Development And Conservation

Struggle To Coexist At Tech Park

By Kendra Bobowick

State Representative Julia Wasserman sees serious problems with current open space designation in the rough draft proposal for a tech park on Commerce Drive.

“When I saw the map I was shocked to see the way the open space configuration changed,” she said Tuesday during a Conservation Commission meeting. Her hurried comments followed a presentation by Economic Development Commission (EDC) member Kim Danziger who revealed updates to drawings depicting buildings, parking lots ,and access drives. The site plan was a revision to an earlier configuration of more than the ten buildings placed amid a combined 34.4 acres slated for open space, and more than 37 acres to house development.

Ms Wasserman dealt with the more concrete possibility that the plan she stood looking at Tuesday was flawed.

In an impromptu presentation of her own following a tense exchange between the commissions, Ms Wasserman explained, “The older map has continuity and meaning.” Referring to the latest version, she said, “This is now totally in conflict with legislation.” In her opinion, she said the reconfigured portions of the plan do not fall under the definition of open space — specifically the water retention swale and a small piece of the 34 acres separated from the main site by Commerce Drive. She said both during and after the meeting that she is willing to approach the state attorney general for clarifications. Contemplating the state’s definition of open space, which Newtown Conservation Official Rob Sibley said varies depending on the department, Ms Wasserman also considered the water detention mechanism.

“As I see it now I would have to go to the attorney general to see if a swale falls under the rubric of open space. That could take time.” She continued, “I understand what [Mr Danziger] has to do, but what the town feels and state says are something else…” She believes the plan requires clarification and redesignation, she said.

The EDC included the swale in an effort to protect Deep Brook.

After the meeting Ms Wasserman said, “When the state gives open space like that it’s the spirit of the grant that it’s a contiguous piece of open space, that’s the philosophy of donating the land to a municipality.”

 

A Conflict Of Interest

The contrasting interests Tuesday became evident — the economic boon from sale and tax revenue from anticipated tech park occupants and conservationists’ environmental and open space concerns. The story leads to Hartford. Legislation garnering the land and open space from what was once state property has taken several shapes. Ms Wasserman had amended her original legislation to reflect a mixing, rather than separation of the 34 and 37 acres. She resold the idea to the legislature that the open space and commercial areas could be blended, as long as the number of acres designated to each purpose remained the same.

“I had to defend every action, but we got it done,” she said. The EDC had also approached various town boards for comment at this time.

But a glance at the new drawings did not reflect the sense of compromise Conservation Commissioners were seeking, and became clearer as Mr Danziger made his presentation.

On Tuesday Mr Danziger began, “We had to go back to the drawing board, literally, and we think we have developed a project that tries to meet as many different views represented in town; we’re charged with a job to bring in as much from sale and tax revenue as possible from these properties.” Conservation board member George Ferguson, for one, does not feel the drawings reflect the “different views represented in town.”

He demanded, “What changes have occurred since you received input from other commissions and other agencies? Show me the changes.” Mr Danziger offered that the “treatment of water” including the bioswale, and land grading addressed environmental concerns.

Clearly frustrated, Mr Ferguson said, “It looks like this was a skewed attempt by one agency to maximize development at the expense of the other side...”

Illuminating his primary approach from an economic perspective, Mr Danziger said, “Cash return is ultimately our charge…” He also said he took his guidance from town officials.

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal said he wants to see the property developed to “generate as much revenue as we can without having an environmental impact.” He then speculated, “If it can’t be done — err on the side of not harming the environment.” He said he wants to make sure “we do good science.”

Mr Danziger did expand on efforts to deflect heavy run-off from Deep Brook, for example, which Mr Sibley had called the most sensitive spot potentially affected by the tech park.

What’s Next?

Conservation Chairman Joe Hovious put things in stark perspective. He said, “How do we go forward? We have a responsibility to do this and you have a responsibility to do something else…we’re concerned about how the 34 acres got divided up and I am not sure how we get our input into the process.”

Quickly, Mr Danziger said, “The bottom line is 37 acres can be developed. We haven’t taken more.” Dr Cramer soon noted, “We’re not saying you’ll take more land than you should, we’re commission charged with open space and you’ve gone ahead with not as much regard as we would give to open space.”

Faced with the more volatile topic Tuesday evening, he said, “By nature our commissions are diametrically opposed. We realize the opposition,” he said. Repeating Mr Hovious’s earlier question, Mr Danziger echoed, “How do we go forward? We followed the 2004 Plan of Conservation and Development, we have heard your opinions.”

Mr Hovious replied, “We advise to Planning and Zoning and Inlands and Wetlands.” He indicated that he is inclined to advise against a water treatment feature in an open space parcel. “We’ll continue along that path,” he finished.

With more cutting words, Mr Ferguson said, “You have heard us, but you have not listened and modified plans in any visible way, so we’ll do what we have to.” Although the dispute ended with hope of working together in the future, the prognosis was not upbeat.

“Seems there is not a lot of room for collaboration,” Mr Ferguson said. “I see no willingness because of focus on economic impact, but if that’s the sole goal, you’re not allowing us to come to the table.” Later in the conversation Mr Danziger provided some reasoning.

“We didn’t know how to bring every agency in town together with a blank piece of paper — at some point you have to start drawing.”

Extending a chance, Dr Cramer said, “We’re polarized, and it would be so much easier if we could work together.” Speaking for the first time in the more than hour-long presentation, EDC member Robert Rau said, “That’s why we’re here, to discuss this with you.” He added, “I don’t understand why you’re upset; we’re here telling you our plans.”

Mr Danziger edged toward an understanding among commissions. He said, “We’re here to invite you to a steering committee and discussions and see what we can do about how to make the project palatable to everybody. We may hit an impasse, but I have no personal attachment to any lot and nothing has to be where it’s shown [on the new plans].” Defending those plans, he said they are the product of engineering practices.

Speculating aloud, Mr Danziger envisioned future planning saying, “This is not emotional to us — what we’re proposing. Can we do this lot and make it environmentally sensitive and satisfy the [conservation] commission? Or remove the proposal.” Noting a third option he said, “Or, have a disagreement and go to the Board of Selectmen for a tie breaker.”

After discussing possible future meeting dates where all were invited, Mr Hovious said, “I wish you had mentioned this earlier; there is a lot of frustration and I had almost begged to work with you…”

In reply Mr Danziger said, “We had to get a lot of engineering facts together…”

Mr Hovious concluded, “And to see no change, it’s frustrating.”

Dr Cramer questioned their efforts to maintain clearly recognizable open space among the reconfigured 34 acres, to which Mr Danziger said, “We believe we have met the conditions of regulations and now it is up to P&Z.” He also offered, “From your standpoint and assuming our homework is correct, you can say this is more important as open space, and that’s your recommendation and we won’t stand in the way.” The invitation for Conservation Commission members to join a steering group “remains on the table” he said.

The Idea of Compromise

As EDC Chairman Chet Hopper acknowledged in a recent interview, environmentalists’ and conservationists’ criticisms have not fallen on deaf ears. He has said previously that the tech park project would incorporate as much compromise as possible.

Toward this effort, the EDC representatives spoke at a Conservation Commission meeting Tuesday evening.

Before revealing newer plans to the conservation members, Mr Danziger hinted at the strain of “trying to please so many people.” Saying the situation is “tough,” he continued, “We’re trying to do something for the entire town.”

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal’s words also in a separate interview made clear the need for compromise. While sensitive to the environment, he said, “On the other hand we don’t want to prevent economic development.” He said, “I think both sides have to give a little. There is always a balance.”

Mr Danziger said his commission is willing to compromise and balance “as much as possible,” before moving a plan through the approval process.

Mr Rosenthal said, “If there is a way to develop property better, we should do it, you can’t say you can’t develop it at all.” He admits that feelings on both sides are extreme.

He also indicated that he would favor the environment in a draw. “I would like maximum development, but clearly don’t want to harm the environment,” he said.

Ultimately Mr Sibley is pleased with Tuesday’s meeting. He said, “I am encouraged. The conversation was two-way, an excellent step and I am praying it continues.”