Owners of Former Rocky Hill Landfill Fined For Lack Of Communication

A citation hearing by Attorney Claudia Baio on the old Rocky Hill Landfill was held recently.

The owners of the property, Meadow Properties LLC, were fined $5,800  in regards to not providing a plan to remediate the wetland violations committed on their property Sept 2012.

The citation, presented by Baio and submitted by administrative assistant Jo-Anne Booth follows below:

Citation Hearing decision by Attorney Claudia Baio for Citation No. 0125 from:  Meadow Properties LLC for wetlands violation at the former Rocky Hill Landfill on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. in the Elevator Conference Room, Rocky Hill Town Hall, 761 Old Main Street, Rocky Hill, CT 06067.  

Attorney Claudia Baio said in accordance with the rules at a governance proceeding that she had to give her opinion this evening and she had to give her ruling on this citation. She referred to what they had talked about earlier at this citation hearing and she said they were present to address the violation of Citation No. 0125. This is a violation of Section 160-6a for not responding to a second violation or a Cease and Desist Order with the potential of a per day penalty as set forth in the citation of $200 a day.   

Attorney Claudia Baio said a lot of things weren’t contested this evening. This sort of narrowed the issue. There was no question that there was a Cease and Desist Order in place. This was from the evidence that had been presented. She knows that there was a lot of discussion on both sides. She said this is relevant although the citation doesn’t seek to impose any penalties for the timeframe dating back to the Cease and Desist Order. This is relevant because it shows the basis for the violation, which was an issue. This also relates to the extent that there is a per diem application for penalties if the correction isn’t made.   

Attorney Claudia Baio said there was no dispute that notice was provided of the need to provide something to the Town. There was a debate as to whether this was the actual status report or the plan. She thinks it is pretty clear that there is an ambiguity in the notice and the status report would have been sufficient to constitute satisfying the requirement of the Town.   

Attorney Claudia Baio told Greg Lichatz that he unfortunately is in a spot where he doesn’t want to be because he has other people within his company who should have been responding to this. Attorney Claudia Baio said unfortunately that they are dealing with a company and not with an individual. Everyone rises and falls with their group unfortunately.

Attorney Claudia Baio said the fact remains that there was no question that there was ample notice. That notice had been provided from November (2012) forward about the need to have this information in advance of the February 13th (2013) hearing. She said nothing was provided. 

There is no dispute over the number of notices, the time of the notices, what was asked for in the notice and the reminder that had been sent out. There is also no dispute about the non-appearance at the hearing and no response following the hearing until the letter had come out that had indicated fines would be imposed.   

Attorney Claudia Baio told Greg Lichatz that he probably didn’t have a happy greeting after coming home from vacation and being notified of fines.  Attorney Claudia Baio then referred to the e-mail of March 15, 2013. She said the easy part of this decision is her finding that there was a violation.  It is appropriate to impose a fine for the continuing violation unfortunately for Meadow Properties and its principle. 

She said the more interesting question for her to have to consider was the e-mail communication. In looking at the exhibits that had been submitted, she does see reference throughout asking for correspondence. This is for something that indicates that the status report has to be in writing. She referred to the claim of the telephone call. It was terrific that conversation had taken place in the telephone call and that there was contact but she doesn’t believe that that can constitute a status report. She does believe that the e-mail constitutes a status report however. This would be her finding. 

She said in reviewing it that it is substantive and it includes what they have done to address the situation and what the plan is for a restoration plan report.  She said to address the question as to whether this was provided simply or not to Town Staff that she does know the response to this at least, thanks to Bob Alvarado. It is in there that Ken Goldberg (Chairman of Inland Wetlands) does have notice on the e-mail of March 18 (2013) at least. 

Attorney Claudia Baio said she does therefore find that this does constitute a status report. She would find that fines are appropriate against the applicant.  The violation was in place for the period of time until this report was provided.  There is some ambiguity in the notices. She said if this had simply said that a planning report was required then quite frankly the fine would stay through today but the fine should be imposed through March 15 (2013) because of the ambiguous language saying that the status report is sufficient.

By her calculations, she said this totals twenty-nine days for a total of fines of $5,800.            

Respectfully submitted, Jo-Anne Booth