The Economic Development Commission held a special meeting on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Center, 3 Primrose Street in Newtown.
Present: Ted Kreinik (Chair), Donald Sharpe, Joseph Humeston, Gino Scarangella, Margaret Oliger and Wes Thompson. Absent: Robert Morey
Also Present: Elizabeth Stocker, Director of Economic and Community Development; David Grogins, Town Attorney; Robert Rau, Volunteer Consultant; one member of the public and two members of the press
Chairman Kreinik called the meeting to order at 7:14 pm.
Acceptance of Minutes: Ms. Oliger moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 21, 2010. Motion seconded. Unanimously carried.
Pubic Participation: None
TECHNOLOGY PARK
Mr. Kreinik informed the Commission that after the denial for the Tech Park application, the Inland Wetlands Commission has asked for updated maps which have now been completed. A memorandum prepared by Bill Carboni, Consultant with Spath Bjorklund, was distributed and reviewed along with the updated maps (attachment A to original minutes.)
Ms. Stocker indicated the area in pink as the wetlands and mitigated wetlands which would have conservation easements. Mr. Humeston asked if Maybrook is the existing rail line bordering the property. Ms. Stocker affirmed that as well that there is a farmer’s path crossing Deep Brook. Mr. Humeston stated that the farmer’s path has deteriorated macadam on it. Mr. Kreinik asked who would manage the area in pink. Ms. Stocker answered that the owner of the condominiums would oversee that area. Attorney Grogins said that the area in pink would be a traditional conservation easement under the Conservation Commission and could not be built on.
Mr. Kreinik asked who would bear the expense of an invasive species on the wetlands. Attorney Grogins stated it would be dependent on the easement and the underlying fee. Mr. Kreinik asked if it would be treated as any other conservation easement and Attorney Grogins answered yes.
Mr. Kreinik told the Commissioners that they needed to determine a lot line. He suggested Inland Wetlands give the Commission a choice of three consultants and EDC would pick one.
Mr. Kreinik stated that there would be no adverse effect to the taxpayers by a delay because the Town has no holding costs. Mr. Humeston asked if there was a time frame with the State since they had deeded the land to the Town for economic development. Attorney Grogins said that if the land is not used for economic development it reverts back to the State. Mr. Humeston asked if the land laying dormant would effect the deed. Attorney Grogins stated that it should not trigger any action by the State.
Mr. Grogins said that the topography of the property and Deep Brook are both a consideration in future plans for the land. He feels that when the upper piece is transferred for the condominiums, that the lower piece should be divided. He said the Inland Wetlands Commission cannot determine lot lines and that the second parcel should be kept under the Town. Mr. Thompson stated that this was what the Commission had already agreed on. The condo owner would maintain the wetlands and now the maps had been corrected. The Commission has addressed the issues the Inland Wetlands Commission had. Ms. Stocker said that the original mapping did not clarify the line. Attorney Grogins stated that the Land Use staff wanted an evaluation of the impact on the entire property that the development of
the condominiums would have. This could be rectified by a review by a consultant. Mr. Thompson feels that the proposed line would have no impact on Deep Brook and that the public is afraid of what will happen to the land that is not in the application. Attorney Grogins said the consultant did not say with utilization there will be zero impact. If there was development on the land, that would be a different issue. Mr. Thompson stated that no one knows that answer. Attorney Grogins stated there could be a significant impact if the land is developed. Mr. Scarangella stated that the green area (not included in the application) is a buffer. If it is ever proposed for development, it would have to be reviewed by all of the Commissions at that time. This should be sufficient. Attorney Grogins said the Commission should consider whether there is any impact in considering the entire parcel. There is a question as to whether
the application was complete. Also to further protect Deep Brook a second conservation easement could be conveyed. He feels the Land Use staff favors this but does not know if the Conservation Commission wants this. He feels EDC should consider this. Mr. Scarangella stated that this sounds like a negotiation, if you give us an easement it will guarantee no development.
Ms. Stocker informed the Commission that all of the land needs maintenance to prevent it from becoming forest land with invasives. Agriculture is considered as economic development and could be continued. There could also be a zone change to agriculture. Mr. Scarangella feels if we have no plans now, it should remain as farmland. If we give the land as an easement, we would never get it back. Attorney Grogins said that it could be declared an easement without giving a conveyance. Instead of a traditional easement, it could be put under the management of the Board of Selectmen. Ms. Oliger stated that Map 6 shows an agriculture swap with the State. This won’t be possible if the land does not belong to the Town. If there is a conservation easement in place,
there is no incentive for the State to agree to a swap. She feels that we would lose leverage. Ms. Stocker replied that the sequence would no easement for now. After a negotiation for a swap, then an easement could be put in place. Attorney Grogins said this should be put in the application. Mr. Sharpe stated that he favors cooperation with other Commissions however, EDC has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers. The EDC does not know if the Land Use staff is in agreement with the Inlands Commission. He feels that it is premature to offer an easement. Mr. Kreinik said that the Conservation Commission is in favor of an agriculture land swap. The EDC needs the backing of all of the Commissions and Boards in negotiating a swap with the State. The State requires a 4-1 ratio in a swap in their favor. He agrees that EDC has fiduciary responsibility. An agriculture swap could result in something beneficial to
the Town. He asked what kind of agriculture would be allowed. Ms. Stocker answered that it is determined by the Department of Agriculture. Attorney Grogins said that the Inland Wetlands Commission wants the consultant to clarify his report so that it shows the entire parcel has been analyzed. Ms. Stocker told the Commission that the consultant’s reports are on-line under the Tech Park information. She will contact the Department of Agriculture regarding the land swap.
Mr. Scarangella moved that Mr. Kreinik and Ms. Stocker contact the consultant to determine that the entire parcel designated for economic development is addressed by the report. If complete, the application will be resubmitted. If not complete, the report is to be amended by the consultant. Upon completion, the application will be resubmitted. Motion seconded. Additional comments were made. Mr. Sharpe called the question. Unanimously approved.
There being no further business, Mr. Humeston moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:36 pm. Motion seconded. Unanimously approved.
Mary Kelley, Clerk
| 
