Opposition Pulls 300 To Costco Hearing

The opposition to creating a Planned Development District (PPD) for a 44-acre Costco warehouse and seven other stores dominated round one at a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) last night.

More than 300 people gathered in the auditorium at Branford High School for what turned out to be a four hour-long meeting.  A multitude of opponents spoke at length and included a power point presentation to illustrate their points.  They all urged the P & Z to turn it down. 

The developers are seeking a Planned Development District (PDD) for about 44 acres off Exit 56 between Route 1 and East Industrial Road. The proposed PDD and zoning map amendment would allow commercial and retail establishments in the area that is currently zoned General Industrial 2 (IG-2). The proposed complex features Costco and seven new retail buildings.

The Costco opposition presented a well-coordinated team effort during the first round of public hearings. Only one person spoke in favor of the project before the time ran out about 11 p.m. The hearing will continue on April 16 at 7 p.m. at the high school.

Ellsworth McGuigan, the chair of the P & Z, told the audience that the P&Z had received 143 letters on the issue. He said 92 letters supported the project and 51 were against.

Many of the opponents said they were card-carrying members of Costco. They said their opposition was not to the warehouse store but to maintaining a previously defined vision for Branford and its future. They spoke to a retail shift in business philosophy that would seriously harm the town’s ongoing engagement to achieve a biotech hub. A gigantic retail operation, speakers told the P&Z, is a breach of the commission’s own plan of conservation and development and should be rejected.

The topics that drew that deepest opposition centered on the intensity of traffic, the impact on side roads and the impact of a Costco plus seven stores on local businesses. There was spontaneous applause against a Costco gas station operation, which speaker Kate Galambos argued is not permitted in the area except with a special exception. More applause came when she said, ​“The traffic backup will be in all directions, every Interstate 95 trip to the shopping center will be using our town roads.”

Herbert Levinson, an expert in traffic planning, said he had come to speak as a public service. He said the Costco’s traffic study ​“needs more analysis and clarity. Details are lacking ​“with regard to volume,” capacity and intersection issues, he said.

PDD Questioned

But the underlying theme centered on the legality of the PDD, which a number of speakers said runs counter to the town’s current zoning regulations and the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development. (POCD).

The opposition group’s attorney, Keith Ainsworth (pictured), said that “by dropping an incompatible retail use into the center of an industry zone, the PDD constitutes illegal spot zoning.”  He submitted a brief to the P&Z and to Costco’s attorney as well.

Elizabeth Alcorn, a retired lawyer, was the first to speak. She said Branford is now receiving regional and statewide recognition as an emerging bioltech hub. “This hub should be nurtured, not interrupted or brought to a halt,” she said.

The one speaker in favor of the PDD and Costco was Joe Gordon (pictured), former chair and current member of the town’s Economic Development Commission.

He said he was encouraged by the biotech swing to Branford but observed the companies are ​“not moving into new buildings.” And noting past experience, he said, ​“they move in and they move out.”

He called Costco ​“a good company. We don’t want Orange,” he said referring to Costco’s location on a strip mall in that town. ​“I don’t believe it will change the character of the town. It is a private investment between five landowners and a developer,” he added.

PDD Overview

The developers are seeking their PDD for the 44 acres off Exit 56, which is located between Route 1 and East Industrial Road. The proposed PDD and zoning map amendment would allow commercial and retail establishments in the area that is currently zoned General Industrial 2 (IG‑2). 

(Click here to read a previous story about Costco’s plans.)

The proposed complex features Costco and seven new retail buildings, including two sizable parcels.

• Wayne Cooke and the Cooke family corporations own a 22.36-acre site at 573 E. Main St., which fronts on Route 1. Costco is proposing to build on the Cooke property.

•Charles E. Weber Jr. (pictured at the hearing last night) and Al Secondino, through their 595 Corporate Circle corporation, own 16.56-acre parcel at 569 E. Main St. That property has street frontage on Route 1, Leetes Island Road, and East Industrial Road. Plans call for six buildings on their property.

There are also three smaller parcels: 

• A 1.6 acre property at 16 East Industrial Road owned by AHB-LLC, where the Hal Brown Sporting Goods store is located.

• A 1.73 acre site at 20 East Industrial Road owned by Peter G. Mandragouras, which is a vacant lot. Plans call for one building on this parcel.

• A 2.41 acre site at 26 East Industrial Road, where the Connecticut Shellfish Company is located. The property is owned by the Shellfish company. 

The three official applicants for the PDD are: Costco Wholesale Corp.; 595 Corporate Circle, and the Orchard Hill Partners LLC. The main partners of the latter two corporations are Weber and Secondino.

Costco would be the first phase of the development. (Click here for more information about Costco and its multitude of products and services.)

The roads in direct proximity to the project are Route 1 (East Main Street), which is a state road;  and Leetes Island Road and East Industrial Road, which are both town roads; and Interstate 95. (Click here to read a previous story about traffic and roads. Click here to read a story about Costco’s preliminary plans in 2013.)

Site Questioned

There were some surprises at he hearing.

Karyl Lee Hall, the chair of the town’s Conservation and Environmental Commission, told the commission that there is “historic contamination” at the Cooke family site, specifically the area that once held apple orchards. Hall told the audience that to her knowledge the area contains residual pollutants from pesticides. “There has been no remediation.” She said there is “a problem there of significant proportion.” 

Her commission, she said, is entitled to comment on land use applications. “We are in opposition to the Costco application.”

Janet Riesman, a longtime resident of East Main Street, told the audience that the Cooke family quest for retail at the site isn’t new. She recalled when the Cooke family and former political leader Dan Cosgrove’s family back in 1979 proposed a major shopping mall that would contain a Sears, a Macy’s and a Bloomingdales. It was voted down,  she said.

Jamie Cosgrove, Dan Cosgrove’s grandson, is now the town’s first selectman.  Cooke did not attend the hearing. Jamie Cosgrove did. Bringing Costco to Exit 56 has been one Jamie Cosgrove’s main goals, beginning with his election campaign in 2013. Cosgrove argues that the Costco complex would help grow the town’s commercial tax base. Opponents said it would not. 

Click here to read about a grassroots opposition group.

If the PDD is eventually approved, the developers will be required to submit detailed site plans to both the Inland Wetlands Commission and P&Z. Additional public hearings would be scheduled.

Costco’s Attorney Speaks

Attorney Thomas Cody (pictured), of the Robinson & Cole legal firm in Hartford, who represents Costco, outlined the company’s plans during a PowerPoint presentation that lasted about 45 minutes.  He was the first speaker.

Cody identified the owners of the properties and said that Orchard Hill Partners LLC is the “contract purchaser of the Cooke parcel.” 

The principals of Orchard Hill Partners, LLC, who are identified as Charles E. Weber and Al Secondino, filed notice with the town Monday that they have an option to purchase the 21 acres of Cooke family land that is part of the PDD and the proposed location of the Costco. The option is in effect until March 29, 2017. The land has been appraised at $3,010,800 according to town records. Given a recent legal stipulation between the Cooke family and the Town of Branford dated December 23, 2014, the land has been reclassified as farm land dating to 2009. It is assessed at $7,400.

Cody said that overall there are about 900 acres that are zoned industrial in that area of Branford and that half are either vacant or undeveloped. He said the Master Plan acreage is about 5 percent of the total amount.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, Cody outlined his application for the P&Z Commission, which moved from the stage to the first row of the auditorium in order to view the slides. 

He said development in the Exit 56 area has historically been “an incremental lot-by-lot pattern,” with individual driveway curb cuts.

To illustrate how the Master Plan differs from the incremental piecemeal style, he compared the two types of development. He said the two larger parcels could possibly be subdivided into 14 lots in an incremental process, with numerous curb cuts, and limited opportunity for interconnections and road improvements.

He said the design team looked to the town’s plans to design the PDD. “We first turned to the Plan of Conservation and Development. … The plan notes that the Exit 56 area is well-suited for further development of non-residential uses.”

He said the POCD listed two guidelines for future development—good traffic management and good storm water management techniques.

Cody Outlines Costco’s Goals

Cody said the Master Plan has six main goals: It would minimize curb cuts; maximize the benefits of Exit 56; promote property interconnections; implement a comprehensive approach to storm water management; minimize potential wetland impacts; and maximize open space area.

He said one of the goals was to eliminate multiple curb cuts by limiting access to two new access roads on Route 1, and two on East Industrial Road.

He said one of the critical aspects of the plan was a direct access road into the Cooke property from Exit 56, which meant using portions of the Connecticut Shellfish company and the next-door “trustee” property. “This plan was not going to happen without the coordination and cooperation,” of those two property owners, he said.

“This plan was very carefully laid out with an eye toward minimizing wetland impact,” Cody said, adding that the amount of wetland disturbance would be “less than 1/10 of an acre.”

He also said the plan allows for several continuous area of open space through landscaping and storm water management ponds.

“We think we’ve achieved the six objectives,” he said, and complied with the POCD.

Impervious Surfaces

Cody said one request in the PDD would increase the amount of impervious surface that is permitted. Impervious surfaces are buildings and parking lots, as opposed to grassy areas or storm water ponds.

He said the increase is due to the Shellfish Company lot which would have about 76 percent impervious surface since some of the property would be used for the new access road.

“The Master Plan as a whole as you look at it ….would be about 65 percent” impervious surface, he said. “I want to be clear that that criteria change is driven by the need to accommodate the Shellfish parcel.”

Cody said the other seven buildings have “general commercial uses” at this stage and that individual uses would be listed when site plans are submitted. 

Cody said the Master Plan “can reasonably expect to generate at least “$850,000 in gross annual property tax revenues at build-out for Costco (and the seven other stores in the master plan.)  This would obviously reduce tax burden on residential properties and would be consistent with municipal goals to solidify the non-residential tax base in town. And clearly this Master Plan, with the uses that are proposed in it, can provide new goods and services for Branford, as well as create new jobs.”

Traffic, Traffic, Traffic

Cody also talked about the developer’s traffic study and said the size of the project would automatically trigger a review by the Office of State Traffic Administration (OSTA): “The state will be able to require various traffic mitigation improvements on area roadways.”

He said piecemeal development would not be subject to state review and would involve multiple curb cuts that he referred to as “death by a thousand cuts.”

“A huge advantage to the Master Plan is that it brings us into state review for the traffic from the project and the ability to incorporate into a state permit, that we would have to comply with, various traffic and roadway improvement and mitigation efforts,” he said.

He said some possible improvements could include new traffic lights; and widening the area roads.

The roads in direct proximity to the project are Route 1 (East Main Street), which is a state road;  and Leetes Island Road and East Industrial Road, which are both town roads; and Interstate 95. Click here to read a previous story about traffic and roads.

Commission Has Questions

Five members of the P&Z were present at the hearing: Chairman Ellsworth McGuigan; Charles Andres, Marci Palluzzi, and John Lust, who are full members; and Joe Chadwick, who is an alternate. McGuigan said Commissioner Joe Viauso was absent, and alternate member Fred Russo recused himself from the proceedings. McGuigan gave no explanation for Viauso’s absence or Russo’s recusal.

Also on stage were Bill Aniskovich, the town attorney and Carolyn Kone, a leading land use attorney at his law firm, Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman.

Richard Stoecker, interim town planner and Janice Plaziak, the town’s engineer answered questions raised during the meeting.

McGuigan asked about the time frame of the project.

Cody said Costco and the access road from I‑95 south are the first phase. He said if the PDD is approved, then they would filed site plans ​“very quickly” and that the store could be built in about a year after the permits are approved. 

Chadwick asked about the higher ratio of impervious surface that the developers are requesting.

Cody said the 76 percent surface would only be for the Shellfish Company property, and that the remainder would be about 65 percent.

Andres, who is an attorney, said the plans should be drafted to reflect that the higher amount is only for that one parcel.

Town Engineer Janice Plaziak said she was concerned about the 76 percent ratio and said the issue needs to be addressed. She said 60 percent is the maximum ratio of impervious surface allowed under the new zoning regulations. 

Palluzzi asked why the developers ​“need so much parking.”

Cody said they don’t know what type of use the seven additional building will have, so they are using the extra parking spaces as ​“a little bit of a cushion” in case they’re needed.

###