Industrial Redevelopment—

More Wetlands Protection Data Sought For AFS Plan

By Andrew Gorosko

Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) members are seeking more information on the wetlands protection aspects of large-scale industrial redevelopment proposal for a site on Edmond Road.

Under the proposal, a large vacant industrial building would be put back into use by a technology firm as a manufacturing plant and a research/development facility.

IWC members on June 9 started a public hearing on Advanced Fusion Systems, LLC’s, (AFS) wetlands protection permit application for 11 Edmond Road. It is a 24-acre site formerly occupied by Pitney-Bowes, Inc. The hearing is slated to resume on June 23.

AFS proposes adding 30,800 square feet of enclosed space to an existing vacant 211,282-square-foot building. The firm also wants to build a 20,000-square-foot pad for a future electric substation. It also wants to expand parking areas on the site from 196 spaces to 302 spaces.

The building that stands on the site was constructed in the early 1970s, before local wetlands protection regulations were in effect.

Engineer Steve Sullivan of CCA, LLC, of Brookfield, representing AFS, told IWC members that the firm’s redevelopment plans would require that approximately 6,469 square feet of wetlands on the site be physically disturbed. The redevelopment work would entail the earthen filling of about 4,842 square feet of wetlands, he said.

IWC Chairman Anne Peters asked whether the soil on the site is suitable for the installation of a bridge as proposed by the developer.

Mr Sullivan said that a proposed concrete-arch bridge would be suitably constructed to cross over a manmade water channel to provide access to a proposed vehicle parking area.

George Logan of REMA Ecological Services, LLC, of Manchester, representing the developer, described the wetlands aspects of the industrial site. The developer would formulate some plan to limit the project’s negative impacts on wetlands through discussions held with IWC members, Mr Logan said.

The project seeks to maintain the existing water quality of Tom Brook, he said.

The industrial site lies in the watershed of Tom Brook, a stream that flows over the land that lies between Edmond Road and Interstate 84. Tom Brook is a tributary of the Pootatuck River.

Ms Peters asked that the developer provide the IWC with information about the environmental quality of the wetlands on the site.

Mr Logan noted that the presence of the nearby heavily-traveled Interstate 84 adversely affects on the site’s environmental quality.

IWC member Mary Curran asked whether the site’s wetlands provide any flood control benefits for the area.

Sharon Salling, an IWC member, said that the environmental information that was presented by Mr Logan to the IWC about the site provides a “dismal picture” of the functionality of the wetlands on the property. Ms Salling urged that the developer provide the IWC with more information about how the natural resources of the site could be protected amid redevelopment there.

IWC member Philip Kotch said the applicant’s presentation lacked information on the environmental quality of stormwater runoff from parking areas, and also on how stormwater drainage from the industrial building’s roof would be handled. Dr Kotch urged the developer to address the environmental protection issues posed by stormwater drainage from the existing parking lots, as well as roof drainage.

Also, Dr Kotch urged that an alternative proposal for additional parking be presented, such as the construction of a multilevel parking structure for the site. He also urged the developer to consider modifying the industrial building’s roof to covert it into a “vegetated green roof” to address stormwater drainage concerns.

Ms Salling said that due to the large scope of the physical disturbance proposed for the site, the developer should strive not to worsen environmental conditions there. She suggested that the proposal be reworked to improve its environmental protection aspects.

Mr Sullivan said the developer would consider issues raised by the IWC, such as providing “pervious surfaces” in certain areas on the site where vehicles would travel.

Unlike pavement, which is an “impervious surface,” pervious surfaces allow stormwater to drain down directly into the ground beneath those surfaces, promoting environmental quality.

Also, in response to IWC concerns, Mr Logan said the developer would review snow removal plans for the property.

Town Conservation Official Ann Astarita asked what long-term and short-term effects the proposed redevelopment project would have on the existing higher-quality wetlands on the property. Also, she asked the developer to consider how additional development on the site would environmentally affect Tom Brook.

Rob Sibley, town deputy director of planning and land use, said the IWC is having a technical consultant review the AFS redevelopment plan with an eye toward environmental protection.

The AFS redevelopment proposal also would require Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) review. The firm already has gained several zoning variances for the project from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

In an expanded industrial plant, AFS would manufacture high speed electrical switching devices for very high electrical voltages, environmental cleanup equipment, sterilization gear, and X-ray laser microlithography equipment.