Diana Stricker Photo
The five voting members of the P&Z Commission.
Costco’s Master Plan for 44 acres at Exit 56 is closer to becoming a reality, but there are some conditions.
The Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission agreed to draft a resolution that could be put to a vote in two weeks, and it appears the majority are in favor of the project. The commission deliberated for about 90 minutes Thursday night, and previously discussed the issues for about 90 minutes at the May 21 meeting. Click here to read that story.
A Divided Room
“We had a divided room,” P&Z Chair Ellsworth McGuigan said in regard to the previous meeting. He said it appears there will be a 3-2 vote to approve the project. In addition to McGuigan, commissioners Charles Andres and Marci Palluzzi expressed support for the proposal, and John Lust and Joe Chadwick expressed disapproval. McGuigan announced his retirement from the commission at the meeting but plans to vote before he leaves the board sometime in July.
The first phase of the Master Plan calls for constructing a 158,070 square-foot Costco on about 22 acres owned by Wayne Cooke and the Cooke family. During subsequent phases of construction, seven commercial buildings totaling about 86,775 square feet would be built on the western half of the PDD on property that is primarily owned by Charles E. Weber Jr. and Al Secondino. In addition, there are three smaller properties, including the Connecticut Shellfish Company that front on East Industrial Road.
Weber and Secondino are the two principals of Orchard Hill Partners, LLC. Orchard Hill has filed notice with the town that they have an option to purchase the 22 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 public records.
McGuigan asked the commissioners to continue discussing the issues Thursday and to formulate a list of conditions that might address the concerns.
“I still have the same problems I had,” Lust said. “I don’t believe it meets the Plan of Conservation and Development. I don’t think we have a complete Master Plan.” He said traffic issues are still problematic.
McGuigan said the purpose of a PDD is to develop large tracts and avoid smaller individual projects that would result in multiple entrances and exits onto the roads. “It gives the commission the ability to control the development, so that the internal roads are going to take some of the traffic off the main roads, and it makes common sense to me.”
Palluzzi agreed. “I’m seeing an opportunity to control what’s going to happen because you’ve got five land parcels together,” she said, adding that it would be a better way to manage storm water drainage issues.
“We have to act as planners,” Lust said. “The size of this thing is the problem.” He said better information about the traffic impact is needed.
Palluzzi said if the commission denies the application with the internal road, the alternative would be piecemeal development. “How do you think that’s going to affect traffic… That could be a safety nightmare,” she said.
A Conditional Yes?
The commission asked the staff to draft a resolution to approve the Planned Development District (PDD) and Master Plan, but it listed several conditions that must be met. The resolution will serve as a motion when the commission votes.
One of the main conditions discussed was the need for strict compliance with the town’s maximum impervious surface ratio, which is 60 percent. The developers wanted 65 percent. Andres said the opposition made good points about the importance of limiting impervious surface. He said the two existing building lots would be excluded from the 60 percent figure because they are already non-conforming.
Palluzzi was the only commissioner who wanted to be more lenient with the impervious percentage, suggesting that 62 percent might be alright. “I’m just afraid if we push them too far,” she said
“We haven’t pushed them at all,” Andres said.
Another condition refers to the type of uses that will be allowed in the PDD. Andres suggested limiting the uses to a discount club and gas pumps, retail, restaurant, office, banks, financial institutions, research labs and the two existing businesses. However, he said the other uses in an IG-2 district will not be allowed.
McGuigan said the commission can control each parcel as it comes in with specific site plans.
Another major condition would require that the internal road between Route 1 and East Industrial Road and the ring road through the lower part of the project will be completed in the first phase of construction.
Lust asked if there could be conditions regarding OSTA‘s review of the roads.
Town Attorney William Aniskovich said the town’s Local Traffic Authority (LTA) has input into those plans. In Branford, the LTA is the Police Commission and the Police Chief. Andres asked Plaziak if she will work with the LTA, and she said she will.
Higher Tax Rate Than Farm Land
Chadwick said the developers have not established what the benefits will be. “I’m looking for the list of benefits.” He also said Costco didn’t address all the concerns of the opposition. Chadwick called the Master Plan “a good, coherent plan,” but he still questioned the economic benefits to the town.
Andres said he believes there will be a net economic benefit. “Is it as tax-positive as other uses, maybe not,” he said. “But I think it’s going to be tax positive.” He said right now the largest parcel (the Cooke land) has low taxes because of farm status. He said if the PDD is granted and the land becomes commercial, it can be taxed at a higher rate. “I think you’ve going to start collecting taxes pretty quickly,” he said.
“A Good Start”
McGuigan said a Master Plan seeks to limit individual parcels developing without any coherent plan. He said the five property owners are cooperating and looking at the interior connections and sidewalks. “It’s a start. It’s a good start. It’s a sensible start,” he said.
If the PDD is approved, the developers must submit detailed site plans to both the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) and P&Z. The size of the project also triggers a traffic review by the Office of State Traffic Administration (OSTA).
McGuigan said many concerns will be resolved during the site plan stage. He said the Master Plan will “prevent it from being developed in a hodge-podge manner.”
Concerned Public
About 60 people attended Thursday’s meeting, which addressed several other projects in addition to Costco. About 30 remained for the Costco deliberations.
During four public hearings that were held on Costco in the past two months, numerous opponents and supporters voiced their opinions.
An opposition group, Branford Citizens for Responsible Development (BCRD), has been granted official intervener status, citing environmental concerns. 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. In a recent posting on its web site, the BCRD also asked for a more detailed traffic study, and a cost benefit analysis. The group has collected over 600 signatures opposed to the Costco PDD, including 35 local business owners.
The BCRD said Costco had “failed to submit summer traffic counts. The Commission’s own traffic expert testified: “We only looked at what was provided…why they [the Applicants] didn’t do it I’m not quite sure.”
The opposition group observed that the P&Z “could commission a comprehensive and independent cost-benefit analysis, an impact study and a gravity analysis,” in order to weigh the impact of a large-scale retail store” on the town, either at Exit 56 or Exit 53.
##