Commission Wants Professionals To Help Tout Tech Park Plans

By Kendra Bobowick

Economic Development Commission member Monte Frank spoke the magic words: “I suggest we hire someone to do the work for us.”

After sitting through technology park discussions without hearing anything new Tuesday night regarding solutions to arguments against the EDC proposals for ten-, or nine-, or possibly a six-lot subdivision afloat for more than a year, Mr Monte said, “I’m concerned we’ll never get beyond revisiting this discussion.”

The commission ultimately agreed and moved to request a change order for ongoing town work with Planimetrics, a firm already engaged in projects for Newtown. The commission wants to ask them, essentially, to take the commission’s work and information (“thousands of pages,” member Ted Kreinik later explained) and prepare a timely presentation for review. “Then, we have a plan to take to the town,” Mr Frank concluded.

Running through a list of studies and reports the commission has already completed, Chairman Chet Hopper said, “We have all the information, we just need a clear presentation.”

Agreeing, Mr Kreinik said, “Someone who can pull it together.”

Mr Hopper added, “We need a professional.”

With a few concurring nods around the meeting table, Director of Economic and Community Development Elizabeth Stocker suggested Planimetrics. After minutes of discussion, Mr Hopper interrupted, “We all seem in agreement, I think we should have a motion…” The idea quickly found support, and Wednesday Ms Stocker was at work to contact Planimetrics. Arguing that this was not lack of energy, effort, or wherewithal, Mr Hopper stressed that time, for one, was a problem for the commission, as are the conversations that start and stop at intervals from one monthly meeting to the next. In part, the decision is about expedience, Mr Kreinik agreed.

Ultimately, members envision that the presentation will go before the Conservation, Planning and Zoning, and Inlands Wetlands Commissions and residents alike. “This is a town project,” Mr Hopper explained. Speculating, member Mitch Bolinsky observed, “The end result might be a multi-commissioned task force to move the project forward.”

While the EDC created a host of park configurations, roughly one year ago the Conservation Commission rejected and complained about the plan’s insensitivity to environmental matters. In the spring, the town’s Land Use Agency also became alarmed when the EDC sought capital funding for tech park plans that had not yet been finalized or found other commissions’ support. Would plans even find zoning or open space approvals, land use officials questioned?

Soon after, the first selectman issued a directive for the groups involved to “get on the same page.” Land use officials then worked with the architect that had been working previously with the EDC and came up with a six-lot, hypothetical version of a tech park. Mr Hopper’s commission then faced the task of determining the six-lot feasibility. Was it economically viable? Before arriving at an answer by a deadline imposed by First Selectmen Joe Borst, the commission met this Tuesday when they changed course and turned to Planimetrics.

The Park And The Problems

Along what many see as Newtown’s most sensitive environmental nerve, Deep Brook, thoughts of developing the land met heavy resistance despite the EDC’s stated commitment to preserve the environment and the brook especially. The waterway sits below the fields at the end of Commerce Road, where the state has given the town more than 70 acres for both open space and development uses.

Many conservation-minded residents cringe when the words environment and development fall too closely together. At the same time, as resident and Clean Energy Task Force Chairman Dan Holmes told the commission this week, development is necessary, but needs to be done right. The EDC heard the warnings from Mr Holmes, and soon after from one of its own members that current plans would not work.

Tuesday, Mr Holmes spoke as a private citizen, stressing, “It’s a huge undertaking. I can imagine the economic concerns and the need for taxes.” While he believes “something should be done” with the site, he spoke of the different ways to approach its development. Regarding plans already on the table, he said, “I think there are a lot of roadblocks for the EDC, and not all of them are environmental.” Arguing against concepts to build a road that would include a bridge over Deep Brook, he said the site was already accessible, and why connect the towns two busiest intersections at Exits 10 and 11 — already congested and considered dangerous traffic spots. “That’s not an easy sell,” he said.

Offering another thought about economic development, he noted, “It could mean solar installations…” Although this concept was not among current thinking, he said, “I understand money was spent on engineering and [environmental] conservation is a battle of battles. I think something can be done, but a lot of people have an opinion … they think [industrial buildings] are a bad idea, and we don’t even know what companies would be coming.”

He again stressed his uncertainties, saying, “I don’t think any of the plans will pass. There is a lot of resistance publicly and politically.” He offered his professional help in doing something different with the land, insisting, “The point is, a lot of people feel the site ought to be used for slightly different applications.” He raised suggestions of open air theaters, concerts, solar panels, and things he feels the town needs.

He advised, “Open lines of communication; we know we need a lower tax base, but maybe [current plans] are not the way to do it.” Speaking about solar and geothermal resources, he offered, “Create our own energy in town, that’s economic development. Let’s get off the grid.” Get the town involved, he urged.

Later in the evening meeting, but before the commission moved to welcome a professional into the dealings, Mr Bolinsky noted the strife over the technology park, making clear his own apprehensions about his commission’s methods. When was the first selectman’s directive to get together with conservation, he asked? “April,” Mr Hopper said. Adding up the months, Mr Bolinsky said, “He has a right to be hot under the collar. Fix the blame where you want, but if [conservation’s] goal is to leave the land the way it is, they have achieved it. It’s up to us to push…”

Mr Hopper noted that they needed to assess wetlands for the most recent six-lot rendition. Ms Stocker was reluctant to apply more money to the tech park project, however. Earlier configurations were based on studies determining useful land versus wetlands, but “we don’t have that for the six-lot,” he explained. “How can we move to accept it?” he asked. Pointedly, Mr Bolinsky asked, “Why are we not meeting with other boards and commissions and letting them know where we are? We can’t present a plan that is unpalatable to them. We should be talking to people.”

“Can we talk if we don’t know if the six-lot is commercially viable?” Mr Hopper replied.

“Good point,” noted Mr Bolinsky. He continued, “But what were we looking at months ago?” Indicating a red line Conservation Commission members had slashed through one park configuration, he asked again, “Have we met with them?”

Mr Hopper answered, “We disagree [with the line]. They had no engineering or topographical reason for it; it was an arbitrary red line.” He repeated that the red line separating development and open space had no factual basis.

“Was there an attempt to compromise?” Mr Bolinsky wondered.

“No,” Mr Hopper said, “That’s true.”

“We need to negotiate,” Mr Bolinsky said. Possibly the park concepts and lot plans will be before commissions and the public sooner than anticipated if Planimetrics LLC assembles the data and turns it into a presentation format. Planimetrics provides planning, zoning, and development consulting services for public agencies and private clients, according to the company website.