Allan Appel File Photo
The proposed site.
The battle to stop a proposed concrete plant in the Annex lived to see another day, as a lawyer for one angry neighbor announced she’s filed suit to block the plan.
Attorney Marjorie Shansky represents Elaine Stetzer, one of a group of neighbors in the Annex who are fighting a plan to put in a concrete plant on Goodwin Street. Neighbors say they are concerned about traffic, noise, and air quality.
In September, the BZA approved a special zoning exception that would allow the construction of the plant. The next step is a site plan review by the City Plan Commission, which earned the matter a spot on the board’s agenda for its monthly meeting on Wednesday night.
In the meantime, Shansky’s client and several other interested parties — including the Urban Design League, the Forbes Area Commercial and Residential Association, the Walk of Faith In Christ Church, and the Environmental Justicce Network — have successfully petitioned to intervene in the process.
That’s how Shansky ended up speaking at Wednesday’s meeting, where she announced that she’s filed an appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals’ (BZA) approval of the proposal.
Commissioners did not make a decision, but left the hearing open to allow time for arguments and rebuttals from all concerned parties, in advance of their meeting next month.
The original proposal called for the Walsh Construction Company to build a concrete plant on a lot on Goodwin Street currently occupied by an abandoned house. The 1,000-square-foot plant would go up behind Stetzer’s property and 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.
After BZA approval, Walsh unexpectedly bowed out of the plan. But landowner Henry Criscuolo is going forward with the application anyway.
Shansky (pictured) told commissioners that they have “adequate information” to deny the application. Neighbors “should not be burdened” with the plant, she said. The local roads cannot handle it, she said.
“It the proverbial good thing in the wrong place,” she said. “A pig in the parlor.”
“This is perfectly positioned for denial,” she said. “And tonight’s not to soon.”
In a Nov. 15 letter to the City Plan Commission, Shansky laid out several arguments against the plant, including its potential negative impact on air quality, the fact that the initial applicant has backed out, and a lack of plans for sanitary facilities or proper drainage. Read the letter here.
“A major issue fore me is the whole traffic issue,” said City Plan Commission Chair Ed Mattison. “When I was there, it was a mad house, and there was no concrete plant.” Mattison said he spent half an hour at the proposed site and saw a bad road and near collisions.
The commissioners set a Nov. 24 deadline for lawyers for the owner of the parcel and interveners to submit arguments for and against. They will then have until Dec. 1 to rebut opposing arguments. The commission will meet again on Dec. 15.
After that decision was taken, attorney Anthony Avallone, who represents the applicant, acknowledged that his client was facing strong opposition. Asked if he was committed to going all the way with the battle, Avallone said, “We’ll find out.”