Time To Resolve The Tech Park Dispute

Ten months ago, we outlined in this space the conflict between the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and local environmental groups over the EDC’s proposal to develop a 42-acre technology park off Commerce Road. Since that time, not much has changed.

 In 2006, the commission successfully petitioned the legislature to allow the town to reconfigure 34 acres of adjacent open space in such a way to allow “maximum utilization of the [tech park] lot.” Much of the rejiggered open space was incorporated into the tech park in long fingers reaching between buildings, becoming, in effect, enhanced landscaping between the commercial lots. This alarmed conservationists, including members of the town’s Conservation Commission, who were concerned more about the integrity of the environmentally sensitive Deep Brook just down the hill than they were about landscaping and commercial maximization. The challenge, we noted at the time, was not so much to reach a compromise between the EDC and conservationists as it was to come up with a plan that would serve as a model to other developers of how to execute a commercial development that brooked no compromise of the integrity of the surrounding environment. That challenge remains unmet, and the two sides in this conflict are no closer to a resolution.

Somehow, the EDC is confident enough in its position to be marketing on its website a technology park that “involves 76 acres of land” near Exit 10 on I-84. Apparently, the town’s open space is no longer a separate entity — the original 42-acre park and the 34 acres of open space are now conflated as part and parcel of the EDC’s commercial marketing plan. We must ask: Who, if anyone, has authorized this initiative other than the EDC itself? Isn’t it a little early to be marketing an unauthorized plan?

Both the EDC and the Conservation Commission are appointed advisory groups that make recommendations to the appropriate officials, boards, and agencies. Once the tech park is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission (which has yet to see an application for a review of the project), the EDC may or may not be authorized to serve as a development authority with augmented powers, but it is by no means a policymaking board for the town. It is time for both the Conservation Commission and the EDC to move their dispute up the chain of command for a resolution.

The policy question of where, literally, to draw the line for environmental protection in a town-sponsored project should be addressed and answered by the appropriate policymaking entity, the Legislative Council, based on recommendations from the EDC and conservationists. The first selectman also has a role in mediating the dispute and presenting the relevant issues to the council. To avoid many more months of stalemate, the council needs to review and settle the issue in a way that sets an example for all other commercial developers in Newtown. Council members voted this week to remove $6 million from the town’s capital improvement plan earmarked for the development of the tech park, slowing things down and buying time for a thorough review of the issue. That’s a good start. The land use agencies can decide what is allowable in a tech park, but it is up to the council, and ultimately the people of Newtown, to determine what kind of development reflects the best interests of the town.