1
Conservation Commission
FINAL APPROVED MINUTES
Regular Meeting
April 24, 2007, 6:00 p.m.
31 Pecks Lane, Newtown, Connecticut
Commissioners Present: Hovious, Barkman, Ferguson, Cramer, Kaley.
Staff Present: Rob Sibley, Conservation Official
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive session to discuss potential purchases of properties convened at 5:15 p.m. and adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
The public hearing was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
I. Public Participation
Guests attended to make a presentation
II. Old Business
1. Commerce Road Economic Development and Open Space Discussion
Commissioner Hovious introduced Mr. Kim Danziger of the Economic Development Commission (EDC).
Mr. Danziger, from the EDC, updated the Commission on the current status of the Commerce Road project. The plans developed by the EDC must meet certain conditions and consider many views as presented by people and organizations within the town. The intensity of the development was driven by economic factors. The EDC is aware of the sensitivity of the property with public concerns of esthetics, traffic, etc.
Mr. Danziger stated that the EDC based their subdivision on recommendations by the Board of Selectman, Legislative Council, Public Works and Engineering. The original project had 11 lots with a very simple road structure and minor wetlands crossings. From an economic standpoint, the project would have brought in the most revenue. The Board of Selectman stated it was unacceptable and asked the EDC to rework the roads to include preparations to incorporate a potential future road connection to Wasserman Way.
The EDC had two substantial wetlands crossings involved. The alternatives were to go before the Corp. of Engineers to develop culverts or put in bridges to minimize foot prints and reduce impact to less than 5,000 sq ft of the wetlands. This ran into issues with public works and engineering who were concerned about maintenance and future potential bridge replacements.
Commissioner Cramer asked where this potential road would be. Mr. Danziger confirmed this is not in any immediate plan, but a future easement may allow a road to enter onto Wasserman Way, across from Nunnawauk Road. She also asked if they considered centralized parking, a shuttle or other form of transportation. Mr. Danziger said that other alternatives were discussed, but the parcel is more ideally suited for a tech park.
Commissioner Ferguson asked what changes have occurred in the plans since its inception. Mr. Danziger answered that the changes reflect grading and handling of water run-off.
Mr. Danziger stated they were looking for approximately $1 million net on the sale of the lots, and an approximate $2 to $4 million in tax revenue from the project.
Commissioner Hovious asked the public for comments.
Julia Wasserman, State Representative for 106th District, stated for the record that she has not been approached by, nor made any effort to approach, any member of this Commission on this issue. She reviewed the history of the parcel: Legislation passed 10 years ago where the town could lease 37.54 acres of property for 99 years for $1.00. In 2004 it was decided that the property would be given to the town. It was then designated to be used for a commercial site otherwise it would revert back to the State. The second parcel is 34.44 acres to the south, which was conveyed through legislation that was introduced to the town in 2003 as a Special Act 03-19 and is referred to in Section 16 to be used strictly for open space and recreation. In
2005, Mr. Danziger approached Rep. Wasserman to seek help in reconfiguring the two parcels. There were many questions raised by legislators and by the property’s review board. She wants to make sure the open space designation complies with the state and legislative’s original intent. There can be no change in the numbers of the utilization in the original two parcels.
Mr. Sibley wanted to recap and clarify issues. In the original access for ownership, the development was proposed showing a driveway coming off of Commerce Drive which would have required the purchase of additional property. There was no legal access and it was completely a theory. If the land would become available it would be purchased for that original subdivision. He does not consider that an original alternative and wasn’t aware of an agreement being entered to purchase the property. He was not sure whether sidewalks were discussed with the Inland Wetlands Commission, only that impervious surfaces would be avoided. It was good they were going to require each lot to have an aquifer protection assessment review, since it was required
under the regulations.
He stated the project has incredible potential for all aspects of the town, for economic development, for transportation, for preservation of natural resources and historical resources. He feels the EDC has been given a difficult task because the avenues of this process have never been done before. This is a unique project and understands some of the pitfalls that go along with it. There are two letters placed on the record.
The first letter is an answer to Liz Stocker’s request for Mr. Sibley’s opinion on recommendations for environmental reviews. The second letter/memo, dated October 30, 2006, is a formal pre-site review. Mr. Sibley noted at the bottom of the memo “This area may not be suitable for development of this intensity” which sums up the atmosphere that surrounds this project. He feels the commission’s responsibility should be carried to the highest level and hopes a marriage of understanding can exist between the Conservation Commission’s responsibility of conservation and EDC’s responsibility for economic development.
Commissioner Hovious stated that the Conservation Commission has been very concerned with how the 34+ acres of open space suddenly got divided up. He feels the EDC has taken on the responsibility of deciding open space, when it is the Conservation Commission’s responsibility to do so. He was concerned of where to voice the Commission’s input into the process, whether it’s the Board of Selectman, etc.
Mr. Danzinger stated there were five alternative plans presented to the Board of Selectman and that the current plan was chosen by them. He noted the EDC used the 2004 Planning & Conservation Development as a guide to develop these plans and feels the Conservation Commission has been generous with their comments. He stated that based on the Zoning and Inland Wetland Regulations and on what the town currently allows, this is the subdivision that is allowed to be built in the town.
Commissioner Hovious stated the Conservation Commission is an advisory group and that it advises against water treatment structures in open space. The Conservation Commission will continue to support this, whether it is discussed with the Board of Selectman or as testimony in front of Planning & Zoning.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that although the EDC has heard the Conservation Commission, they have not listened nor modified the plans in any significant way. The Commission will have to do what they are charged to do. He has seen no evidence of willingness by the EDC to listen to the Conservation Commission.
Commissioner Cramer stated that although the EDC has determined the correct amount of open space, they have lacked regard for quality of the open space plan.
Mr. Danziger reaffirmed that the EDC has no personal vested interest in the development of the land.
Mr. Sibley asked Mr. Danziger if the commission can get a formal letter from EDC inviting them to a specific meeting date. Mr. Danziger will propose a couple of dates that will be sent via e-mail.
Commissioner Hovious reaffirmed past frustrations with the EDC’s lack of working with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Danziger stated that although the EDC has based their plans on what the town allows, he agrees that the Conservation Commission is empowered to state their recommendations.
Commissioner Hovious wanted a confirmation that the Conservation Commission is invited to send representatives to sit on a steering group meeting.
Recommendation on the Newbrook Subdivision
Commissioners Hovious and Wilson worked as a subgroup to provide recommendations for the Newbrook subdivision. The drainage structure was taken out of the open space and the requirement for size on contiguous open space was met. The subgroup provides the following additional recommendations: Pedestrian access would have to be granted along the road with an easement to reach the open space through Lot #4. The ten foot narrow piece along the right hand side should have a trail easement of 25 feet added along Lots #3 & #4. A trail, with bog bridges, would be installed and marked with iron pins and open space markers. Access for both pedestrian and equestrians should be granted. Any grading done in open space should be replanted with grasses, trees and shrubs and the
steep area should be stabilized to facilitate a trail for walking. Access to the Open Space will be from the road going into Newbrook. The retention basin is in the town right-of-way. Commissioner Cramer motioned to accept the recommendations on the Newbrook property as determined by the subcommittee. The motion was seconded. Motion carried.
Iroquois Gas Transmission Meeting
Mr. Sibley attended the meeting where Iroquois presented a pre (pre) application for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They provided aerial maps, reasons for proposals and environmental reports for each location. The Land Use office was given information for public access. The Conservation Commission’s role is to provide educational support to the public during this process.
New Business
O’Neil Subdivision – Referral for a re-split of an existing subdivision. Re-subdivision does not require additional open space if the original subdivision met the 15% allocation. The new proposal is to break a single lot into two lots. One having access off of Stonegate Drive and the other continuing it’s access off of Fox Hollow. Mr. Sibley read a letter he wrote to Bill O’Neil, Chairman of P & Z, dated April 18th, 2006, regarding his recommendations on the re-subdivision. Motion to accept plans as presented. No additional open space is required. Motion carried.
Educational Sub-Committee – May 19th Kids Day America International activity proposed for Sandy Hook school. Various organizations have been asked to help. The Conservation Commission can help the children by setting up a table at the event or distributing information. The educational sub-committee can work on a program to promote conservation.
Meeting Minutes Approval tabled – Ms. Wilkin is not in attendance.
| 
