Tech Park Progress Report: Slow

By Kendra Bobowick

Have Newtown’s technology park plans stalled? Yes and no, depending on which town official is answering the question.

“As of now we’re finally exposing the fact that the property may be unsuitable for future development,” said Land Use Agency Deputy Director for Conservation Rob Sibley. “It’s a difficult property.” He believes conservation officials and Economic Development Commission (EDC) members who have different ideas about how to use the land are “in a holding pattern.”

Offering a slightly different point of view is EDC Chairman Chet Hopper, who believes that the project is hung up on officials’ inability to reach an agreement. With conservation, land use, and development commission members in mind, Mr Hopper said, “We’d like to present a consensus to the town about what we want to do — that’s stalled right now.” He does believe that the property is economically viable, however. “It’s imminently feasible,” he said. “A number of things are possible.”

Conservation members and the EDC originally clashed over park proposals that blended adjacent and similarly sized 30-plus-acre parcels secured for open space and economic development, respectively. The commissions reached a stalemate. First Selectman Joe Borst had tried to break the spell in late March during a “robust” tech park discussion when he had said, “I want it squared away.”

But loose ends remain.

Can a more than 70-acre area off Commerce Road toe the environmental line while also making room for an economically feasible technology park? The answer stumbles over how the parcels are configured. “We’re trying for a compromise with [the Conservation Commission],” Mr Hopper said. He stressed again, “That’s where we’re stalled.”

The first selectman’s directive was clear in March as he tried to jump-start tech park progress. He had said, “I request that EDC use [conservation’s] layout…and come back and tell me if it’s economically feasible.”

This week Mr Hopper said, “We can’t do that yet.” He is waiting on a private engineer’s studies, paid for through a Small Towns Economic Assistance Program grant. “Once we have the drawings we’ll be in a position to make economic feasibility studies.” Critical to the formula are lot sizes and selling price, building sizes and their tax revenue. Also this week, Mr Borst confirmed his position on tech park plans, explaining that he has asked the EDC to assess the possibility of keeping 34 contiguous acres of open space along Deep Brook and see if remaining building sites are economically feasible. “I have not heard back,” he said Tuesday. If acceptable tech park plans never materialize, Mr Borst envisions an agricultural project.

“We can lease it to local farmers,” he suggested, noting that local supermarkets “buy a lot of local produce.”

In Mr Sibley’s view, the EDC is “floundering,” he said. He believes the members are “still trying to find their legs, and I don’t know if they ever will.”

Will the properties — acquired from the state through Representative Julia Wasserman’s efforts — revert back to the state’s possession if plans fall through? Essentially, no, according to Mr Sibley.

“There is no timeline,” he said. The state will likely take back the land if, for example, open space is turned to manufacturing.