DRB hearing turns rancorous as Julian Materials changes quarry application New plans include moving stone cutting outside Chester

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2023 Telegraph Publishing LLC

Years of quarry noise and months of zoning hearings boiled over at Monday night’s meeting of the Chester Development Review Board as Julian Materials proposed a heavily amended version of its conditional use application, while neighbors demanded to know when there would be enforcement of the current or expired permits.

Gassetts residents also expressed distrust that the Connecticut company would actually adhere to the plans and conditions of any new permit.

Last Thursday, just four days before what was expected to be the final DRB hearing in the Julian Materials conditional use application, the applicants submitted a number of changes to the plan, which has been pending since May 2023. The changes are likely to add one or more hearings to the three held so far. The next hearing will be on Jan. 22, 2024.

In his submittal, Julian engineer Jeremy Matosky suggested that the applicants wanted an “approval from the DRB at the upcoming hearing on December 11, 2023, so that they can move forward with these operational changes,” and characterized the changes as a move to “further reduce impacts of the project(s) on the neighborhood.”

Among the proposed changes are:

• Eliminate the new stone cutting building at the South Quarry and leave the floor level of the quarry as it is now.
• Stop stone processing at the Chandler Road Quarry by June 30, 2024.
• Move stone processing to a “new location outside the town limits of Chester…”
• Limit rock hammering “at each quarry” to two days a week between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.
• Use portable concrete bunkers to reduce noise.
• Clarify the use of portable crushing activities.
• Clarify reclamation and lowering of the grade at the North Quarry and construction of a new “contractor yard.”

On Friday, Chester Zoning Administrator Preston Bristow told The Telegraph that there had been “radio silence” since the last hearing and he was expecting that the board would be “going through the (zoning) criteria and wrapping things up” on Monday, Dec. 11. But Thursday’s document drop by the Julian organization is likely to change that.

“There are a number of things the Julian organization has done that I don’t understand and this is one of them,” said Bristow on Friday.

Attorney James Dumont – who represents application challengers Leslie Thorsen and Scott Kilgus – filed a motion to strike the new submission. In an email on Friday, Dumont said, “The only fair way to respond to them will require more hearings after the 11th with new cross examination based on the new materials, and new rebuttal witnesses. This has gone on way too long already — while Julian continues to operate unlawfully, without amended permits.”

Angry residents blast continued quarrying, enforcement inaction

While the five-member DRB was reserving judgment on Dumont’s motion to strike the proposed amended application, it allowed Julian engineer Matosky to explain the changes that he said were to “mitigate concerns” about the project. The board reviewed the documents that Matosky filed, but declined to admit them into evidence until it decides on Dumont’s motion.

Dumont, who was on Zoom, objected to the board’s looking at and discussing the application amendments.

A number of neighbors asked questions or commented on the proposal, including Rene Melanson who – with his wife Sam – said they moved out of their home on the hill directly across from the North Quarry due to the hydraulic hammering. Melanson asked sound engineer Eddie Duncan would be returning to test the noise of a crusher and suggested that he inform the neighbors of when.

Commenting on the hammering schedule of two days a week, Sam Melanson said she couldn’t go back home even if Julian Materials stuck to that timetable. Melanson said she is under medical care and can’t tolerate even the repetitive noise of rain falling on her deck. At the last hearing, Melanson left the room when Leslie Thorsen played videos to demonstrate what the hammering sounded like.

Chandler Road Quarry neighbor Michael Kenworthy grew agitated with Duncan’s answers about the levels of sound generated by hammering at various distances and questioned what the town gets out of having the quarries operating. Town attorney Jim Carroll told Kenworthy that the board members sit as judges to hear evidence, but it’s not their job to research how much property tax the applicant pays. Carroll said he could get that from the town office in the morning.

John Nowak, another Chandler neighbor, complained that there’s no enforcement for the various permit violations including the use of a storage building that is used for stone cutting instead.

Nowak asked, “Who do we call to enforce the law, because Chester doesn’t have what it takes, obviously.”

“I don’t have an answer for that,” said DRB chair Bob Greenfield.

“People have to leave their homes to get away from the noise, and that’s not right,” said Nowak who added that the town doesn’t know what it’s doing (in stronger language than that) and that they should throw the quarry operators out of town and send them back to Connecticut.

Board member Phil Perlah said he disagreed with Nowak’s contention that there’s no enforcement but turned to Zoning Administrator Bristow for an answer. Bristow said he could file a notice of violation or write a municipal ticket but those would be appealed through the courts and take a couple of years, maybe longer.

“This man here is for Julian,” said Nowak pointing at Bristow. “He wants them to stay so he’s not going to help us … he told me that right in front of my house one day.”

“That is simply not true,” said Bristow.

“I’ll polygraph that mister,” shouted Nowak, continuing to point as he moved toward Bristow and called him a liar.

Greenfield called for order, while Nowak went to the back of the room and continued to shout.

“This is getting out of control,” said Carroll.

“We can’t operate under these conditions,” said Greenfield, adding that if the outbursts continued, people would be asked to leave.

When the room calmed, Sam Melanson said, “Ad hominem attacks are not helping our case people. We have enough facts, we have enough complaints, we have enough evidence to be strong in this. We’re only going to do ourselves harm if we turn this into a circus … this is a process we have to go through. We have to stand our ground. Attacking  people personally is not going to help our case. Cool down a little bit.”

“I know it’s expensive to have this board enforce the law, the rules and regulations … and it’s going to cost the taxpayers some money, but I want you to know, these are taxpayers,” said Gassetts resident Mike LeClair pointing to the audience. “We live in Gassetts, we want fair treatment.”

With the presentation of the proposed amendments to the permit application the board discussed next steps. The board accepted Dumont’s suggested schedule to have initial briefs on the case due on Jan. 2, 2024 with reply briefs due on Jan. 16. The board will take up the recessed hearing again at its regularly scheduled meeting on Monday Jan. 22.