IWC Outlines Long Process for Costco

Protecting the wetlands is a serious endeavor that takes time. 

So while the site plans for a new Costco and seven commercial buildings at Exit 56 arrived at the Inland Wetlands Department Wednesday, there are many steps to be taken before a public hearing is scheduled. That became evident at Thursday night’s Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) meeting as the commissioners discussed what needs to happen first.

Once all the preliminary steps are taken, the IWC public hearing could convene in November and continue for a few sessions before the commission begins deliberations. Given that scenario, it would be early next year before a decision is made. If approved, the site plans would then proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission, where new public hearings would be scheduled.

Also at the meeting, local environmentalist Bill Horne announced the Branford Land Trust may seek status as environmental intervenors, which would make them an official party to the proceedings. This is a step the Land Trust has never taken before.

The top photo shows one of the wetland areas on the 44-acre site. The photo is part of a voluminous package of plans, studies, maps and photographs presented to the IWC Thursday night. The applications contain a description of the projects and an analysis of the wetlands impact and mitigation; and stormwater management and drainage issues. 

Attorney Thomas Cody (pictured), who represents Costco, said the application was in three parts to represent the three undeveloped properties that comprise the Master Plan.

“We have looked at the 44 acres as a whole, and then also with respect to each of the three pieces, so that they can stand on their own as individual phases of development, but it also has been looked at cumulatively,” Cody told the commission.

The photo above, also part of the applications, shows an aerial view of the wetlands and ponds on the properties.

Peer Reviews and Site Walks

Daniel Shapiro (pictured left with commissioner Peter Basserman), who has chaired the IWC for 20 years, explained the process that the commission typically takes. He said it will be necessary to hire a consultant to do a peer review of the developers’ plans. He said the commission will also need to walk the site to see the environment in person. In addition, he said the developers will need to present a synopsis of the projects before a public hearing is scheduled.

Diana Ross, the Inland Wetlands Environmental Director, said the commission will need to determine the kind of peer review they want and the type of consultant needed. (Developers pay for peer reviews.) Ross said it will take time for a consultant to do a review and submit a report before the public hearing opens.

Shapiro said the site walk could be scheduled before the October IWC meeting, so the commission can decide what resources to look at. ​“Maybe I would wish to have a couple different consultants, of a different nature, look at the sites,” he said.

Commissioner Suzanne Botta said the peer review should look at the stormwater analysis, the wetlands analysis and potential mitigation. ​“Those would be the big three,” she said.

“We may need more than one site walk,” commissioner James Killelea said in regard to the 44 acres.

Killelea asked attorney Cody if he was comfortable with the general timetable being discussed.

“That timeframe is satisfactory to us,” Cody said. ​“I just hope that the work of the peer review consultant can proceed at a pace so that their work can be finished and shared before we get into the hearing.”

Killelea asked Cody to furnish a list of names of all professionals involved in the projects so there wouldn’t be a conflict of interest.

The development team includes Michael S. Klein, a wetlands scientist with Environmental Planning Services LLC of West Hartford; and John Mancini, a lead engineer with BL Companies of Meriden.

Where’s Mancini?

“It’s atypical for us to get an application like this without some initial presentation,” Botta told Cody.

“I’m going to need some sort of presentation,” Shapiro said, adding that he expected that Mancini would have attended the Thursday meeting to present a summary of the projects.

Mancini has presented plans for other projects to the IWC, and typically gives an informal synopsis of the plans before the commission schedules a public hearing.

Shapiro said he would like to schedule the site walk for Oct. 3; and he would like Mancini or someone from the development team to present a synopsis at the IWC Oct. 8 meeting.

“I agree 100 percent with Danny,” commissioner John Rusatsky said in regard to the site walk and a presentation.

Cody agreed, but said perhaps Kline would do the synopsis.

Rusatsky asked Cody to have someone mark off the wetlands, roads and buildings on the properties ​“so that when we go out to walk it, we’ll have some idea of the layout.”

Shapiro also asked if someone from the developer’s engineering team could be present on the walk, and Cody agreed.

“That’s going to be public meeting and we’re going to move as a group and all discussions will be on the record,” Shapiro said in regard to the site walk. ​“The public can attend if they wish. But it’s really for orientation purposes to get our own observations.”

Possible Intervenors?

At this point, Horne asked a procedural question, and said the Land Trust has discussed becoming an environmental intervenor — something the group has never done before.

Shapiro said environmental intervenors would be ​“party to all meetings and all submissions.” He also said they would be required to submit any evidence or documents five days prior to public hearings, the same as anyone else involved in the process.

The Planned Development District (PDD) and Master Plan for Costco and seven other commercial buildings were approved by the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission July 9 by a 3-2 vote. As part of the process, detailed site plans must also be presented first to the IWC and then to P&Z.

During the previous public hearings for the Master Plans and PDD, Horne raised several issues about the possible impact of the projects on wetlands and waterways. Click here to read about a hearing in April. 

Also during the hearings, an opposition group, Branford Citizens for Responsible Development (BCRD), was granted official intervener status. The Connecticut Environmental Protection Act of 1971 gives citizens the right to intervene if it is “reasonably likely” a project will affect air, water of other natural resources. Click here to read that story. 

The owners of the three undeveloped properties in the PDD are: Wayne Cooke and the Cooke family corporations, who own a 22.36-acre site at 573 E. Main St.; Charles E. Weber Jr. and Al Secondino, and their 595 Corporate Circle corporation, who own a 16.56-acre parcel at 569 E. Main St.; and trustee Peter G. Mandragouras., who owns a 1.73 acre site at 20 East Industrial Road.

Fair and Impartial

Shapiro addressed the commission Thursday night, especially the three new members, in regard to remaining impartial about the project and not expressing opinions in other venues.

“You don’t want to voice your opinion either for or against this application. It’s a commissioners job to remain fair and impartial,” Shapiro said, and to weigh the testimony and evidence that is presented at the IWC meetings.

First Selectmen Jamie Cosgrove recently appointed three new members to the IWC to replace three members whose terms expired in May. Those three, all of whom asked to be reappointed, included Dr. Richard Orson, a leading wetlands expert. Click here to read about the Board of Selectmen meeting and the controversy that occurred.

The three new members pictured are (from left) James L. Goggin; Merle Berke-Schlessel; and Richard K. Greenalch, appointed as an alternate.

###