nothin New Haven Independent | Cosgrove Accuses IWC of Abuse of Power

Cosgrove Accuses IWC of Abuse of Power

Diana Stricker Photo

IWC

The Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) voted 4 – 3 to adopt a revised set of regulations Thursday, saying it would be an injustice to the town” to postpone the vote. Their action elicited a harsh reaction today from First Selectman Jamie Cosgrove, who called the vote an unprecedented abuse of power.”

Cosgrove chastised the commission for not waiting for a legal review of the regulations before voting at its meeting last night at Fire Headquarters. Costco had sought to develop a 158,000-square-foot warehouse store, along with a 16-pump gas station on land near exit 56, off I‑95. Late last month Costco pulled its application a few days before the the inland wetlands commission (IWC) was set to begin deliberations and possibly vote. 

Diana Stricker Photo

Bill Aniskovich

The commission said the legal review was not conducted or submitted when requested. Daniel Shapiro, the chair of the Inland Wetlands Commission, said in an interview after the IWC meeting that town attorney Bill Aniskovich did not provide a legal review of the revised regulations as requested by the commission. He did not do what the commission asked him to do but that doesn’t mean the Commission shouldn’t do what they think is right.”

The IWC has revised their regulations several times over the past few decades, as required by state statute. Shapiro said those revisions were usually without legal review. At the April 28 public hearing on the draft revisions, the commission voted unanimously to have a land-use attorney, selected by the town attorney, review the draft regulations and submit written comments to the commission two days prior to the May 12 meeting. 

That did not happen.

One of the issues raised at Thursday’s hearing was a question about whether the commission should wait for the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to update its model regulations, an action expected in the next few months. Another issue was the pending changes to the make-up of the wetlands commission.

Wait for the State?

Diana Stricker Photo

Bassermann (left) and Rusatsky

Commissioner John Rusatsky made the motion to vote, rather than wait. I think that the body of this commission is going to change drastically in the next few months. 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 tonight.”

Rusatsky was referring to the fact that the terms of four commissioners expire May 31, and it is likely that some will not be re-appointed. First Selectman Jamie Cosgrove removed three long-time members of the commission last August, despite their desire to remain. In addition to the terms set to expire, one of the alternate positions is open due to the death of a long-time commissioner. The IWC is comprised of seven full members and three alternates.

It’s our job to protect the wetlands, the watercourses and the environment in the town of Branford,” Rusatsky said. It’s our job as commissioners to make our regulations thorough and approve them as we see fit as commissioners. And I believe Diana (Ross) has done a beautiful job in putting the regulations together to comply with the state statutes.” Diana Ross is the Inland Wetlands Environmental Director.

The last major revision of the IWC regulations was in 2007.

The idea of waiting to revise the regulations was raised Thursday by Commissioner Peter Bassermann who said he spoke with a representative from DEEP after the April 28 meeting. Bassermann said he was told that DEEP’s new model regulations for Inland Wetlands Commissions were close to being finalized. It’s somewhat imminent,” he said, possibly by the end of June or the beginning of July.

Bassermann said he would prefer to wait for the DEEP revisions. I’m wondering if it is, at this point, 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 regs.”

Diana Stricker Photo

Killelea & Bassermann

Commissioner James Killelea disagreed. It could be a very, very long time before we get definitive action with respect to these model regs,” he said. Killelea said he wanted to move ahead with a vote. We spent a year working on this. Many of the changes have been changes in clarity and format,” he said. Killelea’s term is up in May as well.

Killelea, informed of Cosgrove’s statement today, said the commission’s sub-committee worked on the revised regs for over a year. They are a thoughtful and well- considered statement of what the commission needs. Politics was the furthest thing from our minds throughout that process,” he said. 

Commissioner Richard K. Greenalch, who is an alternate, agreed with Bassermann about waiting. It probably would be more prudent to wait,” he said. In addition, Greenalch said the commission asked Aniskovich for a review of the draft regulations. 

Commissioner James L. Goggin said he thought the commission agreed last month to have an attorney review the draft. I don’t understand how we could (vote) if we had a motion at the last meeting to get this reviewed. Don’t we have to follow through on that motion?” Goggin asked.

Aniskovich stood to respond. On Wednesday of last week, I received the regulations from Diana (Ross). On Thursday morning, she e‑mailed. I was asked, for the reasons related to what Mr. Bassermann just described, to hold off and to refrain from soliciting a legal review, pending the outcome of the discussion that you would have on his motion to delay action on the regulations. It is my understanding that if the commission decides to move forward, I would then be asked to complete that (legal) review.”

Aniskovich also said if a land-use attorney reviews the draft, it would be better to keep the public hearing open so there could be further comment from the public.

Rusatsky said he wished to move forward and that regulations could be updated later if needed. We could always go back and amend them for minor modifications in the future.”

Diana Stricker Photo

Rusatsky, Shapiro and Botta

Commissioner Suzanne Botta said that waiting for DEEP to finalize their model regulations really leaves us in limbo for an indefinite period of time.” Botta said the commission has been working on the revisions for a year, and that DEEP doesn’t move quickly. I don’t believe holding our breath for DEEP makes a lot of sense,” she said.

Prior to the vote, Shapiro said: I hear and understand both sets of points.” He said the regulations have been revised eight or nine times over the years and said they are a living document” that can be changed as needed.

I don’t think it’s tighter than existing regulations,” Shapiro said. I think there’s a lot of clarifications in there,” he said with regard to the draft revisions. Anybody can appeal anything, but that’s never a good reason not to do what you think is the right thing.”

The motion to approve the revised regulations was made by Rusatsky, and seconded by Killelea.

Shapiro, Killelea, Rusatsky and Botta voted in favor of approving the revised regulations. Bassermann, Goggin and Greenalch voted no. Commissioner Merle Berke-Schlessel was absent, so Greenalch voted as an alternate. Aniskovich declined to comment as he left the meeting. He was clearly upset. 

The First Selectman and the Chair React

Cosgrove, who did not attend Thursday’s hearing, issued a press release this morning. He stated: The action of the Inland Wetland’s Commission on Thursday evening was an unprecedented abuse of power. 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.”

Cosgrove went on to encourage reasonable people” to contact him about serving on boards and commission.

Shapiro, the commission chair, told the Eagle that at the last meeting the IWC asked for legal comments on the revised regulations by May 10. Aniskovich chose not to act for his own reasons. So the commission chose to act without his comments, approving without legal review as it has often done over the years for the last seven revisions.

The commission acts in the best interests of protecting Branford’s wetlands and watercourses. And there is no economic cost. It is a farce that these others make up that we are anti-development. If Costco wants to come to town or anybody else wants to come to town they should meet the fair and uniform standard which is meant to protect the downstream people so they don’t get flooded and their water temperature doesn’t get elevated. So not dumping on your neighbor should be a given if they want to come to town. It’s being a good neighbor; that’s all it is.”

After he learned of Cosgrove’s statement this morning, Shapiro took issue with Cosgrove’s assertion that the IWC had a political agenda.”

In an interview with the Eagle he said, The IWC has never been a political board and has always been narrowly focused on Branford’s wetland and watercourse resources. That is until the current administration removed Ph.D educated commissioners who were well acquainted with Branford resources and the resources resilience and limitations. He said commissioners were both cross-endorsed by the Republican and Democratic nominating committees.

It has always been Cosgrove’s intention to flip the IWC in a blatant attempt to lower the standards it has judiciously applied across the town for the last 20 years. The IWC did a fabulous job of avoiding prior travesties such as Pine Gutter Brook which has decimated the Supply Ponds.

Prior First Selectmen Acted Differently

Shapiro went on to say that prior first selectmen did not conduct themselves as Cosgrove has.

Cosgrove prefers to frame his own staff and commissioners on trumped up charges, starving the commission of technical and legal resources and lowering the standards that protect downstream neighbors rather than manage the situation as many previous effective Town Hall administrations have done. This includes the administrations of Gott, Buonocore, DaRos and Opie. None of those administrations had issues” with the IWC and all of them tended to do the right thing, never concentrating authority or supplanting their judgment for the boards and commissions of Branford.”

An Ever-Changing Commission?

The seven current full commissioners are Daniel Shapiro, John Rusatsky, Suzanne Botta, Peter Bassermann, James Killelea, James L. Goggin, and Merle Berke-Schlessel.

Richard K. Greenalch and Stephen Gangi are both alternates. A third alternate position is vacant.

Goggin, Berke-Schlessel, and Greenalch were appointed last August when three commissioners who wished to continue serving were removed. One of those whose terms were not renewed was Dr. Richard Orson, one of the state’s leading experts in wetlands issues. The changes were made one month before Costco submitted its application to the IWC.

The commissioners whose terms expire May 31 are Shapiro, Killelea, Bassermann and Gangi.

Costco Waits In the Wings


It is anticipated that Cosgrove will not renew the terms of some or all of the four commissioners. The timing is critical because Costco and the other developers withdrew their applications just before the IWC was set to vote on their proposals on April 28. Which means Costco will likely re-submit the applications after the new commission is established.

Keith Ainsworth, the attorney for the Branford Coalition for Responsible Development (BCRD) said at that time that Costco was attempting to manipulate the Town’s political process to obtain a permit from a more favorably composed wetlands commission.”

A Long Process

The commission has been working to revise the regulations for about a year. During a public hearing in August, the commission spent more than two hours discussing the proposed regulations, after a sub-committee spent months compiling a 38-page draft. Most of the revisions were based on changes suggested or mandated by the state. No one spoke in opposition to the changes.

The proposed revisions were again discussed at a subsequent meeting, but the commission voted unanimously to postpone further review since the Costco public hearings were upcoming.

At the April 28 special meeting, the commission opened a public hearing on a newly revised draft of the regulations, and spent considerable time discussing the changes. During the public comment period, attorneys for several Branford developers, including Alex Vigliotti, urged the commission to make the revised regulations less vague in certain areas. They also asked that the town attorney review the proposed changes.

Diana Stricker Photo

Al Secondino (L) and Diane Whitney, of Pullman & Comey LLC (R)

Attorney Diane Whitney, of Pullman & Comey LLC in Hartford, spoke at both sessions of the hearings. Whitney, a land-use expert, represents Belfonti Companies in Hamden, owned by Michael Belfonti, who is a partner with Al Secondino in the ownership of about 70 acres of undeveloped land at Bittersweet Farm near exit 56. Secondino is also a partner with Charles Weber Jr. in the ownership of a 16.5 acre site where six commercial buildings were proposed as part of the Costco proposals. 

Last month, she told the commissioners the regulations put an unreasonable burden on development. On Thursday, she again addressed the commission and said she was not arguing the regulations should be more lax. She said her concern was the regulations were overly broad and vague and that the regulations should be clearer. 

Several people spoke in favor of the new revisions Thursday, including local environmentalist Bill Horne. My experience is this commission … has done a very good job of balancing the need for environmental protection with the economic growth we have in Branford.” Horne has been attending IWC meetings for about 20 years. He said a previous challenge to the IWC regulations was heard by the state’s Supreme Court.The high court confirmed the right of inland wetland commissions in the state to define and to enforce land use policies that affect the environmental health of down stream waters. That case involved a Branford lawsuit.

The draft of the proposed changes is available on the Inland Wetlands Department web site.

###

Sign up for our morning newsletter

Don't want to miss a single Independent article? Sign up for our daily email newsletter! Click here for more info.


Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

Avatar for scjerry

Avatar for vango

Avatar for scjerry

Avatar for KellyR

Avatar for scjerry

Avatar for BranfordRN

Avatar for KellyR

Avatar for KellyR

Avatar for vango

Avatar for KellyR

Avatar for vango

Avatar for KellyR