Diana Stricker Photos
Frustration was evident from both the Inland Wetland (IW) commissioners and the property owners of 250 North Main St. as the clock ticked down on a key deadline at a recent public hearing. The owners were seeking permission to excavate and prepare the site in hopes of attracting a developer.
The property in question, which has hilly topography and extensive wetlands, is a 13-acre site that extends from Route 1 toward I‑95. It is adjacent to the W. S. Clancy Memorial Funeral Home on one side, and United Tire Inc. and Greystone Manor condominiums on the other side.
Owners Jeff Shapiro and his son Frank Shapiro, who operate the Cedar Island Marina in Clinton, have attempted to spur development at the Branford site since they purchased it in 1997, but nothing materialized. In 2003, Costco had an option on the property but walked away after Branford’s regulatory boards denied a variance.
The site was previously mentioned as a possible location for the town’s new public works building, which the DaRos administration sought to place on either Tabor Drive or Ivy Street. Click here to read the story. Absent a new location, the town has extended the current lease at a rental facility on Route 139.
Project engineers at the recent public hearings for 250 North Main St. gave two possible scenarios for the site — a retail store or a warehouse-type building.
The commissioners were faced with the problem of approving changes in the property without knowing what size or type building would be constructed and that concerned them, they said. They also faced revisions in the owner’s plans that they said arrived only a day before the final hearing.
According to IW regulations, any wetlands that are disturbed must be replaced or mitigated at a 2 – 1 ratio. At a pre-application meeting in April, the commissioners told the owners that the proposal had a larger impact on wetlands than any project they had previously approved, indicating the project faced serious obstacles. Click here for that story.
The hearing began in May, but was extended so the engineers could present additional information. Click here to read about the May 8 hearing.
The Aug. 14 session was the final night that testimony could be presented and questions could be asked before the hearing was officially closed.
In the end, there was simply not enough time, and the owners decided to withdraw the application and begin the lengthy process all over again. Without IW approval the project cannot move to the next step in the process.
Key Issues
The proposal called for creating an extensive amount of new wetlands to replace ones that would be lost during site preparation. One of the main issues repeatedly raised by the commissioners was how to ensure that the new wetlands would be wet.
Another question was whether the plans aired Aug. 14 had been revised so much that the owners would be required to submit a new application and schedule a new public hearing.
Also at issue was whether the commissioners could approve plans without knowing what size or type building would be constructed. Commissioner Robert Valley asked why the engineers weren’t willing to limit the scope of what a developer could build.
“I understand where you’re coming from,” owner Frank Shapiro told the commissioners during the recent session. “We’re trying to be as reasonable as possible. If you could give us a little leeway. It’s not a game.”
Frank Shapiro, pictured above, said they want to prep the land to attract a developer. “We tried to make this something that gives you guys complete control,” he told the commissioners, meaning that any developer would have to come back to the IW before construction.
“This isn’t a matter of control,” Commissioner Richard Orson said. “We have regulations.”
Orson said the commission needs to look at “true alternatives” for what might be built at the site. “We’re not allowed to put that leeway in” that would allow a developer to construct a larger project.
New Plans or Just Revisions?
At the start of the recent hearing, project manager Christopher Gagnon, (pictured), an engineer with B L Companies in Meriden, said the team revised the plans in response to questions the commissioners asked at prior sessions.
“We went back to the shop and put our heads together,” Gagnon said. “We came up with a revised plan that addresses many of your concerns.”
He said they eliminated a traffic light and lane widening on Route 1 that would have impacted wetlands along the roadway. Gagnon said the revised plan reduced the proposed wetland impact from 13,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet — a 41 percent difference.
IW chair Daniel Shapiro, who is not related to the property owners, reminded Gagnon that the commissions asked the engineers not to make substantial changes to the plans that would require a new hearing. “It’s a bit unfair,” Daniel Shapiro said, to ask the commissioners to view new plans on the last night of the hearing.
Commissioner Orson, who is also an environmental consultant, said the changes were substantial. “Obviously it’s better than what they had before,” he said, but added that the commissioners just received the plans the previous day and did not have sufficient time to review them.
Gagnon said the revisions were based on previous questions and concerns, so he did not view the changes as being substantial enough to require a new application. “We saw it as a response to comments,” Gagnon said.
Clock Ticking
“You have clock issues,” said commission alternate Peter Bassermann. (pictured) “The clock runs out tonight.”
The commission decided to allow the presentation to continue so they could hear the scope of the proposal.
Project Engineer John Schmitz, of BL Companies, said the revised concept plans suggested a smaller project for the property, such as a distribution center or a warehouse. “It’s a less intense use than a full-blown retail site,” Schmitz said. The concept plans in May used a retail store as an example of what could be built.
Commissioner James Killelea said he was concerned that they were being asked to approve plans without knowing what would be built there.
Schmitz said the only request being made was for earth excavation to make the property more marketable. He said any developer would have to come back to the IW Commission for approval of construction plans.
Kim Lesay, a biologist with BL Companies, discussed wetland issues. “We took your comments seriously,” she said in regard to previous meetings. She said they reduced the amount of wetlands that would be impacted and the number of wetlands that they were required to replace.
Bassermann asked what would happen if a developer wanted to install a traffic signal, which would require more impact to the wetlands.
Schmitz said that could be possible. “We don’t know what the use of the property is,” he said.
Orson said wetlands that are created often fail, and he asked for additional data to show how the new wetlands would be supported.
Gagnon said he couldn’t answer that question without further calculation. “You do need to put a little faith in the proposal we have here,” he said. “We believe wetland creation is to industry standards.”
Orson said the hearing had to end that night. “There’s no chance for you to submit any more information,” he said.
Too Many Unknowns
“I think we should withdraw this application,” owner Jeff Shapiro eventually said. He said they would address the commissioners concerns, re-submit the application, and request a new hearing.
“We have too many unknowns,” said Commissioner Orson. “When we do have unknowns like that, we have to be very careful.”
IW enforcement officer Diana Ross suggested the engineers should try to further reduce the wetland impact. “This amount of wetlands work is tremendous,” she said.
Gagnon told the commissioners he didn’t feel that any of the comments were insurmountable.
“Unfortunately we were up against a time crunch,” Gagnon said. “We look forward to coming back and having a successful dialogue.”
###
