EDC Still Pursuing Tech Park

By Andrew Gorosko

Undeterred by the Inland Wetlands Commission’s (IWC) recent unanimous rejection of its proposal for the creation of Newtown Technology Park off Commerce Road, Economic Development Commission (EDC) members this week unanimously agreed to submit a new revised application soon for IWC review and action.

Following lengthy discussion at a September 29 session, EDC members agreed to include in their next technology park application some information that IWC members said was lacking in the initial application. After lengthy review, the IWC rejected the initial technology park application on September 8.

The project would involve the construction of six buildings containing an aggregate of about 100,000 square feet of industrial condominium space in an environmentally sensitive area.

After land-use approvals are received, the town would sell the municipally owned land and the right to build there to a development firm. The EDC proposes the project to broaden the municipal tax base and to create jobs.

EDC Chairman Ted Kreinik said that certain deficiencies in mapping for the project, which IWC members had cited as reasons for the initial application’s rejection, have already been corrected.

EDC members discussed at length another of the IWC’s more complex reasons for rejecting the initial application.

The text reads: “The applicant has not provided sufficient information on the impacts of the proposed regulated activity on wetlands or watercourses outside the area for which the activity is proposed and future activities associated with or reasonably related to the proposed regulated activity which are made inevitable by the proposed regulated activity and which may have an impact on wetlands and watercourses.”

EDC members discussed the meaning of that passage and how they should respond to it in a new application.

“I’m not sure why [IWC members] concluded the way they did,” said Town Attorney David Grogins.

The initial application’s shortcomings could be rectified by the EDC’s environmental consultant or by another consultant, Mr Grogins said.

Mr Grogins said that the EDC’s consultant had concluded that if no development occurred on a reserved section of the site, there would be no adverse environmental effects on the nearby environmentally sensitive Deep Brook. However, if that reserved section were developed, there probably would be significant adverse effects on Deep Brook, the lawyer added.

The technology park project has been proposed for a 41.8-acre town-owned site, where 23.2 acres on the western side of the property would be developed, and 18.6 acres on the eastern side would be left undeveloped.

About 37 acres of the 41.8-acre site were given by the state to the town for local economic development. The town purchased the other five acres of the site nearest to Commerce Road about 15 years ago.

A 1,550-foot-long access road leading to the site would intersect with the western side of Commerce Road, across Commerce Road from the Charter Communications property. The town site extends down a slope toward the municipal sewage treatment plant.

Plans for the industrial development project have been in the formative stages since 2004.

Conservation Commission members have urged restraint in the site’s development, noting its proximity to the environmentally sensitive Deep Brook, a trout stream that is a tributary of the Pootatuck River. A section of Deep Brook is a state-designated wild trout management area.

Elizabeth Stocker, town director of economic and community development, noted that the site is currently being farmed, adding that farming would be allowed to continue on the 18.6-acre eastern section of the site that would be undeveloped land.

EDC member Wes Thompson asked whether the reserved area of the site could have a conservation easement placed upon it to restrict activities there.

 “We won’t get anywhere by poking each other in the eye,” Mr Thompson said of continuing conflict among town agencies over the future uses of the land. There should be a cooperative spirit among town agencies, he added.

Mr Grogins suggested that the future use of the undeveloped property be placed under the management of the Board of Selectmen.

Mr Kreinik noted that in its initial application to the IWC for the technology park, the EDC did not address the future potential uses of the 18.6-acre eastern section of the property because the EDC does not now have any specific plans for that land.

When the IWC rejected the technology park application on September 8, IWC Chairman Anne Peters encouraged the EDC to reapply to the IWC with revised plans.

Ms Peters also said she would want to know about the EDC’s future intended uses for the 18.6 acres on the eastern side of the site. EDC members had provided no specific information on the possible future use of that area, although IWC members had repeatedly asked for such information.

Mr Grogins observed that one of the IWC’s key reasons for rejecting the initial application apparently is that it lacked information from the EDC on the “holistic” environmental effects that proposed development would have on wetlands and watercourses in the area.

As such, the EDC’s environmental consultant should revise his report, as needed, to broaden its scope, Mr Grogins said. Such a revision would clarify the issues at hand, he said.

Through an application to the IWC, the EDC would seek a wetlands/watercourses environmental protection permit. The project also would require wetlands review by the US Army Corps of Engineers, as well as review by the town Planning and Zoning Commission.