nothin New Haven Independent | Exit 56 Developers Want More Time to Submit…

Exit 56 Developers Want More Time to Submit Plans

Diana Stricker Photo

The owners of property at Exit 56 are trying to change zoning regulations that would affect the proposed 44-acre retail complex at Exit 56, which once included Costco and may again center on a big box store. The changes would allow developers more time to gain site-plan approval for any Planned Development District (PDD).

Chuck Andres (see top photo), who chairs the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission, said regulations were amended in 2011 to provide a deadline because previous PDDs were not being developed. “So we wanted some timeframe to get it done so it’s not left lingering,” Andres said at Thursday’s meeting.  “If you get the benefit of a PDD, which is not your standard zoning, which is something special …. we want you to move forward.”

About 28 people attended Thursday’s public hearing which was held at Fire Headquarters. The hearing will continue at the March 1 P&Z meeting.

Diana Stricker Photo

{L-R front row:) Al Secondino, Mrs. Weber and Charles E. Weber.

The zoning regulation change was requested by property owners Charles E. Weber Jr. and Al Secondino, through their 595 Corporate Circle corporation. The two developers own a 16.5-acre parcel at 569 E. Main St. where six retail buildings were proposed. The Costco store would have been built on an adjacent 22.3 acre site at 573 East Main St. owned by Wayne Cooke and the Cooke family corporations. Weber and Secondino had an option to buy the Cooke property. 

The fate of Exit 56 retail development has been hotly debated by residents since extensive public hearings on the PDD were held in 2015. The PDD and master plans were approved by P&Z by a 3-2 vote in July 2015. 

Plans were then submitted to the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) where lengthy hearings were held. The project would have eventually gone to P&Z for site-plan consideration if a Wetlands permit had been approved. Costco withdrew its IWC application in April 2016 after it became apparent that it would be denied. Costco later pulled out of the project.

The current regulations for PDDs and master plans require that site plans be approved by P&Z within two years after the master plan is approved. There’s no provision for extending the timeframe. If property contains wetlands, the plans must go to IWC before going to P&Z.

Diana Stricker Photo

Then last July the Exit 56 developers returned to the P&Z and requested a 1-year extension, just before the deadline expired. The motion passed the P&Z (pictured) by a 3-2 vote.

“One of the issues that was raised at that time was … there was no authority in the existing regulations to grant any extensions, so what I’m assuming is that is the motivating factor for the applicant here,” Andres said

Last-Minute Changes

Diana Stricker Photo

Diane W. Whitney (pictured), a land-use attorney with Pullman & Comley LLC in Hartford,  represents Weber and Secondino and their 595 Corporate Circle corporation.

Current zoning regulations say the master plan shall become “null and void” if site plans are not approved by P&Z within 24 months. Whitney initially proposed the following amendment be added to the regulations: “or within such extension of the 24 month deadline that is approved by the Commission.”

On Wednesday, Whitney sent the town planner a different timeframe proposal than previously submitted. The revise proposal states: “Site plans must be submitted within five years of master plan adoption. The master plan shall become null and void if the site plan is not approved within that timeframe. A one-year extension of this deadline may be granted by the Commission.”

In essence, the second proposed amendment would change the current two-year site plan timeframe to five years, with the possibility of a one year extension.

“The language I had originally submitted was sort of open-ended and gave you the discretion to pick a timeframe,” Whitney told the commission.  “Based on some of the comments that I’ve seen, that didn’t seem like such a good idea. So the revised language you have received tonight is really what we prefer you consider.”

Whitney said the proposed amendment is not specific to any property,  but they are requesting the changes because she believes there are inconsistencies between the master plan and site plan timeframes. “What we’re really asking for is to clarify or clear up the inconsistency between the two requirements,” Whitney said.

The only PDDs in Branford lacking site plans are the Exit 56 retail complex which was approved in 2015; and the Sterling Ridge residential proposal across from the Canoe Brook Senior Center. The Sterling Ridge PDD went through several owners and several modifications since 2003 before the current one was approved by P&Z in July 2017.

Residents Ask: Is It Legal?

Residents at the meeting who opposed the regulation change asked if it’s legal to change the proposed amendment at the last minute. The commissioners did not see the revised amendment until the night of the hearing.

Town Planner Harry Smith said he asked town attorney Bill Aniskovich about the revised amendment and Aniskovich said it was permissible to make such changes prior to a hearing.

Diana Stricker Photo

Smith (pictured) said the commission has greater discretion when acting legislatively on zoning regulations, than when acting administratively on proposed projects.

Andres, who is an attorney, said any revisions by the applicant have to be more narrow than the original proposal, not more liberal. That is within the scope of the original notice of the public hearing,” he said. One of the reasons we have public hearings is to get people’s comments so we can make changes.”

Andres said he will continue the public hearing to allow for additional public comments, and also because some of the commissioners were not in attendance.

Residents Speak

Several residents said the last-minute changes made it difficult to respond because they didn’t have time to study the revisions.

Judy Miller said she opposed the original amendment because it was totally open-ended and lacking in any criteria.” She said if the commission decides to amend the regulations I urge you to include some specific guidelines under which an extension might be granted,” Miller said, adding that a public hearing should be included.

Local environmentalist Bill Horne said his written testimony and comments also referred to Whitney’s original proposal. Horne said the two-year deadline was put in the regulations for PDDs and other types of projects, such as the Affordable Housing Overlay District (AHOD). He asked the commissioners to think about why the deadline was put in the regulations.

Take a step back and look at what you’re really trying to accomplish,” he said.

Horne said there should be specific guidelines for granting extensions. It should not just be left to the decision of the commission to extend it how many more times it wants. I think that the idea of requiring a public hearing for an extension to show good cause is quite reasonable,” he said.

PDDs should not be allowed to sit indefinitely while circumstances change around them,” Pam Roy said, asking the commission to deny the request.

Peter Henschel, a member of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM), said he opposes any amendment with unlimited extensions because Branford could lose control of its future.

Just as a PDD can be a powerful tool for approving creative mixed-use site proposals, they can be equally dangerous to the welfare of our town if not well-controlled,” said Henschel, an architect who lives in Stony Creek. 

Attorney Whitney responded to the comments about the deadline.

I don’t see you’re going to lose any control whatsoever,” she told the commission. I think you will have as much control as you always do when someone comes in and asks to extend a site plan.”

Ray Ingraham, chair of the Republican Town Committee, and Republican majority leader of the RTM, spoke in favor of changing the deadlines. You should be able to extend them and figure out what’s fair,” he said.

Perry Maresco, chair of the Economic Development Commission, said the EDC continues to support the proposed PDD at Exit 56. There are reasons why extensions should be considered,” he said.

Tortuous” process

Whitney said applicants and towns in general go through a tortuous” process to approve PDDs. You don’t approve it unless you’re confident it’s going to convey a benefit to the town,” she told the commission. So allowing an applicant to have a little more time to satisfy that site plan requirement, I think is for the benefit of the town.”

She said that the expense and complexity of a PDD proposal process is an indication that an applicant won’t sit on an approval” unless there is a good reason.

The amount of money already invested in a PDD is enormous,” she said. Someone’s not going to let it languish without going forward.”

New Commissioner

Diana Stricker Photo

The P&Z welcomed David Dyer (pictured) who was recently appointed to the commission by the Board of Selectmen.  Dyer, who will serve as an alternate to the five-member commission, fills a vacancy created by the resignation of Chris Kelly. 

Dyer has been a project manger in the construction industry for more than 35 years, and has more than 15 years experience as an OSHA trainer.  He has served as a project manager and safety officer for A. Secondino and Son Inc. in Branford from 2010 until the present.

Dyer recused himself from participating in the hearing on the proposed amendment changes since Secondino is one of the developers requesting the change.

###

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

There were no comments