But on Thursday night, the Inland Wetlands Commission, citing factors likely to harm the wetlands on the 12 acre site, rejected Vigliotti’s third attempt to put 120 apartments in three massive buildings on a steep, ledge filled slope that sits far above rows of single family homes on Ivy, Cedar and Hillside Avenues.
A key issue is the road leading to the third and highest building. Several of the Inland Wetland Commissioners voiced concern that the act of creating the road would compromise the wetland’s ability to survive. The Commission cited blasting, sediment erosion and relocation, pollution, loss of trees, down slope stability and overall water quality, among others.The vote was 5-1. The holdout, Dr. Richard Orson, who was instrumental in drafting the language to oppose the project, seemed unwilling to be persuaded by his own thoughts. At the last meeting he said he had not found a “smoking gun” linking construction to damage of the wetlands.But the other commissioners found a “smoking gun” was not required because after analyzing the cumulative difficulties this piece of land presents, they found that even if this was the most perfect of plans, anything could go wrong, and that would be catastrophic for the wetlands.As the IWC engaged in the process of voting, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) held its final public hearing down the hallway, in a larger room. The Eagle attended the IWC and then caught the latter part of the P& Z meeting.At P& Z it was standing room only compared to a half dozen folks at IWC. Many members of the public wanted to speak. But before they could, the Commission permitted the developer’s team to present yet another revision— this one in response to the town’s withering critique of the project on October 19.Team Vigliotti’s very organized set of lawyers, engineers and specialists worked quickly. They discussed the road, the fire trucks, the garbage collection, the parking, and the number of affordable housing units. They rejected the town’s view that the project was a hazard to public safety. Their presentation lasted about two hours.At about 9:30 p.m., Town Planner Shirley Rasmussen informed the P and Z audience that the IWC had rejected the project. But given the lateness of the hour and the public portion yet to begin, she was unable to read the six pages of reasons aloud. That was unfortunate because it would have been instructive for the audience, for the P & Z and for Vigliotti.Tim Hollister, a partner at Shipman & Goodwin in Hartford, and Vigliotti’s top lawyer, thanked the Commission for listening to the team’s rebuttal and asked for three minutes later on to give concluding remarks. It was a shrewd move.First Selectwoman Cheryl Morris was the first to speak in the public session. She said the site “was unsuitable for a project of this magnitude,” adding she had been opposed to it from the start. (However, she has rejected efforts to hire an outside attorney expert in affordable housing at this crucial stage and has accepted campaign funds from Vigliotti). Her public statements to the Commission came one month after two prior First Selectmen, John Opie and Unk DaRos, strongly denounced the project.Jim Bruno, the RTM Moderator, who lives nearby, suggested that Vigliotti donate the property as a park to the town. RTM members Sandra Reiners and Lonnie Reed said they did not object to affordable housing but to an incompatible development in the center of town. This sentiment was echoed by others.Chris Peterson, an affordable housing advocate, gave an impassioned speech in favor of cheaper housing, a vital need, he said, “because our children cannot live here.” Despite his commitment and his prior work with former First Selectmen to bring affordable housing to Branford, Peterson said Vigliotti’s plan was not right. “The density is too great,” he declared, and the impact on the community too glaring. He could not support it, he said.Michael Vergato, one of the formal intervenors, asked the Commission if the public portion of the meeting was n ow over. Told that it was, Vergato became incensed because this meant that he and neighbor Todd Bainer would not be able to officially reply to this new information —-although both could have given an impromptu response then and there if they chose and Bainer spoke in general terms about a fourth application already in the works.“I do not think it is fair to accept any new information from the developer at this point and then reject further comments from me,” Vergato said. One of the changes centered on making Hillside Avenue another access road. Hillside is a steep, narrow road with several houses on it. There are reports—as yet unconfirmed—that Vigliotti has purchased them.After the public remarks ended, Hollister rose to deliver his final words, apparently a courtesy Ellsworth McGuigan, the P and Z Chairman, extends to applicants if they ask.Hollister began by asking the Commission to read a specific court decision, “Toll Brothers v. the Town of Bethel.” before they vote. Earlier he had given the Commissioners a binder of documents, including the Toll case, which was brought against Bethel’s Planning and Zoning Commission. It was hot off the press, issued only two days earlier on Nov 13th. “This is how a judge will look at it if you deny,” he warned the Commissioners.This is a savvy Commission and they know the Founders Village application well, having analyzed it twice before. Their last rejection listed some 30 reasons why it wouldn’t work whereas the “Toll Brothers” case listed perhaps a half dozen reasons. The judge approved the Bethel project but only after attaching demanding conditions.Hollister did not mention, of course, that there are scores of Connecticut judicial opinions on “affordable housing” and that a decision by a lone Superior Court judge does not carry the same weight as state appellate and Supreme Court rulings. Nor did Hollister inform the panel that Bethel has said it will appeal.Shelley Marcus and David Doyle of The Marcus Law Firm, both of whom represent the town and both of whom were in the room, apparently found no reason to comment upon or oppose Hollister’s insistence that the Commission read this one opinion that favors their side before they take a crucial vote.Hollister also listed a series of points, including asking if there was a need for affordable housing in Branford. He told them to study the site plan and to make reasonable changes if needed. He praised the firms who worked on the project, especially the engineering firm, as among the best in Connecticut.Finally, as Vigliotti and his family listened intently, Hollister said no one had a greater incentive to make the project work correctly than did Vigliotti because he has put millions of dollars into it already. (He’s right about that).As for the Commissioners, they too, drew some conclusions. They said the Vigliotti team had inundated them with material and delivered so many revisions that their task, which they take seriously, had become arduous. One Commissioner on Inland Wetlands said the panel felt it was asked repeatedly to redesign the developer’s plans. “That is not our job.”After the hearing ended at 10:18 p.m., Vigliotti, a small, wiry man, rose to shake hands with a half dozen members of his team. They looked gloomy but tried to manage a smile. Vigliotti has lost twice before. On Thursday, the IWC turned him down a third time. The P & Z has 65 days to rule on Founders Village, a development that in fact bears no resemblance to a village. It will probably do so by its Jan 18th meeting.###