Date: Fri 24-Sep-1999

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

Volpe-Conservation

Full Text:

Volpe Submits Building Application A Third Time

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

In a third attempt to develop a piece of commercial real estate in the town's

Aquifer Protection District (APD), a local businesswoman has submitted a

proposal for a retail/office building at 224 South Main Street, just north of

Sand Hill Plaza.

In development plans submitted for Conservation Commission review, Judith

Volpe is seeking a wetlands construction permit to build a two-level

6,000-square-foot building and 35 adjacent parking spaces on the property next

to Bryan Lane.

The development plans are much less intensive than two previous development

proposals which were both rejected by the Conservation Commission, said

Conservation Official C. Stephen Driver.

After the commission rejected her second development proposal for the 1.7-acre

site for environmental reasons last March, Ms Volpe sued the commission,

seeking to have a judge overturn its rejection of that development proposal.

In January 1998, commission members had turned down an initial, more intensive

version of the development proposal, citing environmental concerns, including

the extent of earth moving needed to develop the property, plus its proximity

to the Pootatuck River and to the wellhead for United Water, the public

utility company that supplies drinking water to more than 1,100 addresses in

Newtown. Commission members then suggested that the plans be scaled down to

reduce environmental risks.

In scaling down the project, the current proposal calls for a

6,000-square-foot building and 35 parking spaces, compared to the previous

plan which proposed an approximately 9,500-square-foot building and 53 parking

spaces, Mr Driver said. Also, the current proposal would not contain Avance

Esthetiques, a day spa now operated by Ms Volpe at Sand Hill Plaza, he said.

The presence of a day spa at the site had become an environmental issue in the

previous applications in light of the various toxic chemicals that would be

handled on the site which is in the APD near the water company's water supply

wells.

"It's a dramatic improvement," Mr Driver said of the current proposal which

would be a less intensive development of the property. The proposed building

would be much smaller and there would fewer parking spaces, he said. There

would be less earth moving on the site and a septic system would be positioned

farther away from the Pootatuck River than in past proposals, he said. Also,

earth moved on the site would be left on the property instead of being taken

away, he added.

Also, because there would be no day spa on the property, there is no need for

holding tanks for toxic chemicals, he said.

United Water has withdrawn its objections to Ms Volpe developing the property.

In rejecting the second development proposal last March, commission members

noted that United Water was concerned the proposed development would pose

pollution dangers to its wellhead, which is 200 feet away, as well as pose

hazards to the stability of the Pootatuck River. The water company asked that

the commission deny the previous application.

The Conservation Commission is expected to review the development application

at an upcoming session.

If the proposal gains Conservation Commission support, it would be subject to

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) review.