To the Editor:

I have served as a volunteer on the Economic Development Commission since 2018.

The Commission was tasked with evaluating potential developers for the property at 6 Commerce. We set about that task in good faith. The property was deeded to the town with a requirement that it be used for economic development. The parcel had been for sale for many years and has been considered for many uses: tech park, warehousing, residential lots, etc. In 2019 the Commission received several proposals for the property. We put forward a proposal to the selectmen to consider a bid for active senior housing. We felt the developer had come up with good use of the property that would add to the tax base, fulfill the States’ economic development requirement and fit well with the neighboring property that was gifted for an animal sanctuary. In addition, the proposal that the Commission selected would add to our badly needed inventory of senior housing options. Our role as advisors ended once we put forward the proposal. As with any building project, the developer had to go through a significant review process with Town departments.

The Commission was not part of the review process and did not offer any opinions or information. As a group we were interested in staying informed about the development as it went through various Town departments. Thus we had 6 Commerce as an agenda item.

As the developer completed feasibility studies he found significant ledge and could not accomplish the initial design. As a result the plan changed. The Commission was not apprised of the new plan because our role was over. The EDC volunteer commission is now being vilified by members of the community. It may be determined in hindsight that we were not correct in serving as advisory agents. But we served in good faith every step of the way to accomplish a task we were given. The Commission took into consideration that senior housing is an ongoing need, that our tax base needs to grow, and that we are required to use the property for economic development. We considered that senior housing would have the least adverse impact on the neighboring properties. I feel saddened that people who work hard and give generously of their time to better the community are so easily vilified and cast as bad guys.

Barbara Snyder

Newtown