UConn warns proposed apartment complex would imperil full development of much-touted university tech park

The University of Connecticut — so far on the losing end of a fight against a proposed apartment complex on the border of its Storrs campus — is warning that the project would imperil the full development of the bordering and much-touted UConn Tech Park.

Robert Corbett, UConn’s director of real estate and regional projects, said the 358-unit complex would extend too deeply into a wetlands area that contains a restricted habitat for amphibians, not leaving enough available land for UConn to build on the largest parcel of the tech park.

“This parcel alone is a third of the whole research and development program in the tech park,” Corbett said. “We lose one-third of our capacity to develop the site.”

But the developers of the apartment project — first proposed nearly two years ago to the surrounding town of Mansfield and the winner of a key local approval Monday — strongly disputed the university’s contention. They argued it is a smokescreen for what UConn is really trying to get at. The university, they say, wants to stop construction of apartments that would be heavily marketed to UConn students.

“UConn’s real argument, as expressed in numerous letters from university executive vice president Scott Jordan to town officials, is that off-campus “student housing will reduce the number of students housed on campus, thereby reducing UConn’s revenue and increasing its financial burden,” Thomas P. Cody, an attorney at Robinson & Cole in Hartford representing the developers, said.

UConn officials have said enrollment is expected to remain flat for the foreseeable future, and it could be a decade or more before the university’s finances stabilize enough to push for growth in enrollment. At the Storrs main campus, overall enrollment will remain level, or possibly shrink.

“Whether such financial concerns will ever materialize is debatable, but they certainly have nothing to do with the review of wetlands permit applications and the development of UConn’s technology park,” Cody said.

Corbett acknowledged that UConn has long expressed concerns that this and other apartment complexes contemplated in town would likely have a high number of students as tenants and would compete with on-campus living options. But that, Corbett said, is separate from concerns over full development of the tech park.

“We believe this is a legitimate loss of land in the tech park,” Corbett said.

The technology park

The technology park, at the north corner of campus, is aimed at raising UConn’s profile as a research university and becoming a center for industry and manufacturers to work more closely with students and faculty. The goal is to develop ideas, science and research projects — and become an engine of economic growth for the state.

We believe this is a legitimate loss of land in the tech park.","additional_properties":{"comments":1/83/8,"inline_comments":1/83/83/4,"_id":"5MKJCJEJCBFZ7PDJBMRMMOUAEA

Robert Corbett, UConn's director of real estate and regional projects

Envisioned for more than three decades, the tech park is seen as a high-profile example of trying to catch Connecticut up in nurturing start-ups and providing a nexus between higher education and the commercial sector.

The tech park is divided into eight lots, four of which have been developed, two for parking. So far the state has invested about $205 million into the development, with $159 million for the 114,000-square-foot “Innovation Partnership Building,” which opened in early 2018. The tech park encompasses 104 acres and could eventually have over 1 million square feet of research space.

The largest lot, now at issue, is 25 acres and was envisioned for a building of up to 350,000 square feet. UConn argues just 7 acres would be developable should the apartment complex go through and wouldn’t be in a configuration conducive for a structure.

The wetlands issue argued by UConn involves the preservation of a habitat for amphibians. The habitat, or “vernal pool,” is a breeding area for the creatures, two which are on the state’s endangered species list: the northern spring salamander and the green wood frog, Corbett said.

Corbett cites a 2002 study of vernal pools that recommends developing no more than 25% of the land within 750 feet around such breeding grounds.

He acknowledges that the study’s recommendation has not become state regulation. But Corbett said it has been referenced in other developments and was included in the construction of Discovery Drive, which runs through the tech park and by the breeding area.

If you combine the land taken for the road and what’s proposed for the apartment complex, also partially within the 750 feet, the largest lot in the tech park “becomes undevelopable,” Corbett said.

Cody, the attorney for developers Capstone Collegiate Communities, based in Alabama, and J.E. Shepard Co. of South Windsor, said the 2002 study is simply a planning tool to better understand the science of vernal pools.

The guidance document does not carry the force of law or regulation, and has never been used as such.","additional_properties":{"comments":1/83/8,"inline_comments":1/83/83/4,"_id":"ATNY4RX5C5HHHJWAK2ZTSQSSZU

Thomas P. Cody, attorney for apartment developers

“The guidance document does not carry the force of law or regulation, and has never been used as such,” Cody said.

Even with wetland permits that are already in place for the tech park, Corbett argues the parcel would not be able to be developed.

UConn said it takes seriously the preservation of the breeding grounds, pointing to annual inspections by wildlife officials for the vernal pool’s ecological health.

Headed to court?

On Monday, Mansfield’s inland wetlands commission approved the development of the complex. But the development still must clear planning and zoning.

Corbett said a court challenge by UConn is possible.

Corbett said the commission members should have considered that UConn is the owner of the larger part of the area around the breeding grounds.

“The issue is they have taken rights that were in our area and moved them to their area,” Corbett said. “In effect, they — the case that we made — is that they disproportionately used their share. They are too dense, and their development should have been cut back.”

Paul Aho, chairman of Mansfield’s inland wetlands commission, referred questions to Town Attorney Kevin M. Deneen.

Deneen said the town does not have jurisdiction over property owned by UConn, or what might happen there in the future.

“The inland wetlands determined there wasn’t any significant impact on wetlands,” Deneen said. “So they have to act on that application, not on what might happen to someone else’s application, or something theoretical down the road.”

David Fresk, a project manager at J.E. Shepard, said the development meets the economic development goals of the town, including the redevelopment of the “Four Corners” area where his apartment complex would be located.

“The goals also include the creation of affordable housing and an increase in the tax base,” Fresk said. They want to provide an attractive and desirable alternative for students who are living in residential neighborhoods to get out of those neighborhoods and into well-developed, well-managed communities of their peers.”

Contact Kenneth R. Gosselin at kgosselin@courant.com.

———

©2020 The Hartford Courant (Hartford, Conn.)

Visit The Hartford Courant (Hartford, Conn.) at www.courant.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.