.
Feedback

Kobyluck Takes Waterford To Court, Again

Company Appeals Conservation Commission’s Decision In Superior Court

Last week, Kobyluck Brothers LLC filed an appeal in New London Superior Court to reject the company’s proposal to install a stone processing facility at 28 Industrial Drive.

Kobyluck against the Planning and Zoning Commission's ban on exactly what Kobyluck was proposing to do at 28 Industrial Drive. Still, Kobyluck filed its proposal for a stone processing facility at Industrial Drive before those regulations took effect, which was rejected anyway by the Conservation Commission in May.

In its most recent complaint, Kobyluck alleged that Waterford’s planning staff never wanted the project to happen and the decision to reject the proposal was based “upon arbitrary requirements that are not justified or reflected in the governing regulations or state law.” The company is asking the court to sustain the appeal, costs and "such other relief as may be equitable and appropriate."

The Full Story

Kobyluck in November of 2011. In the company’s complaint, Kobyluck alleges it had a pre-application meeting with the town’s staff before it submitted the plans, and in that meeting it was clear that the staff did not want to work with the applicant or approve the application.

“As a result of those prior applications and pre-filing meetings, it became apparent that the Commission and its agents were not in favor of the Plaintiff or its proposed project,” Kobyluck’s attorney, Kari Olson, wrote in the complaint.

The Conservation Commission held a public hearing on the project that spanned from January to April, where the commission heard testimony from Kobyluck, town staff and an independent third-party environmental consulting firm that the town mandated Kobyluck hire. The hearing closed in April, and at the end of May the Conservation Commission voted to unanimously reject the proposal.

Kobyluck, in its complaint, argued the project would only restore existing impacts at the site and would have no negative environmental impact to the site. Meanwhile, town staff and the third-party evaluators provided little evidence of any impact, yet the commission rejected the application anyway, according to the complaint.

"During the course of the public hearing, Plaintiffs provided significant and detailed expert testimony and test results evidencing that the proposed development was not likely to have any significant temporary or permanent impacts to the wetlands and watercourses on the site," Olson wrote. "In contrast, there was no actual, much less substantial, evidence presented during the course of the administrative proceedings on the application to indicate that any of the proposed regulated activities would cause any harm to the wetlands."

Neighbors near 28 Industrial Drive have long protested the application, pointing out $225,000 in combined settlements for issues in those two towns and the potential negative impact a stone processing facility would have on the area. During the Conservation Commission's public hearing, the group voiced their disapproval with the proposal.

After the Conservation Commission’s rejection of the application, Kobyluck owner Matt Kobyluck conducted a long interview with Patch, where he complained about Waterford Planning Director Tom Wagner. , Kobyluck alleged that Waterford was “anti-business,” and said Wagner did everything he could do to reject the proposal.

Wagner, who refused comment on this story because the appeal was pending in court, has said in previous interviews with Patch that he does not take any application or applicant personally, saying it is “just business.” Wagner, who has been the town’s planning director since 1983, said it would be impossible for him to do his job if he took applications and applicants personally.

For the appeal, the town or Kobyluck will not submit any new information into the record. Instead, a judge will review what was submitted and then decide if the decision was based on legal, reasonable and factual reasons.

Matt Kobyluck did not return a Wednesday afternoon voicemail by Patch. His December appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission is still pending in court. 

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Waterford Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Richard Waselik May 19, 2013 at 05:57 am
There is no "suckles away". The money is deposited by those that use it. The rest isRead More relentless retoric...
Daniella Ruiz May 19, 2013 at 05:44 am
another 'not for profit' that suckles away at the very core of peoples generosity?? better toRead More 'retire' the banking/WS thieves that casually gore the system with relentless greed, schemes and secrecy.
Ivy's Simply Homemade
nascarblue May 17, 2013 at 08:05 am
happy happy anniversary, i love your food, you can tell when a business takes pride in what they do.Read More wishing you many many more years, i will definatly be back, along with my friends, we love your food.
Naty Bush May 18, 2013 at 11:44 am
Where will the meeting take place? I might be able to go to say why it shouldn't be demolished.
Kate May 15, 2013 at 06:36 pm
There are two state agencies that are involved. Both of them are historical preservation societies,Read More and this is what they do, help communities find viable purposes for historic buildings. While the building has been treated as more or less an inconvenience for the town, it is important to remember it is an historic site. It matters. Every town, every city, must look carefully at it's historic buildings and sites with an eye toward preservation, or, you end up with a community full of houses and walmarts. Cohanzie is a unique building for it's architectural style, for it's historic quarry site, and it's importance as a community hub, not to mention the thousands of citizens that passed through. An old building like Cohanzie is built to last. We won't ever see buildings built like that again. We can always build another Walmart. You raise a good question. Maybe once we hear about what could be done with the building, we need a town referendum to find out how the people of Waterford want to proceed. Many historic buildings are saved at the last minute by people who decide history matters. Will Waterford do the same. I don't know the answer.
Maggie L. May 15, 2013 at 01:56 pm
Do you have any proposals for the use of the building? If the town were to keep the building it mostRead More likely will have to be staffed. Do you believe that most town residents would be willing to see an increase in the town budget to allow for additional staff? I'm just tossing out questions because I haven't heard any concrete proposals for the use of the building
Liz May 12, 2013 at 09:06 pm
Mr. Steiner wants to build 72 three story homes on 32 acres in addition to the 60 condos in the twoRead More large buildings. That is more than two individual units per acre or if you include the 60 condos - that is MORE than 4 units per acre! The area around the property for new building is zoned 3 acres per unit. The average of currently built housing abutting the property is about one acre per unit. That is not in keeping with the neighborhood character.
Daniella Ruiz May 12, 2013 at 05:36 pm
Mr Steiner may be the last hope for this decrepit place. The neighbors need to move along, or buyRead More the place themselves. Change might help the stonewalling attitude that has become evident in nearly the entire town, revolving around exclusive entitled old farts with nothing better to do than remember their glory days of Seaside. Its gone, & it's not going to revert back to a pasture either. (too many complaints about that cow smell and so forth). My advice is to listen carefully and try to work something out, get over your own selfish grandious dreams of Pelham Manor style estates and do SOMETHING before it simply falls apart like Norwich Hospital, the countless thread/manufacturing mills, and every other historic building that has been left to rot.
Daniella Ruiz May 14, 2013 at 08:53 am
mary m>> common sense? heee hee. in this day and age? lawyers have made every attempt toRead More eradicate that concept from our every life activity. write it into some law, that can be thence used as future gurantee of use of, by and for their own existence? it's like job security for that entire group, keep the general public at a disadvantage, unable to apply common sense (whats left of it they havent entombed in laws) and uneasy about acting on their own. John Y has the right attitude, heave the cra.pp on the peoples lawn, and hope it doesn't lay there for days as well!
John Yannacci, Sr. May 13, 2013 at 10:09 am
Mary May, I don't know the legality of posting signs on telephone poles. But, take a ride aroundRead More Waterford on Saturday mornings and you'll see signs on anything that is verticle. Take a ride around the same neighborhoods on Wednesday and half the signs will still be there. I wonder if the folks who have had the same yard sale sign at the corner of Great Neck and Rope Ferry Rds. for two and a half weeks wonder why cars are still stopping at their house every Saturday morning.
Mary May May 13, 2013 at 09:53 am
Um I believe it is ILLEGAl to post ANY sign on a telephone pole ANYWAY but free standing signsRead More should be removed after sale is over ! Really a state law just COMMON SENSE we have lost along the way !