Controversial IWA Vote; Revised Regs Adopted
With one commissioner saying he feels Branford's Inlands Wetlands Agency (IWA) is going to change "drastically" in the next few months, the current IWA dodged a last-minute delay last night, voting 4-3 to adopt revised regulations that have been in the works for over a year.
Controversy has plagued the IWA in recent months and this morning, Branford First Selectman James B. Cosgrove voiced his dismay with the commission's May 12 vote.
"The action of the Inland Wetlands Commission on Thursday evening was an unprecedented abuse of power," said Cosgrove, in a released statement. "Ignoring a prior vote of the Commission for legal review was not about protecting wetlands, it was pure politics. Certain members have again manipulated a public process to serve a political agenda that has nothing to do with the best interests of the citizens of Branford. This is the kind of bureaucratic arrogance that destroys public confidence in local government. I encourage reasonable people who want to serve our Town as members of Boards and Commissions to contact me directly. Serving on local boards and commissions should be about serving the people of the Town, not twisting the process to serve personal or political agendas."
On April 28, the IWA finalized a draft of the regulation revisions and voted to ask town counsel to seek a legal review of the final draft.
On May 12, a debate among the IWA was touched off by Commissioner Peter Basserman's (R) request hold off on voting. Basserman said his request arrived after he'd "decided to follow up" with the Dept. of Energy and Enviornmental Protection (DEEP) representative on the board of the CT Association for Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions to "talk about litigation issues" discussed April 28. Basserman said during that discussion he also learned from the DEEP represenative that some revised inland wetlands model regulations were expected to come down from DEEP.
"Further discussion suggested that there was a substantial rework of the regulations, in terms of format," Basserman told the IWA on May 12. "She felt it would be end of June, beginning of July where those regulations would be released (and) based on a rather substantial review of the model regulations...I'm wondering if, at this point, it's smart to hold in abeyance any change of regulations that we have, until we see what DEEP has proposed in their new set of model regulations."
During the IWA's May 12 discussion, Town Attorney Bill Aniskovich reminded the IWA he'd received the final draft of the revised IWA regulations from Branford Inlands Wetlands Enforcement Officer Diana Ross on Wed., May 4, but, "... on Thursday morning (May 5), as you know, I was asked, for the reasons related to what Mr. Basserman just described, to hold off and to refrain from soliciting a legal review pending the outcome of the discussion you would have" at the May 12 IWA meeting.
Alternate IWA member Richard K. Greenalch (R) said he concurred with Basserman's point of view and commissioner James Goggin (R) also supported the idea of waiting for DEEP's changes. Basserman, Greenalch and Goggin later voted against the motion to pass IWA's revised regulations. IWA Chairman Daniel Shapiro (U) and commissioners John Rusatsky (D), Suzanne Botta (D) and James Killelea (D) voted in favor to win the majority decision.
Rusatsky pushed for the vote to adopt the new revisions.
"It's our job to protect the wetlands and watercourses for the town of Branford," said Rusatsky. "It's our job, as commissioners, to make our regulations thorough and approve them as we see fit. I believe Diana (Ross) has done a beautiful job of putting these regulations together to comply with state statutes."
Rusatsky also said he didn't want to wait for the DEEP as his experience working for many towns proved DEEP to be "very slow."
Botta concurred that DEEP and many state agencies "....aren't known for the speed with which they progress."
"I think that if there are new guidelines that come out from them, that we can act accordingly; but I don't believe holding our breath for DEEP makes a lot of sense," said Botta.
Noting the IWA had previously agreed on the need to send the final draft for legal review before adopting the revised regulations, Basserman asked his fellow commissioners if their minds had changed.
"I, for one, think that the body of this commission is going to change drastically in the next few months," Rusatsky answered. "I think this commission has worked for over a year on these regulations, and I think it would be an injustice to the town and to this commission to not approve these regulations."
The May 12 IWA meeting may be the last for as many as four members of this recently beleaguered board. As previously reported, on April 26, Costco Wholesale Corp. and the two other entities in the proposed I-95 exit 56 Costco development withdrew wetlands applications, essentially voicing a vote of no confidence in the current IWA.
Costco still has the option to resubmit its application. When it does, the IWA makeup could be considerably changed. Terms expire May 31, 2016 for Shapiro, Killelea, Basserman, alternate Stephen Gangi (R) and a vacated seat.
Commission nominations are generally submitted to the First Selectman by political parties and final nominees are confirmed by majority vote of the three-member Board of Selectmen (BOS). In Aug. 2015, the Republican-majority BOS supported Cosgrove's decision not to re-appoint two long-standing IWA commissioners, with more than 34 years of combined experience, as well as not to re-appoint a sitting alternate. Additionally, Cosgrove's two new IWA appointees were installed as voting members, leap frogging over two sitting alternates. Cosgrove maintained the change was needed to ensure "balance" in the system.
Following Costco's IWA application withdrawal in April 2016, Cosgrove stated most residents want Costco in Branford and he will "remain committed" to bringing Costco as a key player in Branford's plans for economic and tax base growth.
But supporters of the IWA's recent handling of the Costco application feel the commission acted responsibly and within its authority. On May 12, three of four speakers at the close of the IWA regulation revision public hearing voiced additional support for the IWA's work to balance Branford's economic growth while upholding regulations protecting wetlands and watercourses.
Resident Janet Riesman , a property owner on land abutting the proposed Costco development, said the IWA needs to continue its duty to protect wetlands and to "hold developers to stringent standards," even when applications involve wetlands "degraded" by development such as that surrounding the proposed Costco site.
Resident and environmentalist Bill Horne spoke in support of "strong wetlands regulations." He noted Branford IWA's regulations have been upheld by CT Supreme Court (Queach Corp. vs. Branford IWA 2003). Horne also named new and expanding businesses successfully expanding in the east end of town, the same side of town where Costco had applied to build.
"And always the wetlands regulations as they existed were respected, and did not seem to have any (impact) on development," said Horne. "This commission has done an excellent job in balancing the economic development with the wetlands, and I encourage you to move ahead with the regulations."
Resident Curt Johnson noted his affiliation with CT Fund for the Environment's Save the Sound (Executive Director) before going on to share his support for the IWA's efforts to revise the regulations. Johnson pointed to the success of the Queach case, praised the town's Inlands Wetlands staff as "excellent" and said the proposed regulation revisions "provide clarity," while also addressing issues arising such as coastal flooding and the "different kinds of activities" that could impact wetlands and watercourses as a result.
The fourth speaker, an attorney for a property owner of undeveloped land, resubmitted the company's concerns that some of the language in the revised regulations, such as new section 7.6 (best management practices) was too broad and potentially exceeded the IWA's jurisdiction. In response, Commissioner Killelea noted, "...there exists, and we would preserve, a provision whereby a developer can go to our official representative Diana Ross, and review any concerns with respect to meaning , intent and the necessity to file (plans), soil reports or anything of that nature."
In casting his vote to approve the regulation revisions May 12, Shapiro appeared to reflect back on his more than 20 years with the IWA, noting the regulations have gone through at least eight revisions since he joined the board in the 1990's. The last revision was 2006.
Of the night's debate, Shapiro said, "I hear and understand both sets of points," adding the IWA started these deliberations some two years ago, including a 35-day review period in the hands of the DEEP. The process was further delayed when, with the Costco application approaching in the fall of 2015, Shapiro said he conferred with Ross and decided to keep the proposed revision effort in stasis in order not to "...show deference, one way or another."
"We halted the process; we had the rather lengthy commercial application (Costco), we had the application come and be withdrawn twice; (then) we renewed the process," said Shapiro. "As I see it, it's a living document; it's been under work for a couple of years. The commission did a good review of it and it's been a long slow process."
Shapiro added "...if and when" new DEEP model regulations come down, "...we can set a new sub-committee and start the process over; (and) as far as legal review, I don't think it's a huge change off what we have, I don't think it's tighter than the existing regulations. I think there are a lot of clarifications in there. I don't think it's a pioneering activity; I don't think we're breaking new ground. Anybody can appeal anything, but that's never a good reason not to do whatever you think is the right thing, as far as I'm concerned."
The revised IWA regulations can be viewed here