Tech Park: Battleground

Or Land Of Opportunity?

By Kendra Bobowick

A withered garnish of last season’s vegetation clings to more than 70 acres of contentious ground in the heart of town. At the moment the brush-filled area is free of development, but blue prints for a proposed technology park indicate coming changes — or they did.

Wednesday evening, with a 10-2 vote, the Legislative Council members crossed off funding requests for nearly $3 million in capital improvement requests over a five-year period to fund tech park developments.

A conversation and a memo spurred council Chairman William Rodgers’ decision to raise the issue with the full board Wednesday. Simply, he does not like what he has heard in the past few days from the land use office or from State Representative Julia Wasserman; officials are in at an impasse regarding how to develop the land. At odds are the Economic Development Commission and the Conservation Commission, where members’ appeals for open space and commercial subdivisions clash.

“My personal feeling…given that people aren’t of one mind — the consideration is whether we send the same message that was sent to the seniors and [Parks and Recreation Commission] and take out the money until they come back on the same page.” Seniors and recreation officials could not come to an agreement on whether the two could share space in a recreation/community center. Funds for the project recently were in jeopardy before the council forced an answer from the groups.

Before the council slashed the tech park’s funding, Mr Rodgers described the dire impressions he received from Ms Wasserman. “It’s my understanding that…she is of a mind to ask the legislature to take the land back — that’s cause for me to have concern.” In fact, earlier that week Ms Wasserman noted that the way the open space and buildings lots were arranged was no longer “in the spirit” of open space.

She told The Bee that, “If I had my druthers, I’d say go back to the original parcels.” Although she helped secure for the town separate parcels designated for open space and development, respectively, in early 2003, she agreed to accommodate the economic commission’s request for changes in 2005.

At that point objectives for handling the land went separate ways. Now, in 2008, Land Use Agency officials are speaking up. Mr Rodgers received a memo from the town’s Land Use Director George Benson and Deputy Director Rob Sibley that closed by stating, “Before allocating funds for a proposed project, there should be a development plan acceptable to someone other than [the Economic Development Commission].” The memo notes that no public process has occurred regarding the tech park. And lastly, the memo explains, “The Land Use Agency through the review process helps determine the suitability of a parcel for the proposed activity; the suitability of this specific property for the proposed development has yet to be determined.”

Summarizing the memo’s requests, Mr Rodgers concluded, “I’d ask for consideration when we get to acting on these things.” No funds will be earmarked for the tech park until the EDC and land use officials can come up with a comprehensive and cooperative plan to move forward, according to the council chairman.

Council members also heard First Selectman Joseph Borst, who commented, “As far as EDC, they have developed a layout with both parcels and the Conservation Commission is concerned because it’s close to [Deep Brook].” Backing the council chair’s opinion, Mr Borst said, “I want to get this straightened out. And I don’t disagree with the chair to pull it from the CIP if that’s what it takes.”

Although the council voted 10-2, member Chris Lyddy and Joseph Hemingway voted against the funding removal. Mr Hemingway previously served on the Economic Development Commission including a time when members considered the tech park. He stressed that the council ought to hear the EDC’s side of the story.

 

What’s The Story?

Redefining the lay of the land off Commerce Road and bordering Deep Brook has unfolded in a years-long debate between the advantages of development versus conservation. Officials cannot agree on how best to incorporate both features into a tech park that will be both economically beneficial to town and satisfy environmental perspectives.

Land Use Agency Deputy Director for Conservation Rob Sibley threw a spotlight on conflicts this week.

Alarms blared when he noted a roughly $2.8 million request for the technology park in the town’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Abandoning the diplomatic approach he had clung to in recent years, Mr Sibley confirmed, “We’re intervening with their CIP request,” he said. Days later Mr Rodgers read the land use memo to the 12 council members.

Why?

“We can’t all of a sudden say okay to [nearly $3 million],” he said. “Land use right now has issues with the plans…” He has a problem with money designated for plans that have not passed before commissions including Planning and Zoning (P&Z), for example.

“In good conscience — no more money spent on this. It isn’t a grant, it’s townspeople’s money,” Mr Sibley said. Setting aside the environmentally sensitive banks of Deep Brook, wetlands, and open space concerns, he wants to know what happened to residents’ chance to “chime in.”

“We should have the tech park as a public process,” he said.

Neither the public nor P&Z have approved the most recent preliminary configuration — a shuffling of open space and land slated for economic development that have the Conservation Commission and Economic Development Commission (EDC) at odds.

Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Lilla Dean has spoken with the economic development commissioners in the past few years, walked the property, and is familiar with the shuffling and reshuffling of open space and building sites for the more than 70-acre stretch.

Has her commission received a formal application? “No,” she said. The P&Z commissioners would need the application as part of the process for development.

“At this moment we have nothing,” she said, noting that her position was awkward. Without anything more than preliminary plans, she has nothing formal to look at to decide if she favors a tech park or not.

She is familiar with one tech park/open space proposal in particular among the several proposals to emerge in past years. With Ms Wasserman’s help, the state initially conveyed two pieces of land at roughly 34 acres and 37 acres apiece that were designated individually as either open space or for development. A subsequent change in plans saw the side-by-side parcels bordering Deep Brook realign — the open space stretched protectively along Deep Brook with development parcels up above.

Those plans are the configuration Ms Dean remembers. “We looked at the plans that went in a swath along the river,” she said. Although the Planning and Zoning Commission made recommendations, she does not know if the economic commissioners took zoning’s advice.

“With no applications, we can’t say if they took it to heart,” she said.

Plans in yet another version display the approximate 70-plus acres with building lots dispersed over the area, and open space meandering throughout the subdivision.

How did two separate conveyances from the state — one for development and another for open space — become the preliminary plans as they now stand?

The answer uncovers frustrations that have left no one at peace. Land use, selectmen, conservationists, EDC members, and sadly, the person at the root of securing the land for Newtown. It is her bailiwick, Ms Wasserman said Monday.

Sitting quietly with her pen scratching across paper, she illustrated her version of the tech park story, putting pencil to paper beginning with a slash across the page to indicate Deep Brook, then drawing two side-by-side rectangular shapes alongside the water.

She notes the 34 acres designated for open space, and another 37 set aside for economic development. Noting the designations, she stressed that legislation, which was drafted in 2003, specifies the “37.5-acre parcel being sold to the town for economic development…” The other parcel was specified as open space. If Newtown does not use the land for “said purposes…the parcel shall revert back to the state.” Problems began with that division in particular.

Wednesday, Economic Development Commission member Kim Danziger explained that it became clear that the 37-plus parcel slated for development “fronts along Deep Brook.” Aware that the brook is among the most environmentally sensitive spots in town, EDC members reasoned that reshaping the open space and development portions of the parcels could leave a preserved tract along Deep Brook with the development property above, and farthest from the water.

The move required new legislations.

Continuing with her thoughts earlier this week, Ms Wasserman picked up the storyline. “EDC came to me and asked if the parcels could be reconstructed.” As she understood from their explanation, wetlands on the development parcel hampered their objective. They suggested another configuration for the parcels.

“They showed me a draft,” Ms Wasserman explained. Her description is of a clear delineation between development and the open space, which would border Deep Brook, she said. If other boards and commissions agreed to the restructuring, she promised to return to the state for amended legislation. She was lukewarm on the idea, however.

“My personal feeling? I wasn’t keen about it.”

New legislation passed in 2005, but the next time Ms Wasserman looked at drafts for a tech park she was unsettled — she was not looking at the “clear delineation” she expected.

“The next thing I knew, I saw a configuration that was a sham to open space,” she said. Recent drawings show building lots spread across the 70-plus acres intermixed with portions of open space.

Regarding the latest proposal, she continued, “It’s absolutely a travesty to the intent of having open space.” She would prefer going back to the original, separate parcels, she insisted. The plans as they are now disappoint her.

“They’re creating a passageway, not in the spirit of open space as it was given, leaving a beautiful, big parcel open, not a ribbon of something that veers in and out,” she said.

Intervention Needed

Proposing an answer that in a sense came from the council Wednesday, Ms Wasserman suggested other officials step in.

“Maybe the Board of Selectmen needs to intervene,” she said. She was not alone.

Town Planner and Community Development Director Elizabeth Stocker said she has been “trying to do a balancing act.” She said Wednesday afternoon, before the council’s vote, “In my opinion the two boards [EDC and conservation] need to talk to each other.” She again noted the difficulty of balancing needs of the EDC and conservation efforts. She echoed, “I think the first selectman needs to mediate.” Already, he has backed the council’s directive for parties to get “on the same page.”

Mr Danziger offered the economic development’s position, which explains the latest land and building lot arrangement.

After the new legislation passed reworking the open space and development portions of the land, Mr Danziger said, “We had to make a decision about laying out the property.” What the EDC contrived was, in part, hypothetical, preparing environmental precautions that assumed a maximum buildout.

He was clear, however, about the EDC’s directive to its engineer: “At no time did we suggest the project be fully developed. The reason to max it out was, we could assess the total [environmental] impact on the area.”

He also thought business. If EDC could prepare for all the water run-off, drainage, etc, and if all town boards and commissions were “on board” with the maximum plan, he said, “We could sell [the lots] as shovel ready.”

When presenting preliminary designs to groups including the Inlands Wetlands and Conservation Commissions, he said, “We got, ‘wow, that’s a lot of development.’”

He said, “We didn’t disagree, but the one thing the EDC has been from day one is we will not allow this park to be developed if the project has negative impact on the environment — that was rule number one.” He questioned whether the premise has “come back to bite” them. Maybe they had too broad an agenda, he wondered, but, “We took a shot.”

Economically speaking, however, he said, “The tech park needs to work for the town.” Why build something that is not economically productive, he questioned.

Even before the council met Wednesday evening, he agreed that tensions and levels of frustration were a strong current in the tech park process. What does he propose? “We work together rather than against each other,” he said.

Striking the bottom line, he said, “We’ve got two incompatible situations. One equals development; one equals preservation.”

Asking a question that will likely be at the heart of upcoming conversations, Mr Danziger asked, “So what’s the compromise?” With the environment to think about, he said again that the park needs to also be economically feasible.

Also at the heart of the problem are heavy emotions.

While trying to satisfy town regulations, planners have a more difficult objective. He asked, “Have we met emotional conditions? No. And that’s what we have to work out.”

As if he knew Mr Rodgers would ask that the groups get their efforts aligned, Mr Danziger said, “The best we can hope for is a good compromise, an honest dialogue.” He notes that although doing their best, “We haven’t reached a compromise. The environment is more emotional than dollars.”

Explaining the capital improvement plan funds that were temporarily dropped until agreements are reached, he said the funds were “place-holders” for future activity at the park. Roads, drainage, infrastructure are among the goals EDC has in mind to make the park self sufficient, he said.

Then-first selectman Herb Rosenthal, now a member of the Board of Selectmen, has had several years to form firm opinions. “Frankly, I think people have to be reasonable,” he said. Alluding to the conservation and economic boards specifically, he was blunt. “I think some people don’t want development at all.” He insists on a “give-an-take.”

“That’s my perspective. At times the economic Development Commission has moved full steam ahead and [some] Conservation Commission members have said flat-out, ‘I don’t want it developed.’”

Thinking along the lines of other officials, he said, “Someone needs to facilitate a compromise; someone needs to pull the two sides together. The only one who can do that is the first selectman.”

 

Whose Plan Is

This Anyway?

The Conservation Commission is mandated to “advise and regulate the natural resources for the town of Newtown,” according to its description on www.newtown-ct.org. The Economic Development Commission, which is also defined through a link on the town website, was established to “seek and implement orderly and planned economic development while keeping in mind the character of the town.” On August 2, 2006, the Legislative Council also dubbed the EDC as the agency to oversee the tech park development. What does that mean?

According to Mr Danziger, the appointment enables business deals. The EDC can sell properties directly, but not autonomously. “We won’t make decisions by ourselves,” he assured. Explaining the appointment further, he said, “If the town wants to sell a property it has to do so by competitive bid and the agency could make business decisions to make a sale.” Mr Sibley offers a reminder, with taxpayers in mind once again. “This gives them the authority to develop with public input, not independently.” Standing as the development agency is a heavy responsibility, he noted. His position is clear. “The town needs to be a part of this,” he said.

Unfortunately, in Mr Sibley’s opinion, no language exists to define who has the right to configure the space. In black and white terms, he stressed that the Conservation Commission wants to preserve the open space, and the EDC wants viable development.

After several years of frustration and multiple trips back to the drawing board Land Use has begun to raise questions about how to proceed at this point. “The land itself will tell,” Mr Sibley said, with a reminder that proposals must go before P&Z and the Inlands Wetlands Commission for approvals.

www.newtown.org

Marketing has stepped ahead of the approval process, setting Mr Sibley on edge. “At face value, if there are no approvals, how are they marketing this?” he asked.

The parcel is touted on the Economic Development Commission’s website at www.newtown.org, where the narrative states, “The Newtown Technology Park’s strategic location off I-84 offers many significant advantages for business. Its location in beautiful Newtown, Connecticut, provides a perfect balance of business resources and quality of life.

“Nestled midway between Hartford and New York City, your access to major markets, transportation infrastructure and a stable, non-transient regional workforce is second only to the pastoral settings of a classic New England community.”

The website beckons to prospective tenants: “The Park will accommodate various business buildings ranging in size from 8,000 square feet to 60,000 square feet on individual lots that will range in size from two to six acres. The potential of combining lots for larger buildings is also an option.”