First Selectman Asks For A Fresh Look At Tech Park

By Kendra Bobowick

A meeting organized by First Selectman Joe Borst Monday afternoon sparked new discussions for a proposed technology park. “We went through a robust discussion; I’ll leave it at that,” he said.

Officials’ clashing opinions about the park’s configuration have stalled park funding in recent weeks, and Monday was the most recent attempt to get conservationists in line with those interested in boosting the economy. Those promoting open space preservation and environmental protection are at odds with development advocates.

Conservation Commission Chairman Joseph Hovious described the meeting by saying, “We had an interesting conversation.”

The conflict was clear to Mr Borst. “Enough of this,” he said following the meeting. “I want it squared away.” Toward that end he left the EDC with one objective Monday: “I requested that EDC use [conservation’s] layout and do what they have to do and come back and tell me if it’s economically feasible.”

Despite his years of work on tech park plans, one member of the EDC has resigned before tackling the first selectman’s directive — firmly underlining tensions surrounding the project. Kim Danziger addressed a letter to “First Selectman Borst” on Monday, March 24. His letter states that he has tendered his resignation “effective immediately.”

Making his feelings clear, he wrote, “Although I am glad to offer my volunteer time to any appreciating party, the animosity and the divisive nature of this Town makes further volunteering of my time nonproductive.” He concludes his resignation with the hope that his replacement to the board is more effective.

At the meeting Monday conservation members provided a tech park map, to which Mr Borst had referred, reflecting their recommendations. The geographic information system (GIS) topography map shows the commission’s “preferred proposed open space” for the parcel, Mr Hovious said.

Does this configuration leave room for an economic advantage? Economic Development Commission Chairman Chet Hopper said, “We don’t know if it can be done. We’re actively studying it right now.” He explained, “We don’t want to saddle the town with something uneconomical. If we do all the Conservation Commission wants would it be economical? We’re trying to reach an agreement.”

Mr Hopper anticipates an answer soon. “I expect we’ll be talking over the next month, and perhaps have an announcement.”

Also at the table were Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Lilla Dean, Economic Development Commission (EDC) members, and Land Use Agency officials. Mr Borst wanted cooperation among parties involved in either advising or voting on how the tech park land will be laid out — or not.

In the past, Conservation Commission members and the EDC had arrived at quite different arrangements of building lots and open space — a problem that became clearer to Mr Borst after he took office as first selectman at the end of 2007. Conservation and economic development members’ primary interests led them to different conclusions about how to use two adjacent parcels off Commerce Road — 34 acres originally slated for open space and 37 acres reserved for building sites in an area between the railroad tracks and Deep Brook. State Representative Julia Wasserman is responsible for creating legislation securing the property from the state. Later amendments softened the hard line dividing the open space and development portions of the land to increase economic potential, with the stipulation that the open space still add up to 34 acres. At this point plans diverged.

Recent EDC drawings did not reflect the distinct separation of open space and commercial sites that conservation members prefer, but showed an intermingling of building lots and open space instead.

Open space should form a buffer along Deep Brook separating the environmentally sensitive water from potential building sites, Mr Hovious stressed. Of course, the EDC is worried about the economic viability of the 37 acres.

In part driving Mr Borst’s request was a recent Legislative Council meeting where a majority of members reacted to the mixed opinions regarding the park by voting $2.8 million in tech park capital improvement requests off the table.

Looking ahead to future tech park planning, Mr Hovious considers whether different groups can work more closely. “I don’t know,” he said. “I hope so.” Commission against commission is “no fun,” he said. “We don’t need that.”

All involved anticipate moving through the proper approval process and eventual public hearings once a design is established.