No Decisions Yet On Railroad Violations

By Kendra Bobowick

Housatonic Railroad has a little more time.

Continued again is the public hearing to air arguments for its application to remove violations that Inland Wetlands Commission members issued earlier this year regarding operations at its 30 Hawleyville Road transfer station facility.

Altogether extensions could reach as far as January 22, but looking ahead to the its January 13 meting, Chairman Anne Peters said, “We propose to have the hearing close at that time.” The meeting begins at 7:30 in the new Newtown Municipal Center.

Unhappy with results last night, Currituck Road resident Dave Broughton was “frustrated.” Although he sees the reasons for extensions, he said, “But it is frustrating, extension after extension while we have to live with what’s going on.” With property near to the railroad’s operating yard, he said, “We’ve been dealing with it for years; we’re neighbors and we deal with it everyday.” A supporter of Hawleyville Environmental Advocacy Team (HEAT), the grass-roots group of residents concerned with public health and safety, and aspects of the railroad’s operations and practices, he was among familiar faces gathered for the hearing Wednesday.

As the committee moved to other items, HEAT member Ann Marie Mitchell left the meeting room. Pleased with the commission members’ attention to the railroad operations, she said, “They are an outstanding commission. The continuation is fine by me.” She had also noted, “They understand the environmental issues.” Found on the HEAT website, DontWasteHawleyville.com, much attention is drawn to Department of Environmental Protection notices issued to the railroad, wetlands commission violations, materials handled, and many photographs asserting encroachment on wetlands or neighboring properties.

Wednesday a soil scientist, engineer, and attorney for the railroad supported comments from company Vice President of Special Projects Colin Pease, who is familiar with “opposition from people who like railroads but don’t want them in their backyard.” Hoping for a solution, he said, “I hope we can find a way to be compatible neighbors as we seek to work at our site.” Mr Pease then “reemphasized” that the railroad is a business that needs to meet demands, which he has stated often in past months. He told the commission why terminals such as Hawleyville are “critical to our mission of moving freight … Hawleyville is an extremely important facility to our railroad and its mission is critical to providing growth.”

He added, “Growth is important to any company … it is critical to its long-term future.” The ensuing testimony from the company’s consultants reflected efforts to “improve our plan.” The railroad and contractor Newtown Transload have “listened to your questions and comments … benefited from comments … and have made a number of very substantial changes” that reflect overall input, and additional studies from “our engineering consultants and soil scientists.”

Consultants from the railroad submitted stacks of reports and data, including topographical maps indicating parameters of work, locations of wetlands, length of track extensions, proposed locations for buildings at the Hawleyville site, watercourses and streams. They went point by point through changes made to hopefully arrive at being the “compatible neighbor” that Mr Pease had earlier mentioned.

Soon the public and commissioners had their chance to ask questions. Member Phil Kotch brought the meeting around to its initial purpose of wetlands violations. “Describe to us how you’ll deal with it,” he said. Ken Stevens, soil scientist for the railroad, spoke about materials and fill that may have been pushed onto neighboring property, but Wetlands Enforcement Officer Ann Astarita reminded, “We’re talking about 30 Hawleyville Road …” Ms Peters also interjected with a reminder of work conducted prior to the town’s intervention, “Work was done in an area on or close to wetlands and we require an application.”

Arguing that they found no indication of a wetlands area, Mr Stevens conceded, “You’re right, we should have come to you for an application.”

Ms Peters clarified, “That’s what we need. What did you do to determine it’s not wetlands?” Mr Stevens spoke of natural soils that were “well drained,” and “areas of old fill.”

“You agree that fill was placed in the area without an application?” asked Dr Kotch.

“Absolutely, that’s why the cease and desist [order from the town was issued to halt railroad site work],” said Mr Stevens. Commissioners clarified two periods of work at the railroad requiring attention: what they are doing, and what was done.

Arguments arose regarding definitions of vernal pools, contaminations of adjoining properties, impacts of fill on amphibians, and comments from the public “perturbed” by the fact that the railroad representatives had not addressed the violations.

Land Use Deputy Director Rob Sibley at one point indicated that the town’s soil consultant “does not agree” with reports on soil filed by the railroad.

Discrepancies remain and information on the new site plans and proposed changes await the commission’s review. Reports from wetlands consultants filed with the town are available for public review and can answer many questions raised Wednesday night, Mr Sibley explained.

As resolutions remain to be discovered on or after January 13, Mr Pease earlier that night had expressed the railroad’s main concerns — to serve its customers and meet obligations. “We have reviewed feasible and prudent alternatives and have finally arrived at the plan in front of you which meets our needs and, according to our experts, enhances the property from a water management perspective.”