The town's Representative Town Meeting (RTM) has gone on the record with a recommendation encouraging the owners of the former Atlantic Wire property to properly cover seven large debris piles on the site. While the RTM's action takes a position, it has no authority to bind the owner, Branford-based 1 Church St. LLC, to the request.

The 18-9 vote by the full RTM on Dec. 16 was an amended motion spurred by a petition brought to the RTM in March 2020 after it was circulated by a citizen, Robert Constanzo. The petition requested an examination of the possibility of public health hazards emanating from the demolition debris piles at the site for the past three years.  The RTM's Administrative Services Committee was tasked with exploring the petition's request.

The committee, which last met Dec. 3, had wanted the RTM's request of the property owner to also involve seeking proper environmental oversight for hydroseeding (spraying of grass seed materials), after the committee learned from First Selectman Jamie Cosgrove that the owner intended to hydroseed the piles to address concerns of dust. However, hydroseeding of the piles took place before the committee's recommendation could reach the full RTM. The full RTM's Dec. 9 meeting was canceled, making the next meeting for actions to take place the Dec. 16 special meeting.

In related news, a 2019 lawsuit brought by developer Metro Star Capital LLC (Milford) against property owner 1 Church St. LLC disputing remediation work at the site was granted a schedule modification on Nov. 3. With consent of both parties, a New Haven Superior court judge granted a two-month extension of a September 2020 deadline to facilitate settlement discussions, which have recently reconvened. Both parties are not presently seeking to continue the July, 2021 trial date.

Metro Star Properties LLC (Milford) received Town of Branford approval in 2015 (updated 2017) to develop the former Atlantic Wire property into Atlantic Wharf, a ten-building residential and commercial/office complex. Metro Star's zoning approval remains valid into 2022.

An Ongoing Issue

On Dec. 16, RTM minority leady Tom Brockett (D, District 7) reviewed how this particular round of requests to have the RTM look into the debris piles came about.  In October of 2019, an RTM member brought the issue up of potential hazards in the debris pile. Cosgrove then provided what the Town knew in a briefing the RTM, said Brockett.

"Subsequently, there was correspondence that came out of [DEEP] that said that there could be an issue with respect to the dust blowing off of the piles to the citizens; and they referred to it as 'fugitive dust'," said Brockett. "Subsequent to receipt of that letter, I penned a letter [in February 2020] to the First Selectman and asked that the piles be covered. Shortly after that, a petition was filed in March asking piles to be covered."

On Dec. 16, Cosgrove recapped for the RTM some of the pre-demolition testing and conclusions which have been shared with the Town, to date. 

"The one thing I want to point out is the information over the last two to three years that this has come before this body has been consistent," said Cosgrove.

Cosgrove also acknowledged Costanzo's concern that a post-demolition survey has yet to be completed, as well as Constanzo's request that the piles should be covered until the results of the tests are known.

According to the property owner, the post-demolition survey results should be forthcoming within a month or two, Cosgrove told the RTM on Dec. 16.

Cosgrove also discussed the "fugitive dust," mentioned in the CT Dept. of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) letter brought up by Brockett.

"It is a technical term used to describe the dust that may be suspended in air and drift off of the site," said Cosgrove. "That primarily takes place during the demolition [when] they have to suppress that dust."

Costanzo also attended the Dec. 16 RTM meeting. He said while he is not an expert, he does have years of practical knowledge from his work involving demolition and refurbishing of older buildings, mostly for the CT Department of Transportation.

"I've been around a lot of demolition and testing. I'm not an expert; but if you just follow the dates and the names of the test [for Atlantic Wire] it's pre-demolition done; I agree to that, it was done thoroughly. And then a post-abatement test [but] we are still waiting, three years later, for the post-demolition test," Costanzo said.

Constanzo also said, "...believe it or not, two bricks were tested on post-demolition by ESDHD. I don't know the chain of custody or methodology [but] they said there appears not to be a health hazard...well, that's not good enough for people who live in the neighborhood and the citizens of Branford, [because] it could also appear that there is something in there. So we're waiting for those post-demolition tests. In the meantime, we would like to see piles covered. We already waited over three years for that to happen; for those test to come back."

Not The First Time

Prior to this, another citizen, Wayne Cooke, wrote a letter to the RTM with concerns about possible hazardous materials in the debris piles. Rep. Don Conklin (R, District 5) spoke to what he and former Rep. Kathi Traugh (D, District 5) found after making inquiries to East Shore District Health Department (ESDHD) and DEEP in late 2018.

"We received reports from ESDHD there were no health issues coming from that debris field," said Conklin, adding he has to rely on the experts. "I also trusted [when] DEEP said there's no health issues coming from that debris field. That was from a report coming from October of 2019. In addition, I have a report dated December, 2017 from Environmental Partners who studied the debris piles and also concluded [that] there were no health issues in those debris fields... and I'm only trusting those who have the expertise; I don't know it. But this was two to three years ago; and now, you're going to be asking DEEP and ESDHD and whoever else to do those studies again. Which is fine; but I am pretty sure that I would trust there are no health issues in debris field. That's not saying if there is dust that migrates from the fields, that that is not an issue all and of itself."

Questions on Process

Cosgrove had originally discussed the property owner's intent to hydroseed the piles with the committee.

"As I mentioned to the committee at the last meeting regarding my discussion with one of the owners; [hydroseeding] was not a recommendation at the time by the Town that was presented to [the owners]," said Cosgrove, speaking to the full RTM on Dec. 16. "That was a decision that the property owners had decided to try to in an attempt to [address] any concerns of, if in fact, there was any dust."

Rep. Tracy Everson (D, District 5), a committee member, noted the committee's discussion about any coverage of the piles via hydroseeding also included concerns regarding potential runoff of possible materials such as fertilizer reaching the Branford River. The committee felt hydroseeding required proper environmental oversight and wanted that to be communicated to the property owner. 

Committee chair Anthony Alfone (R, District 6) said the committee had added that caveat to the motion.

"Initially the night that we voted on this motion, the committee had learned that the property owner intended to hydroseed. So the motion was to request that they cover the debris piles, or if they proceed with hydroseeding that they would get proper permission from the correct oversite agencies," said Alfone.

The property owner was not present at the committee meeting, said Alfone.

Everson said the committee's efforts to bring in proper environmental oversight was now moot because the hydroseeding had already occurred. She also expressed frustration that the committee had expended a great deal of time and discussion to arrive at a unanimous recommendation for a motion which now included components which could not be acted upon by the full RTM. Everson also said it was her understanding that the First Selectman would follow up on the committee's request to contact the property owner with the committee's concerns, and asked why that didn't happen.

Among others, majority leader Ray Ingraham (R, District 5) responded that proper process needs to be followed. The process calls for having committee recommendations forwarded to the full RTM for review, possible amendments, and a then, if applicable, a deciding vote.

"While those are recommendations that come to us, the ratification of having anything moved or sent to the First Selectman's office, or anything else, wouldn't happen until after this meeting," said Ingraham.

Cosgrove also noted that due process had to be followed. He also said he had not had a conversation with the property owners following the committee meeting and prior to learning that the piles had been hydroseeded.

After amending the motion, the RTM made a roll call vote with 18 in favor and 9 opposed.

The meeting was held via Zoom and can be viewed in its entirety on BCTV on Facebook (@MyBCTV).