Proposal Dropped For Exit 56 Shopping Center

A Rhode Island developer who has spent the last two years trying to get permits to construct a major retail shopping center off Exit 56 has quietly withdrawn its application.

In a letter dated Oct. 31, the developer’s local attorney, David A. Gibson informed the Branford Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) that the company has withdrawn its application to build a shopping center on the Wayne Cooke family land near exit 56.

In a single sentence, Gibson said the developer’s petition to amend the zoning regulations and to amend the zoning map “are hereby withdrawn.” Gibson is a former member of the P& Z.

It is still not clear if the developer, Churchill & Banks, plans to resubmit a revised application at a later date or if it has withdrawn permanently. Company executives did not return calls seeking comment and attorney Gibson who appeared at the P& Z last night would not comment.

While the details remain unclear, this could spell the end for the project. Asked to comment, Cooke replied by e-mail. “You’d really have to ask them,” he said of the developer. “As I’ve said many times, we don’t speak for them, or vice versa.”

When it began its quest for the property two years ago Churchill & Banks, the leading real estate developer in Rhode Island, proposed a 75-acre retail development, including a Target department store. Retail space envisioned in the plan reached 530,000 square feet. The projected traffic volume was expected to be from 15,000 to 25,000 trips per day.

Over the last two years the developer has scaled down the project considerably but the reality — that this land lies in an industrial zone — remains the same.

The two-year battle for the last remaining land in Branford where there are large contiguous parcels available for commercial use has taken two paths.

One path centers on permits the company had to have in order to build. It has an option on the land off Route 1 that is owned by the Cooke family. .

The other path had to do with Cooke himself and the one-man show he has produced before various town boards to convince them to change the zoning philosophy regarding exit 56. His appearances before the boards and with calls to Representative Town Meeting (RTM) members have not gone over well.

From the outset Cooke tried also to separate the town’s ten year Plan of Conservation and Development (the POCD vote is to take place Nov.20th) and the formal applications by Churchill & Banks to town commissions. Cooke appeared at hearings into the POCD and typically stayed away from P&Z meetings the developer’s lawyers attended. But both are obviously intertwined. (The Cooke family name appears on the applications to the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission, for example.)

To get the project off the ground the developer needed to change the zoning regulations. A hearing had been scheduled for Thursday night on a proposed overlay zone, the first formal step. But that didn’t happen.

Gibson’s Oct. 31 letter came a day after Cooke ran into big trouble with the Commission’s chair Ellsworth McGuigan at another P&Z meeting. On the same day Cooke wrote a letter to the RTM seeking a formal investigation into town boards. The RTM meets Nov 12 at 8 p.m. at Canoe Brook Senior Center.

The Oct 30 meeting was called to discuss the town’s proposed ten year Plan of Conservation and Development. Cooke has been distressed about the plan ever since changes were made barring mixed retail use at exit 56. He is also distressed about the traffic study included in the POCD, saying it is wrong.

By pre-arrangement McGuigan had given Cooke 10 minutes to present his case. He has delivered his arguments before numerous public meetings in recent months. Other residents had five minutes. Cooke typically opens by saying he does not have enough time to present his position. He places various charts within the vision of the BCTV public access camera. He is actually talking to a television audience.

This time when Cooke went beyond the five minutes, McGuigan lost his patience, stood up, demanded that Cooke wrap it up. The chairman then became indignant when Cooke continued talking. McGuigan practically called a halt to the meeting, but first let Town Planner Shirley Rasmussen answer several of Cooke’s points. Then McGuigan walked out in a huff.

About 20 people witnessed the scene, including Gibson who was in the audience. The next day Gibson delivered the letter to Town Hall. He had signed it.

First Selectman Unk DaRos, who witnessed the incident, said he was not at all sure the developer was actually pulling out permanently. “They are withdrawing this application. That doesn’t mean they are pulling out. I don’t think they have withdrawn any of their appeals.”

What DaRos is referring to is a court appeal brought by Churchill & Banks against the town’s Inland Wetlands Commission which earlier this year rejected the developer’s application. Churchill & Banks formally sued the Wetlands Commission in July and the case is pending in New Haven Superior Court. According to court records, the appeal has not been withdrawn.

There are several reasons why the developer might have withdrawn at this time. One obvious reason is the worldwide failure of the economy. Another is Attorney Michael Zizka’s recent analysis of the plan. Ziska told the P&Z that the application in its current form should be rejected.

Some insiders say they thought that the Ziska comments would require the developer to resubmit the application. They theorize that rather than go through a hearing whose outcome was pre-determined, it would be better to start fresh.

In any case, the developer is formally only at step one because it must first obtain a new zoning regulation for retail development at Exit 56. The town is understandably wary because it envisions box stores near Exit 53, not Exit 56, and is cautious about producing a negative impact on existing retail stores both at the Town Green and along Route 1. Churchill & Banks have not gotten to the point of submitting actual plans for buildings.

Town Planner Rasmussen, says Cooke’s traffic concerns are exaggerated. She says the traffic study in the POCD was not the final word and that a larger, more comprehensive study would be needed before any development occurred at exit 56. As for the new language that will review proposed business plans for exit 56, a concept Cooke says is flawed, this too will be examined.

Rasmussen told the Commission last night that the “targeted business study” mentioned in the POCD for Exit 56 businesses would seek to look at the types of businesses likely to come to Connecticut as opposed to other parts of the nation. She cited a study done for Corpus Christi, Texas and said she would seek outside expert opinion.