Economic Development Officials Addressing Tech Park Development

By John Voket

In the current commercial real estate market, the development of a new tech park will not automatically trigger a flood of interest, according to Economic Development Commission Chair Chet Hopper. So the commission is planning to work closely with numerous town agencies and officials in the coming months to ensure it will deliver a finished product that is an attractive turnkey project.

“This is not a case of ‘if you build it, they will come.’ We want to walk away from this project leaving a viable economic driver for Newtown,” Mr Hopper said.

In a recent interview, Mr Hopper acknowledged that criticism by environmental volunteers and the local conservation official did not fall on deaf ears. The concerns about possible debilitating runoff into Deep Brook from the northernmost parcel in a preliminary development plan prompted the EDC to relocate a parking structure to the south side of the lot, as well as enhancing an adjacent bioswale to disperse extensive runoff with what Mr Hopper described as “controlled overflow.”

“We are looking very carefully at all the ways to control water runoff,” he said. “We never considered just dumping it into Deep Brook.”

Both Mr Hopper and fellow EDC member Kim Danziger told The Bee the project would incorporate as much compromise as possible, but that ultimately no single interest should expect to be fully accommodated. Mr Danziger pointed out that adjusting the parcel plan for a more environmentally friendly ten-lot development, instead of maxing out the tech park at the allowed 12 lots, potentially cost the town up to $2 million in lost sales revenue because the additional parcels will not be sold.

“We hope at the end of the day everybody will work toward the best compromise,” Mr Danziger said. “We all live here in town, we are all volunteers on this project, and we recognize we have to be the ones to show a willingness to compromise from the start.”

The EDC members wanted to address misinformation being disseminated by some residents, including former Legislative Council member Ruby Johnson, who spoke at several recent meetings referring to the commission hiring a real estate firm to market the property.

“While we are intending to market the property under the name of the consulting agent or agency, that company will only make commission on the sale,” Mr Hopper said. “The EDC will carefully negotiate and approve each sale and the taxpayers will pay no additional fees [to retain the commercial agency].”

Mr Danziger added that although the EDC members are all volunteers, the level of expertise the collective members bring to the project is unsurpassed by many commercial development organizations.

“I work with a lot of developers,” he said. “If the town had to pay for the talent they get from the volunteers on our Economic Development Commission, they couldn’t afford it.”

By tapping the volunteer EDC to act as the development agency for the tech park, the town will have several distinct advantages. The foremost advantage will be providing the commission with qualifying criteria Mr Hopper believes will ensure the most attractive types of businesses are selected as tenants in the development.

“If we walked away today and put the land up for sale, the town could make a quick $1 million,” Mr Hopper said. “But that would end up costing taxpayers additional millions in the long run. Those millions will be contingent on our commission qualifying the best, high-end developments.”

Mr Danziger concurred saying that while the ultimate tenant, a major corporate headquarters that might occupy several parcels in a campuslike development, was long shot, he was confident that the EDC could help recruit companies that would become valuable corporate neighbors generating comparatively high property and personal property tax revenue.

“We’d love to fill every parcel with extremely high value tenants that also require low human occupancy, which would maximize tax benefits and generate the lowest amount of traffic. But that is probably not a realistic expectation for every parcel,” Mr Danziger said.

Another benefit to the town is the land is bought and paid for.

“We don’t have that interest clock ticking like a commercial developer would,” Mr Danziger explained. “This gives the EDC and our partner agents the flexibility to take our time, selecting the best possible players to invite to the table.”

And once the park is ready for development, it will represent what the commissioner described as a “southern commercial development” concept, never before seen in this area.

“We want this project show ready, which means the roads and utility infrastructure are in place when the first interested buyers are ready to build,” he said.

Mr Danziger said taxpayers would be further insulated because the development is scheduled to roll out in phases, with the initial public investment being quickly paid off by the sale of the first two or three parcels. The EDC would then using the income from the sales to further fund subsequent development of additional parcels.

“This makes sense on several levels,” he said. “If we got the first few lots sold and we recruited a buyer who wanted a different configuration than we had in our plan, we could adjust quickly to accommodate their needs.”

That means the town could provide road and infrastructure to suit as needed instead of being caught having to redo infrastructure already in place.

Wetlands Review

Mr Hopper said he would welcome commentary from the general public as the EDC begins its junket of presentations to local boards and commissions. Those presentations began Wednesday with an appearance before the Inland Wetlands Commission.

“In my experience, developers are almost always seen as adversarial,” he said. “But the EDC wants to change that perception with this project.”

At a March 28 meeting of the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC), EDC members learned that the technology park proposal will require a formal wetlands application for IWC review and action.

Mr Danziger told IWC members that that technology park project is still being formulated. In presenting the current version of the proposal to the IWC, the EDC sought to elicit comments from that agency on how it might improve the proposal before making a formal wetlands application for the project.

Engineer William Carboni of Spath-Bjorklund Associates, Inc, representing the EDC, told IWC members that the project will be designed to protect the environmentally sensitive area. A buffer area would be established along the adjacent Deep Brook, which is a trout stream, he said. Mr Carboni explained the many measures that would be taken for environmental protection.

The total area of the site is 76.8 acres, of which 42.2 acres would be developed area, and 34.6 acres would be dedicated as open space land, he said. The site has steep slopes and wetlands.

IWC Chairman Anne M. Peters said, “It’s been very helpful for you to present the overall plan to us…I think we have a good starting point.”

The EDC is expected to submit a formal wetlands application for IWC review in the future. The project also would require an industrial subdivision review by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z). The development site is a M-5 (Industrial) zone. It also is in the Aquifer Protection District (APD).