On Feb. 11, a crowd of over 50, mostly opposed, turned out for part two of a public hearing on Costco's 569 East Main St. wetlands and watercourses site plan application. Also during the hearing, an intervenor, Branford Land Trust (BLT) announced it had reached a provisional agreement with Costco regarding modifications specified by the Trust.

Costco's site plan application is under consideration by the Branford Inland Wetlands Agency (IWA).  The IWA is actually tasked with reviewing three separate site plan applications brought by Costco Wholesale Corp. for the development, to be constructed on three contiguous parcels. One application is for development at 569 East Main St., another for 573 East Main St. and one for 20 East Industrial Road (off I-95 Exit 56).

The total land acreage for the three parcels is 44 acres. Each application relates to wetlands and watercourses impacted by Costco's two-phase retail/commercial development to be built. Costco's master plan includes constructing a 160,000 square-foot wholesale store and proposed 16-pump gas station, with parking and access roads (Phase One); and seven additional buildings for yet-to-be determined businesses, restaurants or retailers (Phase Two). The applications are based on provisions created by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) as part of its approval of Costco's master plan in July 2015.

IWA chairman Dan Shapiro opened the Feb. 11 hearing by first allowing citizens to speak.  The IWA heard from two residents speaking in favor of approving Costco's application, including Cal Ohidy, of Mill Creek Place, who said he represented "a small group of Branford citizens."  He said Costco will be an asset to seniors on a fixed income, bring needed jobs, and bring customers to the area to increase business for local merchants.

"This group I represent is pro-Costco," said Ohidy, adding, "There are 28,000 citizens in Branford, I believe most of us are in favor of this store."

The majority of speakers, 14 citizens, opposed the application. Some read from prepared statements, others spoke from the heart, and still others shared their professional expertise and opinions. Janet Riesman, an East Main Street resident on property in close proximity to the Costco development, asked the IWA to eliminate Costco's gas station and the plan's proposed bridge to the gas station; saying more attention needs to be paid to the potential for accidents. She pointed to a 2008 environmental impact study finding 40 contaminant spills and leaks at existing area gas stations off Exit 56.

Speaking on behalf of Branford's Conservation and Environment Commission (CEC), commission member Jonathan Katz shared CEC's opposition to each of Costco's three applications.

"The commission opposes this application because we view this development as likely to unreasonably negatively impact the environment, through storm water discharges and because of unaddressed contamination issues on the site," said Katz.

The IWA also heard from the applications' two intervenors, BLT and Branford Citizens for Responsible Development (BCRD), as well as taking a brief statement from peer review engineering firm Milone & MacBroom (Cheshire) and Costco Whole Sale Corp.'s attorney.

BLT representatives had agreed to meet with Costco in advance of the Feb. 11 hearing. As a result, BLT announced Feb. 11 that BLT and Costco had been able tp hash out a long list of actions required by BLT to help better conserve and protect affected wetlands and watercourses downstream from the development. BLT had engaged engineering firm LandTech (Westport) to focus on the impacts of water quality leaving the development site and devise plan modifications to address issues. The resulting list for Costco includes infrastructure provisions and maintenance protocols which BLT wants enacted.

BLT president Amos Barnes confirmed Costco had "promised modifications" to the satisfaction of BLT.

"Branford Land Trust, while not endorsing these three applications, must acknowledge the applicant's willingness to hear, discuss and attempt to address the concerns set forth by the Land Trust and its consultants," said Barnes. "We hope that the promised modifications will successfully protect the Land Trust downstream wetlands; the results that the applicants have stated that they also seek."

The application's second intervenor, BCRD, brought its environmental attorney, Keith Ainsworth, to voice the voluntary association of citizens' continued concerns.  Ainsworth said his findings show the Costco application isn't valid for IWA approval. On behalf of BCRD, Ainsworth submitted a proposed resolution for denial of the application, saying it was "template" for the IWA to use as a "starting point, as an aid."

Ainsworth also argued Costco's three applications should be considered together as a single integrated project to ensure proper review of the "cumulative impact."

"To really view them separately, potentially engages in impermissible segmentation of a project," under Connecticut state law, Ainsworth told the IWA.

Ainsworth also commented on BLT's announcement that night, saying, "...given their narrower mission than the BCRD, to protect just their properties that they steward, I'm not surprised that they have a more limited view than my clients."

Ainsworth also cautioned that an abundance of site plan modifications may require Costco to submit a new application.

On behalf of BCRD, professional engineer/low impact development specialist, Steven Trinkaus (Southington), provided additional facts and findings. Trinkaus said his research shows the Costco application creates increased pollutant loads coming from the site; includes inadequate sediment loads and inadequate buffers (leading to increased pollutant loads) and inadequate water quality treatment techniques. He said the plan has storm water basins which don't comply with applicable regulatory standards and that he found storm water discharge flow times will result in erosion to downstream receiving watercourses.

Costco's attorney Thomas P. Cody (Robinson & Cole, Hartford) said a full rebuttal will be returned at the next segment of the IWA public hearing in March. However, Cody did make a few comments based on the night's input; especially with regard to the BCRD presentation.

"A lot was said tonight," Cody told the IWA. "We think the presentation tonight by Mr. Trinkaus was greatly misleading, picking and choosing unrelated issues and mashing them together into a statement of opposition. We will prepare a thorough response to that; and show you how this application complies with your regulations, will not cause adverse impact to wetlands and watercourses, and is worthy of your approval."

At the next portion of the hearing, IWA also expects to hear the full scientific studies peer review from engineering firm Milone & MacBroom. The firm has turned in two responses (Dec. and Jan.) and will now incorporate its findings based on additional modifications agreed upon by Costco and BLT, a firm representative told the IWA on Feb. 11.

At the suggestion of Shapiro, the IWA voted to continue the 569 East Main St. application public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting (March 10); and also to open two additional public hearings to address the second and third applications (573 East Main St. and 20 E. Industrial Road). The IWA also voted to incorporate minutes and documentation from the 569 East Main St. application into the record for 573 East Main St. and 20 E. Industrial Road  public hearings.