scenic, historic, or unique features, which enhance the character and environment of the area.”

Those opposing the project also raised this regulation, saying that beyond the natural scenic beauty of the area, the removal of 75 to 100 large dump truck loads of rock over an already taxed road “has the potential to cause its failure and the isolation of all residents and the Congregational Church property.” 

Jackson, Ackerman and Riley all said they were not notified about the project, “despite what others say.” Ackerman said after they were informed by legal notice, he wrote to Early, now in South Carolina, saying, “We really should have a chance to have a sensible conversation about this.”

After hearing from everyone during the two-hour presentation, McGuigan said, “some important questions” had been raised.

He suggested that Janice Plaziak, the town engineer, be brought in to assess conditions. He raised the question of getting input from Fire Marshall Shaun Heffernan, who oversees blasting issues for the town. McGuigan also said the commission needs to have an opportunity to discuss the issues raised at the meeting.

The hearing was continued to May 1.
###