 The Economic Development Commission held a special meeting on Tuesday, December 14, 2010, at the Senior Center, 14 Riverside Road, Sandy Hook
Present: Joseph Humeston, Margaret Oliger, Donald Sharpe, Ted Kreinik, Thomas Murtha, Joseph Tarshis, Wes Thompson and Robert Morey
Absent: Gino Scarangella
Also Present: Elizabeth Stocker, Director of ~Economic and Community Development and EDC Consultant Robert Rau
Mr. Kreinik called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
Presentation of Results of Inland Wetlands Commission Meeting The feeling from the people (including, Mr. Thompson, Ms. Stocker, Mr. Sharpe, and Mr. Morey) that attended the meeting was that the IWC does not want any commercial development at the proposed Technology Park site.
Mr. Murtha contributed that he feels that the IWC’s main purpose is to preserve Open Space in Newtown. He felt that the IWC would prefer no development on pristine Tech Park land. Mr. Morey felt that the most important part of the meeting was the rebuttal. Mr. Kreinik stated that the EDC submitted the petition to develop part A in November. At that time the IWC said that there were three problems with the EDC plan which included that there were problems with
parts of the map and close up space that the IWC wanted to know what the plan was for the rest of the land. Mr. Kreinik responded to the IWC that the EDC was only focused on part A, not the rest of the land.
Ms. Stocker and Mr. Benson met between the November and December meetings to discuss a possible land swap with the state’s Department of Agriculture. Such a swap would have to be negotiated with the state and the agriculture department wanted to ensure that the tracts being swapped had similar soils.
Mr. Kreinik said the IWC hired a consultant to review the application but that the EDC was billed for their consultant as well as the EDC’s consultant. Mr. Kreinik spoke with Mr. Benson about this and reported that Mr. Benson said he will propose that the EDC should not pay for the IWC’s consultant.
The IWC needs to respond to the EDC or ask for an extension or a continuance. Mr. Kreinik reported that Mr. Benson would like to see this done by the January 12th meeting. He also said that Mr. Benson is in support of the EDC’s proposal. Mr. Humeston asked Mr. Kreinik if he felt that the IWC would listen to what Mr. Benson said. Mr. Kreinik replied that he didn’t know if the IWC had “bought into” what Mr. Benson says but he thinks that they will listen to him. It was also stated that it would be helpful to have Joseph Hovious (chair of the Conservation Commission) favor the EDC’s
proposal.
The EDC feels that a commercial condominium development would generate great revenue for the town. Mr. Kreinik handed out a document discussing what he felt are the five outstanding issues the IWC and Conservation Commission want resolved. He would like to see these issues answered as much as possible before the January 12th meeting. He contributed that it was important for the group to engage George Benson and town attorney David Grogins to address the conservation easement language.
Mr. Humeston asked about building height requirements for the proposed buildings. Ms. Stocker contributed that buildings could be 3 stories, with the first story half underground, then 2 additional stories. Zoning height restrictions allow buildings to be a maximum of 30 feet in the front and 42 feet in the back. The EDC is looking at screening with trees to help sight lines from adjacent roads.
A discussion about the buildings proposed on the tech park plan ensued. The IWC has concerns about building 1 and there are differing opinions about the structure. The EDC would like to see 6 buildings in part A and not 5. The group discussed the economic viability of the plan. They discussed different ways that the land could be developed including selling portions to adjacent property owners.
Mr. Morey said the IWC has jurisdiction for 100 feet surrounding wetlands. Mr. Kreinik asked if the buildings in the proposal are clear of the 100-foot review area. Ms. Stocker responded that building 3 and some parking areas are within the 100 feet. Mr. Kreinik asked if it were possible for parking to be built underneath a building. Mr. Murtha replied that yes, it is possible but it is very expensive and most people don’t want it.
Mr. Sharpe expressed some concern about answering all 5 outstanding issues before the January 12th meeting because of the holidays in between. Mr. Kreinik responded the 5 tasks are not sequential tasks. He said that Ms. Stocker is taking care of issue #1 which relates to land transfer issues with the state. Issue #3 relates to the definition of open space and conservation and what uses would be restricted in the conservation easement. Issue #4 pertains to how the land would be used with relation to parcel C and needs to be decided by January 12th. Issue #5 relates to specific responses to the conflicting environmental reports and Liz is working on this item. It may be necessary to have a special meeting before January 12th to make decisions
on the issues.
Mr. Kreinik said that the EDC only wants to develop 21% of the whole parcel which he considers not much development. He said that this is a way for the town to have economic development in an environmentally friendly way. Mr. Morey contributed that it is important to show the IWC that the buildings will not impact the functionality of the wetlands. Mr. Thompson brought up the questions about the delineation of wetlands on the site including drainage areas. Ms. Stocker responded that even though there are drainage areas, they are still considered wetlands. She said that the state defines wetlands based on soil types but the federal law defines wetlands based on fauna. Ms. Stocker stated that the area in question meets both the state and the federal wetland criteria.
Discussion of Business Survey Results Mr. Sharpe distributed the third draft of the EDC business survey report to the group. Ms. Stocker asked Mr. Sharpe if the survey document credited the consulting firm. Mr. Sharpe replied, yes on page 12. Mr. Sharpe also said that we need Chamber of Commerce and general support from businesses to accomplish many of the recommendations offered in the consultant’s executive summary.
Ms. Oliger distributed a document to the group titled “Draft Recommendations for Survey Implementation.” The group discussed the first issue on the recommendations list, which is how to readjust town signage regulations. Ms. Oliger stated that the survey focused on existing businesses and that these issues represent current Newtown concerns. Mr. Thompson added that this is meant to support/retain current businesses. This is the voice of people not necessarily a prediction of what we need to have to draw businesses to Newtown. Mr. Oliger responded that our audience is existing businesses: We need to retain these and
then attract new businesses.
Issues 2 and 3 will help people that want to start a business in Newtown. In order to make this process go smoothly for people there is a recommendation to hire an Economic Development Coordinator. This person will support Ms. Stocker. The Economic Development Coordinator will be responsible for maintaining the website, coordinate focus groups, and put together brochures explaining the process of starting a business in Newtown. The intent is to hire a part-time professional person, preferably with a marketing degree.
Mr. Murtha made a motion to accept the Business in Newtown Survey document and the Draft Recommendations for Survey Implementation. Mr. Humeston seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Election of Officers for 2011: Mr. Morey moved to nominate Wes Thompson as chairman of EDC. ~Motion seconded by Mr. Murtha. Unanimously carried. ~Mr. Sharpe moved to nominate Margaret Oliger as vice chair of the EDC. Motion seconded by Mr. Humeston. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Morey moved to nominate Donald Sharpe as secretary of the EDC. Motion seconded by Mr. Humeston. Motion carried unanimously. ~
Mr. Kreinik and Mr. Morey were thanked by the members of the EDC for their service and commitment to the group. Mr. Rau was also thanked for his volunteer service.
Mr. Humeston moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 pm. ~Motioned seconded by Mr. Murtha. ~Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted by Allison Sharlow, Clerk
|
