IWC Rejects

Tech Park

By Andrew Gorosko

Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) members this week again rejected a proposal from the Economic Development Commission (EDC) for Newtown Technology Park, an industrial condominium complex proposed for an environmentally sensitive, town-owned site off Commerce Road.

IWC members rejected the application in 5-to-1 vote at a February 23 session. Voting to reject the project were Chairman Anne Peters, Mary Curran, Edward Bryan, Philip Kotch, and Sharon Salling. Member Katja Pieragostini dissented.

Some IWC members acknowledged that the latest proposal for the industrial park has better environmental protection features than previous versions of the project, but apparently those improvements were insufficient to warrant an approval by a majority of the members voting.

Last September, the IWC unanimously rejected an earlier version of the industrial park project, after which the EDC modified its proposal and submitted a new application.

The proposal rejected by the IWC on February 23 involved an approximately 41.7-acre parcel where much land would be left undeveloped. The proposed six-building complex would contain an aggregate of approximately 100,000 square feet of enclosed floor space. The project has been in the planning stages since 2004. The town acquired land along Commerce Road in 1995 to provide road frontage for access to the site, which was given to the town by the state for economic development.

Conservation Commission members have urged restraint in the site’s development, noting its proximity to the environmentally sensitive Deep Brook, a trout stream that is a tributary of the Pootatuck River. A section of Deep Brook is a state-designated wild trout management area.

Ms Curran said the latest application reflects an improved plan for the site. “But I have some real concerns,” she added. The proposal would involve intensive development, but does not indicate enough specific protection features for wetlands, she said. “I just think there’s not enough protection of these wetlands overall,” she said.

Dr Kotch said that the proposed structure known as Building #1 would stand too close to wetlands from an environmental protection standpoint. The proposed development does not contain enough environmental buffer space between buildings and wetlands, he added.

“I just feel that the [development] impact would be damaging to the wetlands,” he said.

However, Ms Pieragostini said the latest design of the proposal is better than the project that the IWC rejected last September. When open space areas and easement areas are calculated, a majority of the site would be protected from development, she said in supporting the application.

Ms Salling noted that design improvements had been made, but the plans still contain some environmental problems. “It’s very complex,” she said.

“The application has come a long way,” Ms Peters said. But, she added, “I’m still not comfortable with Building #1…This is a very intense development of the parcel.”

Dr Kotch said that during his decade as an IWC member he does not remember the IWC approving the construction of a structure such as Building #1 in terms of its nearness to wetlands.

Mr Bryan said his biggest concern involved the environmental issues stemming from a road that would cross a stream.

In response to the IWC’s rejection of the application, EDC Chairman Wes Thompson said the action was based on emotional issues.

If Building #1 were to be omitted from the project, the overall project likely would become infeasible, he said.

The proposal which the IWC rejected amounted to the “best compromise” between the interests of economic development and environmental protection that had occurred during seven years of project planning, he said.

Elizabeth Stocker, town director of economic and community development, said, “This may not be a feasible project anymore.” Many compromises had been made by the EDC in the latest version of the proposal, she said.

“It’s very disappointing,” Mr Thompson said, adding that he expected that the project would gain IWC approval in a split vote. He said he would be discussing the implications of the IWC’s action with EDC members.

George Benson, town director of planning and land use, could not be reached for comment before the deadline for this edition of The Bee. Mr Benson had worked with the EDC in fashioning the latest version of the industrial development proposal. 

In its motion to reject the application, IWC members decided that the proposed development would have significant adverse effects on wetlands and watercourses.

In that motion, IWC members cited various specific reasons for rejecting the application.

The project would involve a loss of 13,840 square feet of wetland areas, they found. The placement of an access road across a stream would alter the width and character of a floodplain in that area, they decided. Also, another proposed stream crossing at the site would unnecessarily fragment a wetland corridor, they found.

IWC members also decided that the project lacked adequate environmentally protective buffer areas, resulting in the prospect of damage to soil nutrient cycling and wildlife habitat values within wetlands. 

Also, “the close proximity of the developmental envelope to the wetland resources will also create a situation that will invite future intrusion into the wetland areas,” IWC members decided.