Enfield Square Mall redevelopment plan could begin site work in the spring after major win
ENFIELD —
Site work on the
planned $250 million overhaul of Enfield Square Mall could begin
in the spring, after the developer secured a major town approval Thursday.
Nebraska-based Woodsonia Acquisitions hopes to bring "Enfield
Marketplace" to the struggling mall property, proposing a
combination of commercial space and 465 residential units with the potential to
accommodate a hotel as well.
Under current plans, the company would serve as a master
developer of the project, seeking other developers for the various lots
that will make up the project site but expecting to build and own the
residential component itself.
The town's Planning and Zoning Commission approved
unanimously Thursday night a
zone change to help the project move forward, though Woodsonia and its
eventual partners will need additional approvals to get a shovel in the ground.
Enfield Director of Planning Laurie Whitten said at a
meeting Thursday night that Woodsonia has "a lot of steps to go," but
the zone change is the first. Once the developer completes its planned
subdivision of the property, site plans for individual users will come in
"piecemeal," she said.
Mitch Hohlen, partner and Director of Development at
Woodsonia, said Thursday night that the developer's infrastructure site work
could being in March, and negotiations with existing mall tenants and new
businesses are currently underway.
"A lot of these smaller users especially, they kind of
need to see it before they're going to commit, but I would anticipate we have
12 to 18 months of site work where we have to demolish it, get utilities in,
get access drives in," Hohlen said. "As soon as we're able to pull a
new building permit with water going in, you'll see new users going
vertical."
Plans to redevelop the Enfield Square Mall back to at
least 2023, when the town was in contact with two
prospective buyers for the property. Namdar Realty Group purchased the
mall for $11.4 million in 2019, at a time where the departure of anchor stores
caused foot traffic to decline.
Issues
persisted at the mall, including one incident where Enfield threatened to
close the mall over a faulty fire alarm and sprinkler system. Woodsonia was
identified as the
prospective buyer of the property in 2024, after which the company
began to seek financing
and regulatory approvals for its redevelopment plan.
Members of the PZC were previously displeased with
Woodsonia's plans for the site during the zone change application process in
part due to a mention of a maximum of 703 housing units, though the developer
later clarified it had "no intention" of building that many.
The commission debated some points of the plan Thursday
night but largely spoke in favor of the revisions, including clarifying which
uses could go where and leaving the project open to potential hotels, offices,
and mixed-use buildings.
PZC chairwoman Linda DeGray said Thursday that she found it
valuable to see Woodsonia's previous developments at similar properties across
the country.
"I think that will be helpful to the residents of
Enfield, give them some assurance that this isn't going to be a big blank
space," DeGray said.
The company gave a presentation Thursday night on some of
its 20-plus "community-oriented" developments, including
redevelopment of other malls formerly owned by Namdar. Those include Mall of
the Bluffs in Council Bluffs, Indiana, which Hohlen described as Woodsonia's
"first introduction to Namdar."
Hohlen said the $150 million project took a mall that was
around 50% occupancy and "past its useful life" and turned it into a
shopping center with major anchors that he felt was "a really successful
development for the community."
Hohlen said Conestoga Marketplace, another Woodsonia
redevelopment of a former Namdar mall in Grand Island, Nebraska, was
"virtually identical to Enfield" in terms of vacancy, overall site
layout, and community importance. The $250 million project includes a
new-to-market Target, a major entertainment destination, a 150-room hotel, and
275 housing units that will begin construction in the spring.
"If I were trying to build the most credibility for
Enfield, this is the project I'd point to," Hohlen said.
The PZC also debated whether to remove gas stations as a
potential use but chose to leave it in after discussing how they fit into the
business models for some grocery stores and clubs, like the Costco located
just across the street from the project site.
Connecticut regulators pass on revisiting UI power line upgrades in Fairfield and Bridgeport
The Connecticut Siting Council Thursday briefly weighed
tackling United
Illuminating's request to reconsider the regulatory body's October
denial of the company's overhead power line upgrade through Fairfield
and Bridgeport.
But after some confusing back and forth and consultation
with their executive director and attorney, Melanie Bachman, members
instead adjourned the teleconference, leaving action on UI's Nov. 3 appeal in
doubt. It was the group's last regular meeting within the 25 day window it has
to act. The deadline is Nov. 28.
In a statement Friday, UI spokesperson Sarah Wall Fliotsos
called on the regulatory agency to now convene a special meeting before the
deadline. She also pounced on what she saw as a general lack of organization on
the council's part.
"Yesterday's botched discussion ... was symptomatic of
the same dysfunction in this process since September," Fliotsos said.
September was the month the council, having in June signaled
it would turn UI's transmission wire upgrade down during an informal
vote, reversed
course in a second unofficial vote and backed the proposed overhaul.
But then the group, in response to outcry from officials in
Fairfield and Bridgeport who want the transmission wires buried, and at the
urging of Gov. Ned Lamont, postponed
a final September vote to Oct. 16 for the sides to try to seek a
compromise.
Then, during that October meeting, the regulatory body changed
its opinion again and rejected UI's project in a final vote.
The utility can try to challenge that decision in state
superior court, but first filed
the Nov. 3 request with the Siting Council for reconsideration. One of
UI's main arguments is council members erred in not outlining their rationale
for rejecting the line upgrade. Fliotsos reiterated that stance Friday.
"Because of the Siting Council's failure to explain
their decision, UI has no clear path forward for rebuilding aged transmission
infrastructure in Fairfield and Bridgeport, which the Siting Council itself
acknowledges creates a clear reliability and safety threat to the state and
region," she said. "This benefits no one. Not UI’s customers in
Fairfield and Bridgeport, not the state or New England as a whole, and
certainly not Connecticut policymakers."
On Thursday, one council member, Brian Golembiewski,
appeared to try to address that criticism. At the very end of the meeting he
made a motion to add the UI transmission line project to the day's agenda to
allow "the council to look and correct its decision documents."
"I want to make it clear," Golembiewski
continued, "that this is not, I guess, not a motion to add the UI
reconsideration. This is to just bring ... the (UI transmission project) docket
back on the agenda for our own council, I guess, discussions (for) whatever the
council itself can get to as a vehicle for us to align our opinion with our
vote."
"And not for the UI's motion for reconsideration,"
emphasized Vice Chair John Morisette, who ran Thursday's teleconference.
Golembiewski's request was seconded by Hall.
Bachman advised that the group cannot simply
"resurrect" the UI transmission upgrade. If that docket were to be
added to the agenda, then it is "incumbent" upon the Siting Council
at that time to take up UI's request for reconsideration, she said.
"I guess, Attorney Bachman, you're saying the
council can't at this point add our own council reconsideration of our
decision?" Golembiewski responded.
"What I'm saying is we have a pending petition for
reconsideration with a 25 day deadline for the council to take it up,"
Bachman explained. So, she continued, to reopen UI's Fairfield/Bridgeport power
line upgrade request "necessarily includes taking up a petition for
reconsideration that is pending under that docket."
"If we don't act within 25 days it's ... deemed
denied," she specified. "It's on the table for disposition if this
motion passes."
Golembiewski reiterated he did not want to bring forth the
UI reconsideration appeal.
Hall asked if UI's request would be before she and her
colleagues "in the near future."
"As Attorney Bachman stated, if it is not acted upon
for 25 days it is deemed denied. Besides today, we do not have another
scheduled meeting within the 25 days," said Morissette.
"Got it," said Hall, who then withdrew her
second to the motion. Golembiewski withdrew his motion, and the meeting
adjourned.
UI first submitted its plan to the Siting Council in 2023.
The company has maintained that installing the wires on tall poles routed
along the southern side of the Metro-North Railroad train tracks is the best
and least-costly-to-ratepayers option for upgrading the aged equipment. The
Bridgeport/Fairfield section is the last eight miles of a 25-mile-long project,
the rest of which has been completed or is under construction.
But critics, including several elected leaders of those two
municipalities, have opposed the plans, arguing that the lines should instead
be buried to avoid what they claim will be adverse impacts on economic
development, the environment, and historic and religious properties.
Seymour to move sewer pipes, helping Kinneytown Dam be removed
Christian Metzger
SEYMOUR — Two sewer siphons are likely to move so that
the Kinneytown Dam can be removed.
It's the next step in a multi-decades long effort to remove
the Kinneytown Dam, which has blocked 30 miles of critical fish
habitat for 181 years. The dam was built in 1844 to power Anson Phelps' mills
and Ansonia Copper & Brass, but has been unused since it was shut down in
2013.
The $11 million project will relocate two sewer siphons that
cross under the Naugatuck River in the sediment layer.
The siphons run along the west side of the river along Route
8 to connect with the Seymour Wastewater Treatment Facility, which is located
next to the Kinneytown
Dam. The siphons will be re-routed under South Main Street before
connecting with the facility further up the river past the dam.
Three options to rolocate the siphons will be presented
at 6 p.m. on Nov. 17 at Seymour town hall so the public can give feedback
before the option is selected in early December.
The current plan put forward by Naugatuck Valley Council
of Governments would create 18 new bore holes that would stretch from the
Southwood Apartments up along South Main Street before moving up along the
length of the train track. It's expected to affect traffic, but the preliminary
plans don't say for how long.
The project is entirely funded by the NVCOG with grant
funding from state and federal sources, coming at no cost to the town.
Hartford-based engineering consultants CDM Smith will design
and install the new siphons. The removal of the existing siphons, which carry
wastewater through the reservoir behind the dam, is considered a critical step
before the dam itself can be removed.
The dam is more than 400 feet long and 30 feet tall, serving
as a consistent reminder of the region’s industrial past as one of nine dams
that once blocked the river. The Naugatuck River Revival Group has advocated
for years to remove the dam, which is seen as barring habitats for shad, eels
and salmon in the region.
Current plans have the dam's removal process beginning in
2027, according to NVCOG. This will open the Naugatuck River back up and
nearly become free-flowing back to the ocean.
NVCOG anticipates this will have a positive impact on the
fish coming upstream, but also will improve the environment around the river
and reduce flood risk by allowing the river to return to its natural
course.
18-hole Bristol golf course hits market for $5M, pitched as housing development site
The Chippanee Country Club in Bristol is being offered for
sale as a potential housing development site.
The 18-hole club property is owned by a limited liability
company headed by prominent businessman Frederick W. “Fritz” Blasius Jr., owner
of Waterbury-headquartered car dealership Loehmann-Balsius Chevrolet.
City records show the Blasius-affiliated LLC bought the
three abutting properties — totaling roughly 140 acres between Marsh Road and
Hill Street — for $1.27 million in 2015.
A 133-acre portion of the properties went on the market this
week with a $5 million asking price. The seller is represented by
Middlebury-based Drubner Commercial Real Estate Services.
David Theroux, principal of Drubner Commercial, said his
firm hired engineering consultant SLR to conduct studies and “initial
groundwork” indicating the entire site could support up to 140 housing units in
various configurations. The zoning allows one unit per acre, but those units
can be clustered and may include multifamily options, he said.
“It’s a relatively easy site to develop for residential
housing,” Theroux said.
For now, 133 acres, including the golf course and service
buildings, are for sale.
A 14,021-square-foot dining and function hall and seven
acres are to be sold separately, Theroux said. The 1923-vintage building is
sided with clapboard and features a gabled roof.
Although this portion of the property is not currently being
marketed, a buyer of the larger parcel could acquire it as well for an
additional $1.5 million, Theroux said.
Residents question plan to reconfigure lanes of busy Route 32 intersection
Sofia Acosta Silva
Waterford — State transportation officials presented plans last week to reconfigure lanes at the busy intersection of Route 32, Old Norwich Road and Route 693, and residents are expressing mixed feelings about it.
The state Department of Transportation hosted the public informational meeting Nov. 6 at Town Hall, outlining plans to add a dedicated right-turn lane from Route 32 northbound to Route 693 to help reduce congestion and crashes. The project is projected to cost $11 million, and 80% will be funded by the federal government and 20% by the state.
The project is tentatively set to begin construction in fall 2027, pending permits and funding.
The presentation, according to residents who attended, did not include a question-and-answer period. On social media, Waterford resident Tina DuBosque criticized the format and urged officials to consider a roundabout rather than adding lanes.
“Consider instead a large traffic circle, accommodating and slowing down traffic coming from everywhere, rather than spending $11 million on sort-of solving only one Route 32 problem,” DuBosque wrote.
DuBosque also pointed out potential access challenges for residents along the east side of Route 32 and Hempstead Drive, who may need to take alternate routes once construction begins.
“Folks ... will need to get more creative about accessing Route 32 north- or southbound,” she wrote.
The Department of Transportation says the right-of-way impacts are limited to reconstructing and grading residential driveways within the project area. Project plans and visuals are available on the state’s website at portal.ct.gov/DOTWATERFORD0152-0163.
Residents can submit feedback until Nov. 20 by referencing State Project No. 0152-0163 and emailing dotproject152-163@ct.gov.
Questions may also be directed to project manager Nicholas Ivanoff at nicholas.ivanoff@ct.gov or 860-594-2597.