This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
06/13/2016 08:21 AMWith a new chairman and four new members now in place, Branford’s Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) is forming a committee to review regulation changes ushered in by the preceding IWC. The revisions, adopted by a 4-3 vote May 12, were disparaged by First Selectman James B. Cosgrove, who issued a May 13 statement calling the act an “unprecedented abuse of power” in light of “ignoring a prior vote of the commission for legal review.”
The revised regulations are currently being implemented.
The newly formed IWC met on June 9, voting in new chairman Peter Basserman by unanimous vote at the meeting’s start. Commissioners Suzanne Botta and John Rusatsky were not in attendance during the vote. Botta arrived at the meeting shortly after the vote; Rusatsky did not attend the June 9 meeting.
Back on May 12, both Botta and Rusatsky joined former IWC chairman Daniel Shapiro and former commissioner James Killelea in building the majority vote to adopt revised IWC regulations, developed over a period of approximately two years of review.
On June 9, Basserman opened the discussion on forming a review committee, saying it would take another look at the regulations and review comments raised to find whether the regulations need to be adjusted. He also noted, as he had on May 12, that the state is in the process of finalizing model regulations that could require further revisions to town regulations.
Commissioner Merle Berke-Schlessel, who wasn’t at the May 12 meeting, expressed her concerns about the adopted regulations and questioned how the May 12 vote happened. She said she was at the IWC’s April 28 meeting when the commission voted to put the revisions through legal review by a land use attorney before making a vote to adopt. However, that review did not take place.
“I don’t know that those regulations are actually valid, in terms of having overlooked our own motion, [and] I don’t know how that vote occurred,” said Berke-Schlessel.
Regarding the validity of the regulations, Botta answered, “You can question that, but I don’t believe it’s in the town’s best interest to ignore regulations that have been voted on,” adding it would open the IWC up to Connecticut Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) lawsuits.
“Regularly, our goal has been to implement our regulations fairly and uniformly and with great dispassion,” Botta continued. “And so these regulations have been adopted, and until they are voted changed, these are our regulations.”
Botta said one public hearing speaker on May 12 was land use attorney Curt Johnson, “and he did speak to not only were these regulations within our bounds, but they were very middle of the road and not at all arduous. And I believe Curt Johnson is a well-known land use attorney with Connecticut Fund for the Environment.”
Newly seated alternate Eric Rose duly noted Botta’s mention of “dispassion,” but said what he took away from a review of the May 12 meeting was “what seemed to me to get this done in a rush, with passion.”
Rose said if the IWC has concerns about litigation, “we ought to be worried about litigation about things that were adopted in questionable circumstances...making new applications [follow] regulations that are subject to attack is inviting litigation.”
Although town officials cannot discuss pending litigation, between June 8 and an appeal deadline of June 10, four lawsuits were brought against the IWC regarding the adoption of the revised regulations. The appeals were brought by Vigliotti Construction Co., SP Development LLC and Alex Vigliotti; Rita Ann Sachs & New World Recycling LLC; Bittersweet Partners LLC & Alterra Holdings, LLC; and 595 Corporate Circle.
The appeals, filed with the Town Clerk’s office, call into question the former IWC’s procedure, among other points. Environmental law attorney Janet P. Brooks represents 595 Corporate Circle, which owns undeveloped land at 569 East Main Street. During the public hearing leading up to the May 12 IWC regulations adoption vote, Brooks presented concerns specific to some of the revisions.
Among other items, the 595 Corporate Circle appeal points out a comment made by Rusatsky on May 12, citing his belief the IWC’s membership “will change drastically in the next few months,” and that it would be an “injustice” to the town and IWC not to approve the revisions. The suit also notes IWC voted to adopt revisions which were “orally revised” over three hours of public hearings, and that the revisions were not made available for public review.
After discussion by the IWC on June 9, Basserman clarified there were three issues to review “process, content, and model regs.” He said it was worth “taking a pause” and conducting a review “in context of what was, and how we wound up where we did,” adding, “Discussion on those items that changed would be a good balance for now a new commission to get behind it, and the same time start a legal process to review those and determine that we’re statutorily okay.”
The vote to form the committee passed with one vote against, made by Botta.