New Haven Independent

The Board of Selectmen approved the new addendum by a vote of 2-1 August 29, without RTM approval, without Planning and Zoning Commission approval, without any consultation with abutting neighbors and, lest we forget, without valid notice of the Board of Selectman’s meeting where a vote was taken.

Shelley Marcus, town attorney #2, and daughter of Ed, spoke about some of these legal decisions at public meetings. The reason no bids were obtained, the lawyers would argue, was that this was not a new lease, merely an assignment of an old one.

At a dramatic RTM meeting the next month, Kurt Schwanfelder, the Republican Minority leader, announced that the Republicans had hired their own attorney and demanded that the RTM be given authority over the addendum or they would sue. The RTM won the right by a 13-11 vote. It has had this authority under section 73.3 of the Town Code that requires the RTM to oversee land and lease transactions.

Subsequently, the “Third addendum,” which many say will transform the function of the quarry, was sent to the Administrative Services Committee of the RTM, where residents attended ten meetings over five months. They believed they were helping to negotiate a new Third Addendum, but only recently learned that Anderson, the new lessee, didn’t intend to change a thing. Anderson is the head of the Anderson-Wilcox Inc., a housing development company as well as new president of the newly formed Stony Creek Quarry Corp.

From Anderson’s point of view, he is well aware that he needs to protect himself from the past failures of the Quarry. Previous lessees have failed, leading to bankruptcies, foreclosures, liens and other monetary damages, he said.

A sticking point is the new section, #12, that permits storage and redistribution of non-granite materials, a section that outside lawyers said should have first been sent to Planning and Zoning Commission before the lease was signed. That has not happened. Many neighbors are unified against it.

But Anderson appears unwilling to eliminate #12: “Any modification or removal of this clause will severely affect my ability to not only pay these new terms but also the ability to pay the previous terms due to the lost revenue we were expected as a result of this clause to cover such,” he wrote. CLICK HERE to read proposed addendum.

When they came to this last meeting, having read Anderson’s response, the residents were deeply disappointed. They were also ready to play hard ball. To a man and a woman they said the issue now centered on whether the quarry will remain a business enterprise or whether, as some Village fathers now suggest, it close down.

David Baker’s sentiments summed it up well and he will get to vote on the final outcome because he has been nominated to fill the Democratic RTM seat vacated by Hilary Kiskaddon, who is moving out of state.

“I felt that we spent a lot of time on this and we had tried to reason this out together. There were people who were very supportive of Doug Anderson and we discussed the business and the worry about the neighborhood and we tried to come up with what I thought were pretty reasonable terms. So his response makes a couple of points: First it says he can’t see how he would operate a profitable business with any of these conditions. That is what he saying basically.”

“The second thing he is saying is that on the key issues of controlling the scope of the operation, the size of it, he is not willing to negotiate. He is saying it is my way or the highway, to use a current term. I have talked to a lot of my neighbors, Unk Da Ros is one of them, and we feel that we have come to a place where we should close the quarry. That is the way we feel about it. We love the idea of the quarry being there as much as anybody in Stony Creek. I thought we were neogitating in good faith. The lessee was here through all the meetings. He could have commented on anything we said at any time and many were led to believe, probably foolishly, that he assented to some of what we were saying. That was a big mistake, obviously.”

Perhaps the residents misunderstood the process; that these were not really direct negotiations, only position statements, and that Anderson was unlikely to tip his hand where monetary issues were involved. For the most part Anderson listened but did not respond. But the fact that he attended each session, understood where they were coming from, asked no questions, and then went his own way after he had said last September he would be willing to work on changes deeply offended the Creekers.

They all seemed to be saying to Anderson, who sat in a chair against the back wall looking glum, that we, too, can play this game, and if you don’t give us anything, then we want the quarry closed down. And while closing the quarry down may seem like a legal nightmare, these Creekers seem to be resolute on this issue.

The quarry is located in a residential zone, not in an industrial or commercial zone. Its status, decided before zoning laws came into being, is called a pre-existing non-conforming use. In the last 25 years the quarry’s business operation has been passive at best, so the residents were not terribly concerned. It is expected that at some point the Quarry will be placed under the jurisdiction of the Branford Parks and Open Space Authority.

That is until Morris and Marcus presented the latest Addendum with a new section #12 that permits “Non Stony Creek Granite” to be stored, processed and distributed from the site. This section sent out alarms that the world famous quarry could soon become an industrial site. When he voted against it, Third Selectman John Opie, a creeker, cited section #12 as unacceptable. So did RTM Republicans who sought special meeting to review the lease. It was denied. Former First Selectman Unk DaRos outlined the concept this way: Granite should go out of the quarry, but non granite materials should not come in.

Peter Brainerd, the president of the Stony Creek Association, said “if Article 12 stays the lease is unacceptable” He told the group that “if Anderson can’t make the quarry work without sub-letting to anyone who comes thru the door, then let’s just forget about it. Let’s close it if we have to. Let’s put it out for bid as it should have been in the first place, let’s get another bidder, who will link to the quarry dimensional stone and not to this sort of operation.”

When Ms. Morris announced the new, Third Addendum, she was visibly delighted with the new terms. The rent would be raised from $20,000 to $25,000 a year and new guaranteed royalties would amount to $16,000 a year, hardly a moneymaker for the town. Opie, a former First Selectman, said the quarry had never produced the volume of tonnage the new addendum seeks —-roughly 20,000 tons per year. Nor was Anderson happy with the amount of tonnage required. He said back in August that “the town negotiated it.” It wasn’t an option. By town he meant Mrs. Morris and the Marcus Law Firm,

To make the lease work and to turn a profit Anderson needs section #12, he said. What this means, however, is a great increase in truck traffic in a residential area whose narrow roads connect to I-95 at exit 56. The new lease requires an aggressive production of stone, and that could mean 1,800 truckloads a year, and a lot more than that if the stone is broken up into grout. After the fracture between the BoS and the RTM, Anderson indicated he would be willing to modify section 12. But that was in September. Now he is saying it will have to stay.

Gail Chapman, the chair of the administrative services committee, told the group last week that the next step would be a meeting that she, Anderson, his attorney, Schwanfelder, Shelley Marcus and Karyl Lee Hall, an attorney who has advised the Stony Creek residents, would attend. Schwanfelder said the resident’s comments would be extremely important to this negotiating session. This group will actually negotiate the lease addendum. When they are done, the new proposal will return to the committee for review before it is sent to the 30 -member RTM.

###