Marcia Chambers Photo
The new chair of the Inland Wetlands Commission, recognizing a new group of commissioners lacks the environmental knowledge and depth they need to perform their statutory duties, says one of his primary roles will be to build up that knowledge. He also said the IWC must remain free of politics.
Peter Bassermann, the new chair, told the Eagle, “I think my role here is to try to get that depth in the commission so that we can do our statutory job of protecting the wetlands.” Bassermann made his comments earlier this month after presiding as chair at his first commission meeting.
A member of the IWC for the past five years, Bassermann is an engineer who, when he joined the commission, said he was attracted to “the fact that it was based a lot on science.” He is retired, he said, and he wanted to find a way to remain involved in his field. Inland wetlands requires “a lot of learning and applications, which is kinda what an engineer does.”
He said, “I think now that we have new commissioners, part of my work is to teach them what I have learned in my five years here because we don’t have, like in other commissions, a depth of environmental knowledge. (The new commissioners are also required to take specific courses). Second, I think it is to make sure that from a process standpoint the public is well-served, that we are responsible in the way we communicate, that we post items that the public needs to be aware of and can comment on, and that we continue to be independent from the, if you will, politics that we continue to read about.”
There is a certain irony in Bassermann’s statements given that First Selectman Jamie Cosgrove has systematically removed a commission composed of experts in wetland ecology and environmental law, including Dr. Richard Orson, one of the leading experts in the state. In less than one year, Cosgrove has removed six of the 10 most knowledgeable IWC members, whose terms expired, including Danny Shapiro who served as chair for 22 years. All said they wanted to continue to serve on the commission.
The four new commissioners include two builders, Eric Rose and Rick Ross. Sandra Kraus is a business manager who likes to garden and James Sette is the current chair of the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals. Ross previously served on Branford’s IWC from 2004 through 2008.
Costco’s Journey and Regulation Revisions
Cosgrove’s decision to dismantle the IWC came one month before Costco submitted its application to the IWC in 2015. Costco sought to build a 150,000- square foot- warehouse at exit 56 at I-95. Cosgrove campaigned on bringing Costco to Branford. The town’s planning and zoning commission approved Costco’s Master Plan and Planned Development District (PDD) by a 4-3 vote in 2015.
As the year evolved, it became clear that Costco would face a more daunting approval process before IWC than it did before P& Z. When it became clear that at least four members of the IWC might well reject their application this year, Costco pulled out on April 26. Then, in early June, Cosgrove moved to reconfigure the IWC, removing then-chair Shapiro, attorney James Killelea and an alternate. Their terms expired at the end of May.
Before May ended, however, the IWC voted 4-3 to adopt a revised set of regulations, regulations they had been working on for more than a year. The vote elicited a harsh reaction from Cosgrove, who called the vote “an unprecedented abuse of power” because the IWC did not wait for a legal review of the regulations before voting at its meeting.
Town Attorney Bill Aniskovich had been asked by the IWC to conduct a review of the revised regulations. However, the review had not been completed by the May 12 IWC meeting because there appeared to be a possibility that the vote on the revised regulations might be delayed. In fact, at the the meeting, Bassermann, then a member and not the chair, suggested a delay based on the expectation that the latest version of the state’s model Inland Wetlands regulations might be forthcoming in early summer. The IWC was not polled on delaying their vote either before or at the meeting. And so they acted to take up the issue. The revised regulations were approved by a 4-3 vote. Shapiro later told the Eagle that prior revisions of the IWC regulations over the years had been accomplished without legal review.
At the June IWC meeting, Commissioner Merle Berke-Schlessel maintained the recently adopted regulations may not be valid and she asked for an investigation into the commissioners who adopted them. However, there is no requirement that new or revised regulations be reviewed by an attorney prior to their adoption.
Bassermann said the commission would be moving forward and rejected that idea. Suzanne Botta, a long-standing member, rebutted Berke-Schlessel’s statements. She said it was not in the town’s best interest to ignore the regulations that have been voted on and approved and that such an act could prompt litigation against the IWC. When the vote to form the committee to examine the regulations was raised, Botta was the only commissioner to vote against it. Commissioner John Rusatsky was absent.
After the June IWC meeting, Aniskovich told the Eagle that the adopted revised regulations were properly adopted and filed in the town clerk’s office. They remain the Commission’s regulations at this time. Bassermann agreed.
“We are moving forward. We know that the regulations are in place,” Bassermann told the Eagle. “To the extent that we have a land use attorney take a look at those regulations to make sure that we are in compliance,” he indicated that might happen.
Developers Take Appeal
What the commission did not know on June 9, the day they formed a new committee to examine the revised regulations, was that three local developers had just filed appeals in New Haven Superior Court regarding the same regulations, a move that likely takes the issue out of the commission’s hands and makes moot any action they might take. A fourth developer filed the next day.
One of the developers — 595 Corporate Circle — along with Costco and Orchard Hill Partners, submitted a master plan to build a 158,000 square foot on 44.7 acres near Exit 56 off Interstate 95 in February 2015. The land belongs to the Wayne Cooke family. Seven other commercial businesses, which were not identified, were also proposed for the 44-acre tract, most of those were on land owned by 595 Corporate Circle.
Janet Brooks, one of the state’s leading environmental attorneys and an expert in the field, now represents 595 Corporate Circle. Her appeal, along with one other, was filed the day before the IWC commission meeting on June 9. But the IWC agenda had been drawn up the week before and the arrival of the appeals was not discussed at the meeting. The word was also out that other appeals would be filed. One came in on the day of the meeting. The final one arrived on June 10, the deadline date to file.
Brooks says in her appeal that that the proposed regulation changes were not posted “in the Town Clerk’s office or anywhere else in the Branford Town Hall to allow the plaintiff or the public to review the proposed amendments prior to the May 12, 2016 public hearings on the regulations.” She cited other concerns in her seven-page appeal.
She asked that either the amended regulations be declared null and void or that sections of the amended regulations be stricken from the approved regulations.
The developers appealing the IWC regulations revisions include Charles Weber, Al Secondino, Michael Belfonte, Rita Ann Sachs and Alex Vigliotti of Vigliotti Construction Co. Overall, there are now four developers appealing the revised regulations. The Sachs appeal, submitted to the court by Attorney John A. Parese of Hamden, virtually duplicates the language of the appeal filed by Attorney Diane W. Whitney of Hartford who represents Secondino and Belfonte of Bittersweet Partners LLC and Alterra Holdings. The only changes Parese made were to insert the names of the plaintiffs he represents.
One of the largest tracts of undeveloped land is owned by Al Secondino and Michael Belfonti through their corporations, Bittersweet Partners and Alterra Holdings. That includes 71 acres of the former Bittersweet Farm property off Route 1 and an adjacent 50 acres to the south, off Sycamore Way. These properties are also near Exit 56 and near the proposed Costco development.
This land, which likely would be next in line for development, contains numerous wetlands. At a previous IWC hearing, Whitney, of Pullman &Comley, said the revised regulations were too vague.
Request for Land Use Court
The four appeals were filed in New Haven Superior Court, but may soon be transferred to Superior Court Judge Marshall K. Berger, Jr.’s Land Use Litigation Docket in Hartford Superior Court.
In court filings, Brooks sought the transfer to the land use court, saying, “This appeal falls within the Land Use Docket’s express subject matter. There are few appeals from the municipal wetlands regulation process. This litigation would benefit from the Land Use Docket’s adjudication and uniform development of case law. Four separate appeals by different plaintiffs have been filed.”
The four plaintiffs were represented by attorneys who all attended the IWC commission’s last hearing on the regulations, each asking that the town attorney review the proposed regulations before they were adopted. They spoke as one that night and have continued to do so.
Bassermann said in an interview that he had not reviewed the appeals that came in the day of the IWC June meeting. Asked what the impact of the appeals might have on the revised regulations, Bassermann said, “The agenda items were put on there last week before these came in. From my standpoint we had new commissioners; they had not been exposed to the regulations.” Nor, he added, was there a reason to comment on the litigation appeals “because at this point we just don’t know.”
Revising the Regulations
The commission has been working to revise the regulations for more than a year. During a public hearing last 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.
One of the regulations that changed over the months related to the amount of footage of wetland disturbance that would require a developer to create or enhance wetlands to compensate on a 2:1 ratio. Since 2007, the amount of disturbance was 750 square feet; in August the commission discussed using 50 square feet, but in December they voted to set the figure at 350 square feet. The vote was 4-2 vote with John Rusatsky, Richard Greenalch, Peter Bassermann, and James Goggin voting in favor; and Merle Berke-Schlessel and James Killelia voting against it. Shapiro was not present.
The new regulations that were approved May 12 say that wetlands disturbances less than 500 square feet may require mitigation; and that disturbances more than 500 square feet will require mitigation. Brooks noted in her appeal that “no reason was stated to support the size selected of 500 square feet.”
No one spoke in opposition to the changes at any of the public hearings until the April 28 meeting, two days after Costco pulled out.
The seven full commissioners when the regulations were approved were Daniel Shapiro, John Rusatsky, Suzanne Botta, Peter Bassermann, James Killelea, James L. Goggin, and Merle Berke-Schlessel. Shapiro, Rusatsky, Botta and Killelea voted in favor.
Richard K. Greenalch and Stephen Gangi were both alternates. A third alternate position was vacant.
Goggin, Berke-Schlessel, and Greenalch were appointed Aug. 19, 2015, when three commissioners who wished to continue serving were removed. One of those whose terms were not renewed was Dr. Orson whose expertise was called upon during prior regulation revisions.
The commissioners whose terms expired May 31 were Shapiro, Killelea, Bassermann and Gangi. All but Bassermann were removed June 1 and three new people were appointed as Cosgrove gutted the commission.
Diana Stricker contributed reporting for this story.
###
