Neighbors Appeal Old Lyme Gravel Pit Permit

OLD LYME, CT – Neighbors of a controversial gravel pit on Mile Creek Road are appealing the decision by the town’s zoning enforcement official to reissue a permit for the operation.

Among other concerns, they are complaining of noise, dust and health problems they say the operation has caused.

The Old Lyme Zoning Board of Appeals heard the complaints during a nearly four-hour pbulic hearing on Sept. 17, with several residents speaking in opposition to the project. The board has not made a decision yet and held the hearing open to allow more information to come in on the matter.

The appeal was made by Peter and Millie Caron, who live across the Three Mile River from the site.

Peter Caron argued that the zoning permit issued by Land Use Coordinator Eric Knapp should be revoked because Knapp issued it based on the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and Energy issuing a storm water discharge permit that was not given proper scrutiny.

Knapp last month said the DEEP issued the permit in June after having given him the impression the agency wouldn’t do so. Peter Caron argued Knapp should have looked into why DEEP issued its permit before granting the zoning permit.

Peter Caron also disputed a statement by DEEP Spokesman William Flood.

Flood, in the statement, said the permit was issued based on the understanding that storm water enters detention ponds prior to being discharged into the Three Mile River.

Caron insisted the only thing controlling discharge was a beaver dam.

He complained of dust clouds from the operation and said the health and quality of life of people in the area were at risk.

Later in the meeting, Millie Caron said she has received a diagnosis of a lung disease she believes is related to silica dust from the gravel pit operation.

“So, if the DEEP permit was issued based on the understanding the engineered storm water detention ponds were in place – when in fact the ponds had actually failed, and the only apparent structure holding water was a beaver dam, and that there are no dust measures in place – it raises a serious question as to whether the DEEP permit was based on accurate and complete information,” Peter Caron said.

Speakers also complained of noise from rocks being crushed on the site and said the operation has illegally expanded. They argued the alleged illegal expansion is a reason to revoke the permit.

Joe Wren of Indigo Engineering of Old Saybrook countered many of the claims. He said he prepared the permit application and the operation is in compliance with the permit.

Sedimentation ponds on the property were part of the previous owner’s storm water management system and are no longer in use, he said. Instead, the system the operation relies on includes a silt fence, anti-tracking pads, dust control and fuel containment booms, all of which he said were approved by DEEP.

He said the operation stays within a 4-acre work zone it is not allowed to go beyond, and it has not expanded.

DEEP has been to the site to review all the measures, and was there earlier that day, Wren said.
He said cease and desist orders over violations mentioned by speakers have all been cleared.

“Eric went out and checked those things to see if they had been resolved,” he said. “There is not one active wetlands violation issue that is still active on that site right now.”

When asked by the board if the system was held together by a beaver dam, he said it was not.

“DEEP would never approve that,” he said. “If I said, ‘we’re having this 4-acre work area, and we’re discharging to a pond held together by beaver dam,’ do you think anybody’d think that DEEP would?”

Gravel pit owner Ron Swaney also spoke briefly, disputing claims of rock crushing on the site. While he crushed rocks there when he worked for the previous owner, he said he has not done so since he purchased the operation in 2023.

“We’re screening topsoil,” he said.

Speakers came forward and denied Swaney’s claim of only screening topsoil.

“It was a jack hammer pounding rocks,” Millie Caron said. “It was very invasive.”

“They were breaking up rocks,” Peter Caron said. “It did constitute a change.”

When discussion turned to environmental concerns caused by the operation, board members reminded speakers they could only consider evidence directly associated with the appeal. Environmental, noise and other concerns were not the matters before them, they said. They also noted that they could not allow their feelings about gravel pits to interfere with their decision.

“It’s not about what’s fair,” ZBA attorney Sylvia Rutkowska said. “It’s about what’s legal.”

Knapp could not be reached Monday.

The ZBA will take up the matter at its October 15 meeting at 6:30 p.m.