Officials Search For Common Ground On Tech Park Plan

By Kendra Bobowick

Was it fair?

“We were not given the opportunity to respond,” Economic Development Commission Chairman Chet Hopper said this week. Legislative Council members voted 10-2 last week to abruptly drop a nearly $3 million request for technology park funds from the town’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). On the same day, March 5, council Chairman William Rodgers received a memo from Newtown’s Land Use Office airing concerns regarding the tech park’s planning. Also frustrated that he had not seen the memo last week, Mr Hopper stressed, “The memo was not circulated to everyone.”

The communication aired conflicts over the park’s building lot and open space configuration on roughly 70-plus acres off Commerce Road, which prompted Mr Rodgers’ questions, for one. Should the town fund a project that finds the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and the Conservation Commission in conflict? In answer, Mr Rodgers had suggested removing funds until the commissions “come back on the same page.” First Selectman Joe Borst soon followed the chair’s statements, saying, “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.”

Mr Rodgers had also stressed his dire concern that State Representative Julia Wasserman, the one person who had worked to secure the state land for Newtown, was apprehensive about the plans as they stood last week — a blending of roughly 34 acres of open space and 37 acres slated for development. In previous iterations the interwoven parcels were configured as separate areas, which is what she had expected.

Legislative Council member Joseph Hemmingway — accounting for one of the two votes last week against cutting funds — is reeling from the council decision. He had points to make this week.

“The biggest problem I had is the memo is dated the same day of our [March 5] meeting,” he noted. Like Mr Hopper, he said that left no time for a discussion, nor were EDC representatives invited to the meeting. Mr Hopper agreed that Mr Hemingway was the person on the council who said, ‘Why don’t we hear from the EDC?’” He said, “[Mr Hemingway] is right. Let’s hear the other side.” Mr Hopper, said, “We didn’t know the Legislative Council had the idea of taking us off the CIP.”

Posing additional questions of his own, Mr Hemingway asked, “Is the Board of Selectmen against the tech park? Why wait until March 5?” and, “When did the EDC get [the memo]?”

Deputy Land Use Director Rob Sibley has a firm opinion about complaints regarding the timing of his memo, and his response reaches back to the lengthy CIP process. Essentially, EDC members had weeks to discuss or defend their funding request. “Don’t you think they should have spent some time talking about why it’s important to begin with?” he asked. “And they’re saying it’s underhanded that someone questions their funding?” Mr Sibley has his suspicions, he said.

Is the complaint valid that EDC did not receive a copy of the memo before the council meeting? Again referring to the time between 2005 and March 5, 2008, Mr Sibley said, “We have sent letters to the EDC, have had no less than several dozen meetings with them.” His point? Nothing in the recent memo should have been new news to EDC members, he stressed.

Mr Hemingway asks about the Board of Selectmen specifically because as the CIP goes through the town approval process it must first pass with the selectmen before getting to the council. He notes that at the council meeting the first selectman, however, agreed with dropping the tech park funding.

Mr Borst has had different understandings of the tech park that changed his mind March 5. When the selectmen approved the CIP this year before it got to the council last week he said, “No,” he was not aware of the rift between the economic and conservation commissions. Mr Borst had also seen EDC member Kim Danziger’s presentation outlining his commission’s composition of building lots and open space checkering the more than 70 acres.

“I had no problem with that,” he said. But the first selectman now holds a different perspective. “I didn’t know about all the environmental problems created if it was laid out the way they said.” As the council chairman had done last week, Mr Borst also compared the tech park disputes to the similar impasse between the recreation department and seniors regarding sharing a community center — or not. The council had pulled recreation center funding, but once the parties found a common ground, funds were reinstated.

Does enough time remain for the same scenario to unfold for the tech park money? “Maybe not,” Mr Borst said after a pause, indicating too many loose ends to be resolved, including engineers’ reports that he and the EDC are waiting to receive.

A former EDC member, Mr Hemingway said, “I can’t speak for the commission, but a lot of the memo is inaccurate or misleading.” Mr Hopper’s words were almost identical. “Some of the items in the memo were not completely true…” Defending the economic commission this week Mr Hemingway argued against certain remarks.

One portion of the memo states, “Several meetings were held with the Land Use Agency…all of which resulted in requests for modifications to the location of proposed buildings and configuration of open space. All of these requests and suggestions have been ignored…”

“To say economic development is not cooperating is not true,” Mr Hemingway said. He insists they had worked with various town bodies and individuals and “tried” to work with the Conservation Commission. “They wouldn’t bend,” he said. The EDC “has redone plans,” Mr Hemingway said.

Despite the sparks of irritation on either side of the tech park dispute, officials acknowledged that they need to find a compromise.

Mr Borst is in a hurry to have a meeting with Town Planner and Director of Community Development Elizabeth Stocker, Land Use Director George Benson and Mr Sibley, Mr Hopper, and “anyone else,” to review “all layouts and hopefully come to an amicable compromise.” He would like this meeting to take place before the end of March.

“We have got to get off the dime here and get moving,” he said. He wants what is best for Newtown, “That’s all I care about,” he said. Mr Borst also wants environmental concerns “squared away.”

He warned, however, “If we can’t come to an amicable solution, then I go with [Mrs Wasserman’s] idea.” She had made clear that she would rather go back to the original plans of 34 acres of open space and 37 for development, period, no rearranging of space. She wants the clear separation of the parcels.

Mr Borst said, “I hope it doesn’t come to that.”

What if the parcels revert back to the originally designated 37 and 34 acres? Mr Sibley was quick to say he would favor this alternative. Aware that wetlands and Deep Brook are issues, he said the development is the problem. “We tell people all the time that a parcel may not be conducive to development.” Why should the EDC be treated differently? “That’s why this all comes back to public process,” Mr Sibley said. “If you have an idea for a parcel and haven’t gone through the process to find out what the public wants — with public land that’s where you’re supposed to be starting.”

In attempts to resolve tech park disagreements, Mr Hopper said Wednesday, “We will get together with various boards…and attempt to reach a solution.” He realizes that the goal is to arrive at a park that is both economically sound and satisfies various conservation objections. With town taxpayers in mind, he said, “We’re trying to find sound/responsible economic development.”

Conservation members met this week and looked at a preliminary slide show, “Protection of the 34 Acres along Deep Brook.” The show, narrated by conservation member Pat Barkman, is “an explanation and communication on the property that we would like to see as open space,” she wrote in an e-mail. “While we have communicated the open space that we recommend to the EDC, we are not sure that others are fully aware of this open space and the reasons for it.”

She hopes to see alternative plans from the EDC in the future, she stated. In line with others’ thoughts toward cooperation, she said, “We are willing to work with them,” but stressed conservation’s job to protect streams, wetlands, aquifers, and meadows that result in pure drinking water.