Peer Review Consultants Say Costco Should Downsize

Two peer review consultants told the Inland Wetlands Commission Thursday night that a proposed 158,000-square-foot Costco warehouse should be downsized and that the 16 pump gas station should be eliminated or relocated. 

The proposed Costco project at Exit 56 spans three sites and includes the warehouse store and seven additional commercial buildings, plus the gas pumps and a liquor store. 

Engineer Darin L. Overton (L) and Environmental Specialist William A. Root (R), of Milone & MacBroom (M&M) in Cheshire, submitted a 15-page report Wednesday, accompanied by several pages of photos. A third public hearing took place over three and one-half hours the following evening at Fire headquarters.

About 55 people attended, including First Selectman Jamie Cosgrove and Town Attorney Bill Aniskovich.

Overton and Root worked on putting together an independent peer review analysis commissioned by the IWC. Peer review consultants are hired by the town, but paid by the applicant, which in this case is Costco. The IWC rejected an effort by Costco to work with the Peer review team.

Peer Review Reviews

The peer review consultants discussed their findings and answered questions. Overall both said there were would be less adverse impact on the 44-acre Costco commercial complex if it were downsized. The Costco officials did not respond. But they were clearly not happy.

Root said that downsizing the store somewhat would reduce the parking requirements as well.

“It is easy to envision many alternative layouts with less square footage of direct and indirect wetland impact that allow ample development of the three sites,” their report states.

The consultants said many issues have been adequately addressed, but there are still remaining concerns. Those concerns include “potential feasible and prudent alternatives” to the project; the impact on wetlands and buffers; the design of stormwater management basins; and the design of three proposed roadway cross culverts.

Preserve Mature Grove of Trees

At the hearing Root said there was a large grove of mature trees, about 35 in all that “are on the wetlands boundary.” He said the trees “are providing organic material for the wetlands and watercourses” and are an important benefit to the wetlands. This area, he said, “seems most at risk.” He strongly recommended the IWC preserve the grove of trees, which he said were between 80 and 100 years old.

After they finished their presentation, IWC Commissioner James Killelea asked each of the peer review consultants if they “considered the plans and the data submitted thus far by the applicant to be adequate or inadequate from your professional perspective?”

Root said his short answer was that the Costco wetlands program was “well done.” He said he thought the commission has enough information to make a decision. “There are some things I would like more answers to.”

Killelea noted that one of them said “there could have been or should have been prudent and equal alternatives that the applicant could have pursued. My sense was that your comments to the applicant” were not responded to. 

Root replied: “I was hoping to see a little more description of the different stores, uses, layouts, lots of different alternatives. Some changes, he said, but it’s the same box store, the same parking as far as I could tell.”

Killelea responded: “The bottom line there was a lack of flexibility with respect to reduction of parking spaces and the big box store because the PDD (Planned Development District) had in effect approved the plans as submitted to you.”

Root: “I was not part of the PDD process; I don’t know what went into that.” The PDD process was undertaken and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which unlike prior applications went first to P&Z and not to IWC in this process.

The peer review report covers three undeveloped parcels in the proposed commercial complex: a 22-acre site owned by Wayne Cooke and the Cooke family corporations where Costco plans to build; a 16-acre site owned by Charles E. Weber Jr. and Al Secondino, and their 595 Corporate Circle corporation, where six buildings are proposed; and a 1.7-acre site owned by trustee Peter G. Mandragouras, where one building is proposed.

Peer Reviewers Suggest “Feasible and Prudent Alternatives”

In their report the consultants listed several possible ways to downsize the project to cause less impact to wetlands:

—- Eliminate the gas pumps, or relocate them to the Weber-Secondino property where six buildings are proposed. The report states: “The elimination of the gas kiosk or its relocation removes the need for the box culvert crossing of the central watercourse (direct wetland impact).”

At a prior hearing, Janet Reisman, who owns property adjacent to the Costco site, urged Costco to eliminate the gas station because it is too close to wetlands. She cited several incidents of fuel spills at area gas stations dating back to 1999, adding that Costco’s plan to add 16 pumps would bring a total of 64 pumps within a quarter-mile of the proposed Costco site.

—- Relocate a portion of the proposed road providing access from East Industrial Road.

—- Reduce the size or number of buildings and parking lots, which would lessen impacts to wetlands and buffers. The report said IW staff asked them to consider scenarios if the building was downsized to the average Costco size of 143,800 square feet, (as listed on the corporate profile online). This would reduce the length of the building, limit disturbance to wetlands to the east, and reduce the number of parking spaces. The Costco store being proposed is a 158,000-square-foot building.

Besides Costco the plans envision seven other commercial buildings. 

Wetlands and Buffers

The report cites areas of concern regarding wetlands and the surrounding buffer areas. For example it says a 40- to 100-foot buffer, on the western boundary of Wetland 1 toward the pond at East Main Street, would be severely reduced or eliminated, which would result in little protection to the wetland and an adverse effect on fish and wildlife habitats.

The report gives suggestions for enhancing buffers that surround the wetlands, and offers ways to mitigate the effect on wetlands. For example, it recommends some changes to parking areas that would preserve the grove of trees near the wetlands that serve as habitats for birds.

Stormwater Management

The report says the Costco plans should provide detail about the stormwater basin designs pertaining to water quality, and that calculations should be submitted to support the designs. It also calls for a significant revision to the stormwater analysis regarding the roadway cross culvert designs.

The report says “if these remaining issues are adequately addressed and if the goal of zero increase in peak rates of runoff is still achieved with some level of infiltration included in the design where appropriate, then the issue of downstream impacts can be properly evaluated.”

The consultants said the developers should summarize information about stormwater infiltration, confirm any anticipated volume increase, and explain why further volume reduction can’t be achieved. They said if any stormwater volumes are anticipated to increase, the developers should discuss possible effects on downstream properties. 

The consultants are recommending a detailed construction phasing plan be submitted prior to construction. They also recommend weekly independent inspections and monitoring of erosion and sedimentation controls be conducted and reported to the town during construction.

The full report, along with other Costco-related correspondence, plans and transcriptions can be found on the website for the Inland Wetlands and Natural Resources Department.

Costco Responds  

After the peer review consultants ended their presentation, Attorney Thomas P. Cody, who represents Costco and his team took their places to present a slide show. Michelle Carlson, an engineer, reviewed improvements to the storm water management system. Michael S. Klein, a wetlands scientist, reviewed wetlands areas.

Cody told the IWC that since the team had only received the peer review report on Wednesday they had not had a chance to fully prepare a presentation to respond, but wanted to reserve time at the public hearing in April to do so.

Cody reviewed the company’s submissions, described the ongoing collaboration with the Branford Land Trust (BLT) and its engineering consultant, LandTech, and the improvements and refinements resulting from their discussions. The refinements, he said, would be the focus of their presentation.

When is a Regulation a Regulation?

At one point, a Costco slide raised an issue previously raised, specifically the legal standard used by the IWC in deciding issues.
The Costco slide said:

“The 2002 CT Soil Erosion Guidelines and 2004 CT Stormwater Quality Manual are guidelines and not laws or regulations – section 7.5k of the Branford Regulations does not change that.”

Cody has said in the past that the manual is a guidance document for use by professional engineers and scientists when designing sites. ​“The manual was never intended to act like a regulation.” Branford Citizens for Responsible Development (BCRD), an intervenor in the Costco hearings, disagrees. 

At the public hearing Thursday, Commissioner Killelea disagreed as well, citing a major decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court that involved the same IWC in Branford and the Queach Corporation.

“Just for the record and point of fact, the Branford Inland Wetlands regulation section 7.5 k specifically incorporates those (the manual) as a minimum in accordance with guidance and recommendations and the authority of the Inland Wetlands Commission. To do that is set forth in the case ​‘Queach Corporation v. the Inland Wetlands Commission of the town of Branford,’ decided on September 25, 2001,” Killelea said.

Cody responded, saying the manual guidelines are intended to supplement professional judgment. ​“They say at the beginning they are intended not to be a regulation. We think we have done our very best job to apply many different techniques to achieve the goals of protecting wetlands.”

Killelea said, ​“I appreciate your comments, counselor.”

“Thank you,” Cody replied.

Killelea, who is an attorney, had the last word: ​“But I think we would be giving great weight to those regulations. And I think in a regulatory sense it would be appropriate to do that. But again I appreciate your comments,” Killeea said, informing Cody of his thinking.

Gould Lane Issue Erupts

There was one surprise development when Chairman Shapiro said he wanted to discuss Bill Horne’s findings regarding a small pond and wetland on BLT property off Gould Lane.

Shapiro raised the Gould Lane issue when members of the BLT were discussing changes they had agreed to with the Costco team. Amos Barnes, president of the BLT, praised the Costco changes, including monitoring the project after completion. He said only minor issues were left to be resolved.

Horne, an environmentalist, submitted his concerns as an individual and not as part of the Branford Land Trust intervenor application.

In his filing with the IWC office, Horne said he was concerned about “increased erosion stemming from stormwater runoff from the Stop&Shop plaza, the truck stop, the 369 East Main Street property,” and other nearby areas that “might negatively impact the small pond and wetland on the property BLT owns.” He said that he was concerned that sediment might be carried into the Gould Lane pond.

The area lies downstream of the 16-acre property owned by Weber and Secondino and their 595 Corporate Circle corporation, a property that is expected to be turned into a mini-mall and parking for six additional stores, as yet unnamed. The Gould Lane property is not affected by the Costco property.

Timothy Yolen, who represents the BLT, sent a note to the IW office, saying Horne was acting on his own “and not on behalf of, or connected to, the Branford Land Trust.”

When the hearing moved to the Weber-Secondino properties, Shapiro asked Weber’s attorney about funding for an outside peer review consultant to examine the Gould Lane area.

He looked at Kevin J. Curseaden, a partner in the Milford law firm of Carroll, Curseaden & Moore and the lawyer representing Weber’s company. “I don’t know if this is an appropriate request or not,” he said. “Either a third party (meaning M&M) will have to look at it or the commission will have to make its own assessment or observation. It’s your choice.”

Curseaden turned to Cody who was seated behind him. They conferred. Then Curseaden replied, “At this time we are not going to pay for that.” 
Shapiro then said the commission would have to take a site walk on April 9 before the next public hearing in April. He asked the commission for approval and they agreed.

By the time the BCRD team took the table, the clock was nearing 11 p.m. Keith Ainsworth, the group’s attorney, and Steven D. Trinkaus, of Trinkaus Engineering LLC of Southbury, had waited all night.

Ainsworth told the IWC that the BCRD had submitted comments and that there was a ​“fair amount of new information.”

Given the lateness of the hour, the commission decided to hold the BCRD comments for the April meeting.
###