On April 14, after hours of sometimes contentious discussion, Branford Inlands Wetlands Agency (IWA) closed the fourth and final night of a public hearing on the three-part Costco application. The IWA meets Thursday, April 28 to deliberate on accepting or rejecting the application.

The proposed development on 44 acres off I-95 at Exit 56 includes a 158,000 square-foot Costco store and 16-pump gas station on Costco Wholesale Corp.’s parcel at 573 East Main Street. A second phase includes seven additional buildings for commercial, retail, and restaurant use and involves two smaller contiguous parcels at 20 East Industrial Road and 569 East Main Street, owned by other entities.

The April 14 hearing opened with comments from intervenor Branford Citizens for Responsible Development (BCRD) attorney Keith Ainsworth. BCRD consultant Trinkaus Engineering brought up questions regarding storm water removal management and also adverse environmental impacts caused by chloride de-icing agents, including non-soluble chemical constituents.

The application’s second intervenor, Branford Land Trust (BLT) represented by attorney Tim Yolen on April 14, also stated its concern Costco doesn’t adequately outline management practices to address adverse impacts brought by chloride-deicing.

Costco attorney Tom Cody and Costco engineering, soil, and hydrology experts later responded to those concerns with evidence and reports showing Costco is complying with standards. Additionally, Costco supplied four alternatives on April 14 to address some roadway, retention wall, tree removal, and other property impact issues.

Part of the IWA’s charge is to determine if Costco’s application includes the most feasible and prudent alternatives to cause the least amount of impact to wetlands and watercourses.

On April 14, Ainsworth also spoke to blog Branford Seven’s March 21 allegations of “corruption, collusion, and lies” impacting the proceedings. The allegations are based on emails showing alterations between a March 7 draft and a March 9 final letter sent to Costco from Milone & MacBroom Inc. (MMI), the town’s engineering staff for a peer review of Costco’s application requested by the IWA.

MMI, which will not be completing a final project review, responded to the allegations in an April 13 letter, stating, in part, “we are very disappointed in how this peer review process has proceeded and take exception to any innuendo or statement that any of our work may have been coerced. We have followed typical procedures in conducting our work, used professional judgment in providing our opinions, and stand behind the work we have conducted as part of this process. The changes to our last review letter were primarily editorial in nature, were not substantive, and did not affect our technical position. Since we will not have the opportunity to provide a final review of any changes to the plans, we cannot provide any assurance that our technical concerns have been adequately addressed.”

Ainsworth told the IWA, “I’d like to start by addressing the subject of tinfoil hats and conspiracies. In the hundreds of hearings I’ve been in, I’ve never seen any attack quite so unfounded as I’ve seen in these procedures [and] I believe the attacking of the town’s engineer and professional wetlands staff actually borders on interfering. There’s been this statement the emails are being investigated [and] there’s a reservation of rights to reject [the March 9 letter]. And [yet] no legal standard has been cited that anything inappropriate happened. And [Costco’s] law firm has planted flag on it, and said, ‘We’re looking at it,’ and yet in the time that they’ve had this material, they haven’t been able to come up with a citation. [But] they have leveled a threat and said, ‘Don’t listen to the MMI report.’”

Ainsworth referenced Costco’s April 7 letter to the town.

Costco attorney Cody responded to Ainsworth’s comments, saying, “A question was raised tonight about whether we do intend to object. We do object to the use of this March 9 letter in this proceeding.”

“You’ve read and understood Milone & MacBroom’s further submission today?” asked IWA Chairman Daniel Shapiro.

“Yes, we received their letter, and it does nothing to change our view on that,” answered Cody, emphasizing the objection’s basis as being, “the March 9 letter is signed by a professional engineer and professional wetlands scientist, and what the draft and the edits to the draft indicate is that other people had impact on this letter. We don’t know really who exactly they were, because they are not specifically identified in any material that we’ve seen, but what’s clear is that what comes out on March 9 is different than what had been prepared on March 7. So we believe that this raises a question about the opinions that are expressed in here. And so because of that appearance we object to the use of the letter.”

Cody also disputed remarks by Ainsworth stating Costco withheld information on the size of all Connecticut stores, saying what Ainsworth said appeared to be a smaller East Lyme store approved just last week was reported as a smaller size because East Lyme zoning notes customer use square footage (in this case, approximately 138,000 square feet), but with all areas included, the building aligns with Costco’s 156,000 square foot average, Cody noted.

With scientific and engineering experts, much of Costco’s hour-long summation on April 14 refuted concerns raised by BCRD and BLT. Problems with the storm water basins and storm water management system were disputed by Costco’s engineer, Michelle Carlson of BL Companies, who noted all guidelines were being met or exceeded. Costco also disputed environmental impact claims with a review of the site by biologist and soil scientist Michael Klein, who also provided a functional analysis of the surrounding area. A hydrogeologist, Muriel Robinette of Terracon Consultants, also refuted claims that storm water drainage would be hindered by the site’s fragmented bedrock.

When IWA commissioner Suzanne Botta asked if Robinette could speak to the science regarding water chemistry when flowing from storm water basins through bedrock, including factors such as mobility and impact of contaminants, Robinette answered, “That has not been my responsibility on this project.”

“Is it something you are qualified to speak about?” Botta asked.

“I do transport of contamination; yes, I do that,” said Robinette.

“Can you speak to what would happen to the existing water chemistry that flows into the basin and then infiltrates through the bedrock? Will it remain the same? Will the bedrock have an effect on it?” Botta asked.

“Miss Robinette has just said she was not asked to review that for this,” Cody responded.

“If she’s educated on the matter, then she can speak on it,” Botta said.

“Not off the top of her head,” Cody answered.

“I mean, it’s chemistry,” said Botta. “She knows chemistry. Can she speak for herself?”

“She’s already answered you,” Cody replied.

The hearing also became contentious when commissioners inquired about maintenance protocols regarding potential chloride de-icer impacts on wetlands and watercourses.

Carlson answered Costco’s maintenance program exceeds all requirements and noted contaminated snow melt would go through a “treatment train” including offline hydrodynamic separators.

Costco consultant and project coordinator Joe Montesano of Northwest Atlantic noted the Costco site is “surrounded” by other commercial and industrial uses and the I-95 corridor, all of which use de-icers without the benefit of hydro separators or Costco’s extensive management plan.

“Look at context,” said Montesano. “You can’t look at site and say ‘What will you do for us?’ on a sodium basis. What we’ve said is we will only apply the deicers when necessary and we only apply those deicers on travel paths and sidewalks. [It’s] a common practice for operation.”

Later, Commissioner Peter Basserman went back to Montesano’s comments about site context saying, “so once the first guy’s in, everybody else gets a free ride?”

Commissioner James Killelea questioned Montesano about the “only when necessary” application, asking, “That’s best practice?”

“Absolutely,” Montesano answered, adding, “Everybody’s picking up on [chemical constituents] that cannot be removed from the water. So if you’re going to try and create a stir around a constituent, do it for the constituent that can’t be removed from the water. We all want to be safe; you need a parking lot that’s safe. Anywhere on this site, Costco or anything, is going to have a parking lot. And guess what they’re going to do? There’s going to be salt.”

Costco also addressed BCRD’s questions about possibly installing a smaller Costco “business center” that could be as much as 51,000 square feet smaller than the proposed building. Montesano answered that the business center model, such as a recent store opened in Hackensack, New Jersey, requires an extremely high number of surrounding businesses, which the Branford location does not support.

The IWA will meet at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 28 at Branford Fire Headquarters. All correspondence, application files and other information pertaining to the IWA Costco public hearing are available on the town website here.