Tire-chipping company official voices complaints in Fairfield

loading...

FAIRFIELD — The president of the company that had hoped to place a tire-chipping plant in rural Fairfield said Wednesday night he is likely to pack up and begin searching for another site.

Frank Schofield, president of Arthur Schofield Inc. of Lancaster, Mass., said “misguided” information from town officials had stalled the project and cost him money.

An outcry from neighbors, a last-minute moratorium and the news coverage of the controversy have damaged his company’s good name, he told town councilors, harming his chances of locating the plant just about anywhere.

“We were … misguided and told things that were just not true, and it cost us a significant amount of money,” said Schofield, whose father started the company more than four decades ago.

“We’ll pack up and go — if we can salvage some type of reputation that we came in with,” he said.

After a monthlong silence as opposition grew, Schofield requested Wednesday’s meeting to vent his frustrations and appeal for help in restoring his company’s reputation and finding a suitable site.

The special session came one week after councilors placed a four-month block on all new nonresidential development in country areas, which effectively prevents ASI from doing anything in Fairfield Center until the spring.

About 25 project opponents attended the two-hour meeting.

They sat in silence, holding signs with handwritten messages like, “No more secrets. Stand up to ASI,” and “Support your Town Council. Send ASI home.”

In early November, residents formed an opposition group after learning that ASI was awaiting state approval for a plant and tire storage areas on about 5 acres along Route 23, known locally as Oakland Road.

The plant could turn as many as 2 million tires each year into insulating chips for paving and construction projects. Company officials have said it would be a clean, quiet neighbor that would help recycle the 30 million to 40 million old tires littering landfills and other sites in Maine.

But the neighbors have asked Schofield to find another site.

Besides objections to noise, traffic and lower property values along their country road, the opponents have voiced fears that storing as many as 50,000 tires in a series of 100-by-100-foot piles could create a fire hazard.

ASI recently withdrew its application for project approval from the state Department of Environmental Protection after discovering errors. Schofield told councilors the company was in a “holding pattern.”

The events that led the company to withdraw that application form the heart of ASI’s beef with the town.

Schofield and his technical consultant, Brian Kittridge of Yarmouth, told councilors that town employees had given them conflicting information.

Kittridge said he was told a tire-processing plant was permitted in the area in which it was proposed when he first contacted the town last summer. With that information, ASI sought state approval.

But months later, after neighbors learned about the project and complained, he was told the project might be subject to review by the town’s land-use board, after all.

The moratorium, of which they had no warning, compounded the problem.

“We had been in this process since June or July. We did not try to keep this a secret,” Kittridge said.

“We believe at this point, that because of avoidable delays, we have been denied due process for land-use review,” he said.

Town Manager Terry York said officials had done their best to accommodate the company.

She conceded the town’s land-use regulations are vague. But, tossing a barb back at ASI, she said the company initially had provided town officials with incorrect information, which led them to conclude the project didn’t require local review.

“We don’t feel we gave you misinformation,” York said. “We don’t feel we tried to cover anything up.”

Some town officials and neighbors received registered letters notifying them of ASI’s plans in October. But most said they had known nothing about the project until early November.

“The council was hit cold with this,” said council Chairwoman Dawnalysce Clifford.

Other councilors said they had adopted the moratorium to give them time to iron out the regulations needed to oversee projects such as ASI’s proposed plant.

“The people who live in the immediate area are very concerned about this. That’s what I’m concerned about,” said Councilor William Hagerty.

“I’m going to be right up front: I do not think this is the area for that to go,” he said.

Schofield said such attitudes have harmed his reputation, casting a stigma over the project.

Councilors responded that they hoped to work with him to find another suitable site. They offered the services of Clyde Dyar, the town’s economic development director.

Shofield remained skeptical.

“If I say, `Fine, we’re moving out of Fairfield,’ are you then going to help us recover our reputation or find another site? The answer is no,” he said.

But in the end, the two sides agreed to try to work something out.

“We’re waiting for your company to approach us and tell us what your requirements are for a site,” Clifford said.