Conservation Official, Activist Dismayed By Latest Tech Park Proposal

By John Voket

A recent initiative seeking to maximize economic development potential at the proposed Newtown Technology Park development off Commerce Road is coming under fire from conservationists who claim a worst case scenario buildout could risk “irreparable and irreversible damage,” to the adjacent Deep Brook. During an informal meeting with Newtown’s Conservation Official, members of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), and the town community development representative, plans were presented illustrating what is described as “maximum utilization of the lot.”

The latest plan varies significantly from the previous proposal in that the “maximum utilization” stretches the largest developable parcel to an uncomfortably close proximity to Newtown’s prized natural trout breeding area in Deep Brook, a tributary of the Pootatuck River bordering the north side of the tech park parcel. When the land was originally obtained for the town from the state, the land configuration was almost equally split down the middle with the easternmost parcel allocated for protected open space, and the western segment for economic development.

Subsequently, a revision of the original conveyance was sought and approved earlier this year, giving the town permission to alter the original configuration to maximize both the developable potential of the commercial parcel while creating the maximum environmental buffer between the tech park development parcels and Deep Brook. Opposition has arisen since that interim configuration gave way to a final proposal nudging the largest potential development parcel’s northernmost encroachment to less than 100 feet of the brook, on an elevation that Conservation Official Rob Sibley believes could be compromised by an extreme weather event or other occurrence.

Mr Sibley contends that if that northernmost parcel is developed as proposed, any compromising of the soil filling the parcel to level it for development could create a landslide that could overrun a drainage swale, in effect creating a dam across the pristine trout stream.

While the EDC, which is the approved development agency for the tech park, claims that “the actual development will be based on the needs of the purchasers,” and Community Development Director Elizabeth Stocker admits there are no current prospects seeking space in the park, Mr Sibley and the president of the Candlewood Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited and the newly formed Pootatuck Watershed Association are uncomfortable with granting advanced approvals for the maximum potential build out.

Newtown resident James Belden, who leads the grass roots organizations, contends in a written statement to The Bee that the plan pursues unfettered development of an area of important public value and environmental importance.

“It is shocking that after initial input on development scenarios by stakeholders, leading to an effort to revamp the plan by EDC and legislators, a plan that is worse than the original has been drafted,” Mr Belden wrote. “Nearly every concern over water quality, open space and lot configuration has been exacerbated under the new plan. A project that addressed all concerns and truly benefited Newtown could garner cooperation; however the current path is one of noncooperation and utter folly.”

r Belden said that he is not only concerned with potential soil erosion and runoff, but proposes that runoff itself would flush rainwater directly into Deep Brook before larger flows arrive and will result in maximum temperature impact on stream.

“It would be all pavement, all curbed, basically designed for maximum bad impact of storm water. Erosion carries sediment and destroys land and habitat. Overheated runoff raises temperatures, killing trout, while also delivering other contaminants off of pavement, buildings and lawns which damage water quality, aquatic life and recreational use while increasing flash floods and damage,” Mr Belden said.

He suggests that planting more trees could act to help prevent the most extreme and widespread erosion, but Mr Belden also pointed out that the businesses that may eventually populate the tech park will use an unspecified amount of water that will be drawn from the local aquifer which is already being drained at unprecedented levels by development and growth.

“Whether from the pump house at Wasserman Way or from the town water supply, the water will come from the Pootatuck Aquifer,” his memo stated. He added that the development will create visual barriers to an expanse of horizon that currently remains relatively clear of manmade clutter.

“There has been no consideration of public use and value of this property in addition to its impact on local character and viewscapes,” Mr Belden wrote. “Imagine the impact of the vehicles utilizing those 1,000 parking spaces and the associated noise pollution and visual impact of one- and two-story buildings between 10,000 and 50,000 square feet.”

Ms Stocker said that while an interim proposal did illustrate a somewhat broader buffer between the northernmost development parcel and the brook, this plan, if approved, would only be in place to provide for maximum potential.

“We would always do everything possible to minimize environmental exposures to Deep Brook, but we need to be able to show the broadest possible application for economic development,” she said. In recent months, residents and special interests have been clamoring for the town to aggressively seek to enhance commercial economic developments to offset the residential tax base.

But Mr Sibley said he has had issues with the entire tech park development from the start, and remains “very unhappy with the way this is going.

“The former environmental buffer is now the storm water catchment,” he told The Bee in an interview late last week. “And since there are no tenants expressing interest, we don’t know who to plan for so the EDC is requesting preliminary approvals for the most sweeping potential development.”

Instead of adjusting the configuration to bring the largest parcel in such close proximity to the trout stream, Mr Sibley suggests putting the open space where it works best to protect natural resources. In an October 30 memo to the town, Mr Sibley wrote that “no construction related activity may occur on this site unless previously approved.” After suggesting the EDC be prepared to present numerous pieces of documentation including an independent soil test prior to beginning work at the site, he concludes that, “this area may not be suitable for development of this intensity.”