C&D Recycler Wins Court Case

Stamford, Ct.-based City Recycling can seek a permit to recycle construction and demolition debris, Connecticut’s state Supreme Court has ruled.

The court ruled against Connecticut in the 4-year-old lawsuit, saying the state statute that had barred the company's expansion was unconstitutional.

In the decision, released earlier this month, the court ruled that Public Act 97-300 violated City Recycling's right to equal protection under the state's constitution. The act barred the issuing of permits in cities of 100,000 or more population for "a new volume reduction plant or transfer station located or proposed to be within one-quarter mile of a child day-care center."

"We conclude that P.A. 97-300 (section) 2 is not rationally related to any legitimate state interest and, therefore, we conclude that P.A. 97-300 is unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff," Chief Justice William J. Sullivan wrote in the unanimous five-judge ruling.

The court agreed with City Recycling that the sole purpose of the 1997 act "was to prevent the plaintiff from building a volume reduction facility."

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, whose office argued the case for the state, said the decision will be reviewed.

"The plaintiff certainly presented a very plausible challenge and the opinion seems to be extremely well-reasoned and researched," Blumenthal said. "But there may be a way to protect the day-care facility or other similar activities without abridging the constitution's equal protection clause."

Blumenthal said that because the court's decision relied on an interpretation of the Connecticut Constitution, there is no avenue of appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its decision, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that City Recycling’s facility would not have any adverse affect on a daycare center located near the recycling operation. Additionally, the court found that the company had taken all the needed steps to control any drainage from the property.

The court in its decision also agreed on the following points:

trucks delivering material to City Recycling do not use a street where the daycare center

City Recycling has not been fined since beginning is operations

Fire has never been a problem at the plant. Additionally, the recycling center was found to have extensive fire protection and prevention procedures in place

The center does not pose any groundwater problem because all processing occurs inside

Because the local building codes require that asbestos and lead be removed prior to the granting of a demolition permit, friable asbestos is not a concern

A volume reduction facility such as City Recycling’s proposed project is allowed to receive in its load 10 percent residue which must be removed within 24 hours.

Dust and airborne debris would not create any hazard

Waste oil and batteries would not be accepted by the plaintiff under the certificate granted to it by the board

The new building would not appear different except that it would appear larger

Noise from the proposed facility would not increase the overall noise level because all the operations occur inside.

Material received would not attract or sustain pests.

The court also found that it was highly likely that City Recycling’s application would have passed the department’s technical review process, and that the plaintiff would have received a permit from the department to operate in its present location as a recycler of paper, wood, construction and land clearing debris.