Allan Appel Photo
Janice Fleming lives in the Fairmont Houses, an elderly and disabled complex 100 yards and upwind from the site of a proposed cement plant on Goodwin Street in the Annex. Suffering from sarciodosis and an array of lung ailments, she can spend only one hour a day outside, using a portable oxygen tank.
Voices intervening on her behalf were allowed to speak Wednesday night during a site plan review of the proposed plant at the City Plan Commission.
What weight they will have in the ultimate decision on whether to approve the plant was left in a legal limbo as commissioners tabled discussion of the controversial plant pending legal advice from a city lawyer.
The proposal calls for demolition of an abandoned house and construction of a 1,000 square foot plant to prepare redi-mix concrete for off-site use in conjunction with The Interstate 95 New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor Improvement Project, which began in 2000. It would service about 35 trucks a day and operate from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Wednesday night’s City Plan meeting was technically not a hearing to receive public testimony but a review of the site plan previously approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals in September. Anstress Farwell of the New Haven Urban Design League (pictured above with Fleming) or Fran Calzetta of the Forbes Area Commercial and Residential Association (pictured with area landlord Robert Parente) managed to get a chance to testify through a petition filed under the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).
That happened at the 11th hour; the document was notarized minutes before the commissioners called for the item.
“Do you have particular expertise?” Mattison peppered the the speakers several times, as the CEPA rule allows for “expert,” not general testimony, at this stage of the approvals process.
“No, but we wanted to bring a toxicologist. But there was not enough time,” Farwell replied.
Mattison was not sure himself if the legal purview of his commissioners includes evaluating such testimony, expert or not, on particulate matters. Yet it was clear the commissioners were concerned. He allowed three minutes for each of the intervenors to speak.
“It’s horrendous. They [cement particles emitted] are known scientifically to kill,” testified Calzetta of the local merchants and homeowners association.
“I was born in those houses,” said Parente, referring to the apartments where Goodwin meets Fulton Street.
Now he is the landlord. They are his sole source of income, as he’s disabled, he said. He warned about devaluation in property values the plant might bring. He also expressed concern for the people living in his buildings. “I want my tenants to be able to breathe,” he said, paraphrasing testimony he gave at the BZA hearings in September.
There was graphic testimony from residential abutter Elaine Stetzer about the saturation of noise and dust irritation from the already heavy truck volume on Goodwin, which has not been paved or curbed in decades, she said.
Parente described floods of water that pour down the street when it rains. The plant, which advocate Bill Heiple of Triton Engineering said will be graveled over but not paved, would only add to such problems, Parente said.
Testifying for the New Haven Environmental Justice Network, Aaron Goode asked the commissioners to be cautious before allowing a plant that “will increase air pollution, noise, truck traffic, and adversely affect the health and well being of New Haven residents that live in an area that is already environmentally overburdened.”
Annex Alderman Al Paolillo called it a “a good idea in the wrong place.” He also expressed deep concern about what he called process. As the alderman as well as a board member of the adjacent Port Authority, how come he had not heard about the proposal until now?
Walsh Out, But Not the Plant
In an unexpected development, the Walsh Construction Company bowed out as applicant for the plant. According to Heiple (pictured), who is handling the application, the large firm engaged in the I‑95 re-do lost out in its bid for work on the most recent phase of the project.
Still the land owner and co-applicant Henry Criscuolo advocated proceeding with the project as written.
Commissioners called for him to provide a study of new noise levels to be produced. He said he would comply.
As to the testimony of the intervenors, Mattison urged them to provide it along with whatever scientific materials they wanted to bring to bear, and in writing.
“What we do with it depends on consul’s advice,” Mattison added.
Farwell said the next step for the intervenors is to raise money for a toxicologist to provide a report and for an attorney to write to the commissioners making the case for why the intervenors’ testimony should be taken into account before making the final decision.
East Rock Alderman Justin Elicker also asked City Plan staff to provide more detail as to why the Walsh Construction Company had backed out.