July 1, 2004
Hartford Courant
By LEE FOSTER, Courant Staff Writer

VERNON -- Stephen Taylor's rejection of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter was based more on what he suspected was not being said during the public hearing than on what was said, Taylor said Wednesday.

Taylor, vice chairman of the inland-wetlands commission, made a motion Tuesday to deny the application from W/S Development for permission to build a 286,000-square-foot building and 12-acre parking lot on 42 acres near Exit 67 off I-84.

The commission passed the motion, 5-0.

Over the many sessions of the public hearing that opened in April, Taylor said he felt that Solomon Kerensky, a lawyer representing W/S Development, was keeping the experts hired by his client from speaking their minds.

"I got the feeling that, what were they NOT saying," Taylor said. "Sometimes it's better to tune out what people are saying and watch how they are saying it. The intervenors presented a great case."

In the end, it seems that Wal-Mart's opponents presented a more convincing case, some observers said. This was the second go-round for the Wal-Mart proposal. The developer had withdrawn a similar proposal in October 2003 when time ran out on the application process. The proposal was resubmitted in January.

Commission member Nancy Osborn decided to vote against the project on her way to Tuesday's meeting, she said. She had changed her mind several times during the hearing, but in the end she was not convinced that an "intricate" system designed to filter impurities out of storm water was reliable.

"Everything had to go just perfect for the system to work," she said. "I was concerned that it would not work down the road."

A concern for commission member Joanne Wiley was that a number of alternatives to W/S Development's design were submitted by the intervenors, but the developer never responded. The existence of "feasible and prudent alternatives" is a legitimate rationale for denying a wetlands application, according to state law.

The "alternatives" were unrealistic or impractical, pro-Wal-Mart activist Robert Handler said Wednesday. He was disappointed by the denial. The store would have contributed about $500,000 in taxes to the town, Handler said.

"Things continue to be turned down in Vernon and the tax base continues to be put back on the homeowners," he said.

As for assertions that smaller businesses would be more appealing, retailing trends do not support that, Handler said.

"The consumer wants a large assortment of goods at good prices," he said.

The 700 unemployed people in town also would have benefited by employment opportunities Wal-Mart would have provided, with wages of about $10 an hour, Handler said.

The grassroots opposition - Rockville Concerned Citizens for Responsible Development - mounted a formidable campaign against the Wal-Mart proposal, Deputy Mayor Marie Herbst said. Herbst said she attended most of the hearings and spoke against the project.

The denial was "a compliment to the group who worked so hard," Herbst said.

Kerensky said Tuesday after the vote that his client had not decided whether to appeal the decision or resubmit a new plan. Kerensky could not be reached for comment Wednesday.