An architect’s rendering of one of the buildings being proposed for the parcel of former Schlumberger land developer Steve Zemo bought from the town last year.
Developer Steve Zemo discussed with zoners last week his changing plans for the former Schlumberger land he purchased from the town.
Citing concerns about a potential odor problem from the town’s sewer plant, the Water Pollution Control Authority has forced Mr. Zemo to revise his proposal for a four-building complex off Old Quarry Road, retaining plans for a three-story hotel while reworking another building on the site.
“What was building No. 4 has been eliminated in favor of an event space barn for the hotel that is now only 2,800 square feet,” Mr. Zemo explained to the Planning and Zoning Commission during a pre-submission concept discussion Tuesday night.
In the plans he presented to the commission in early May, Mr. Zemo said the fourth building was to be a 5,785-square-foot, two-story general office building.
The revisions were prompted by a letter he’d received from the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA), which oversees the town sewer plant, just north of the five acres Mr. Zemo hopes to develop.
There were some other changes to Mr. Zemo’s project.
“We’ve eliminated 20 parking spaces on the north side of building No. 2, which is the storage facility,” he said. “We’re going to plant that space and I think the plantings help address the concerns of the WPCA letter.”
The concept for the site still includes a 9,200-plus square-foot multi-use office building with 11 apartments on floors two and three, an 11,600-plus square-foot storage facility that will be four stories, and a 17,000-square-foot hotel facility that will host 48 rooms as well as a conference room that will seat 60 to 70 people.
“It’s small — smaller than what you saw when I first came in with the master plan,” Mr. Zemo said. “This plan, while different, is similar to what you saw then, but different than what the WPCA saw before it wrote the letter.”
First Selectman Rudy Marconi, who is a member of the WPCA, attended the meeting Tuesday night and explained that the concerns over odor stemmed from a new report from United Water, the contractor that operates the sewer plant.
“If an odor problem is filed against the town, then it can be extremely expensive,” he said.
He added that the WPCA wanted to be proactive in addressing any odor problems.
“Are we in two years going to be forced to enforce odor regulations?” he said.
Guinea pig
Mr. Marconi wasn’t the only one throwing his hands in the air.
Mr. Zemo, who purchased the five acres of the former Schlumberger land from the town for $1.25 million last year, wasn’t sure what board or commission his proposal would be going to next.
Because of the site’s proximity to the Great Swamp and its potential effect on nearby wetlands, the commission thought that Mr. Zemo would be the perfect trial candidate for its new referral process.
“We’re going to recommend that you see the Conservation Commission first before coming back to us,” said Chairwoman Rebecca Mucchetti.
Earlier in its meeting, acting as the Inland Wetlands Board, the commission approved a decision to refer wetlands applications for both summary and plenary rulings to the conservationists before the applications are submitted to the planners.
“It’s a move in the right direction,” Ms. Mucchetti said during that portion of the discussion. “It will enhance the process as we’ve seen earlier tonight with the outside conversation between RVNA application and the Conservation Commission.”
“The process of referral to the CC is not formal, but our office staff will be alerted to talk to applicants about attending a Conservation Commission meeting either before a formal submission of an application, or after an application comes in and before it goes to the IW Board for review,” explained Town Planner Betty Brosius.
She added that the town’s Gay Road bridge application was the perfect example of back-and-forth comments between the planners and the conservationists that created a need for a continued public hearing to resolve the difference.
“We are trying to avoid delay in the review process by encouraging direct communication between the applicant and the CC, so that the CC concerns can be made known early in the process,” she said. “The CC is advisory to the IWB and has no approval authority, but the expertise of several of the CC members is recognized and their suggestions are often reasonable and worthy of consideration. Improvements have been made to plans that are ultimately voted on by the IWB.”
Ms. Brosius cited drainage, stormwater management, flood control, and erosion and sedimentation control as areas due for careful consideration in Mr. Zemo’s proposed development.
“The CC input at an early stage may help to avoid the need for major changes in the plans after primary engineering has been done,” she said.
Back to WPCA
Mr. Zemo agreed to be a part of the referral experiment, but then asked another dangerous question.
“Do I take it back to the WPCA as a courtesy call?” he asked.
“It would be prudent on your part,” Ms. Mucchetti responded.
She noted that the water pollution authority had granted him a sewer allocation based on the contingency that the planners would approve a revised site plan.
“The commission likes it,” she said. “It’s a good idea to take it back to them and see if all their concerns are met…
“The positive is that there is time for you to meet with the Conservation Commission and the WPCA,” she added. “We look forward to seeing you back here in September.”