Stonington — The owners of Stone Acres Farm on North Main Street have submitted a master plan application for development of the property into a campus that includes renovated and new buildings designed to host a variety of food, education and other activities, such as weddings.
The application, which outlines the planned uses of the 381 North Main St. site, comes after the local ownership group successfully obtained approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to create a new Agricultural Heritage District. The district is designed to preserve historical farms in town by allowing expanded uses.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has slated a March 21 public hearing on the application. If that is approved, Stone Acres then would have to also obtain site plan approval, which would require another public hearing.
The application states the master plan would revitalize and preserve the 65-acre property and stimulate its economic activity by creating a campus for food, education and events. The farm has been in operation since the Revolutionary War.
The application states the proposal seeks to take advantage of tourism growth in the state, which it calls one of the few bright spots in the region’s economy. It also states the project would preserve historical and natural resources while offering opportunity for food entrepreneurs.
The project would create an estimated 20 full-time and 68 part-time jobs and generate net tax revenue of $75,000 a year for the town, according to the project’s economic impact analysis.
The project calls for using the main house for small events, with bedrooms being used for wedding preparations by bridal parties and overnight accommodations. The farmhouse would be available for seasonal rentals and wedding parties.
The greenhouse would be turned into a restaurant and cafe that would feature farm-to-table offerings using produce grown on the farm and other locally sourced food. The ice house, small greenhouse and other existing outbuildings would be used for storage and vegetable sorting.
Two new buildings would be constructed on existing farm foundations. These include a 6,100-square-foot barn that would have cold storage facilities, a large open area for food cleaning and packaging, and a commercial kitchen to support event catering and food preparations for the creamery, charcuterie and farm stand. There also would be restrooms and a deck with access to a garden with picnic tables.
The 8,100-square-foot marketplace would house a seasonal vegetable market, brewery, classroom, demonstration kitchen, restrooms and an education center where students would gather when touring the farm. There are also plans for temporary tents for gatherings of 100 to 250 people. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE
Renovation of New London City Hall remains on hold with lack of funding
New London — With a funding gap of $5 million, the timeline for the historical renovation of the aging and inefficient City Hall remains an unknown.
While the City Council approved borrowing $3 million for the project, the only bid came in last month at $8,018,000. The lone valid bidder for the project was Middletown-based Kronenberger & Sons.
“It’s just frustrating,” said City Council member Martha Marx during a Public Works Subcommittee meeting on Monday. “Everybody was so excited to have a new City Hall.”
Marx questioned the initial $2.5 million to $2.8 million estimate from Architectural Preservation Studio PC, which was based on a $30,000 grant-funded condition assessment completed in 2014.
Tom Bombria, project manager for the City Hall restoration project, said the city will continue to explore other funding sources for the project and is taking a closer look at the scope of the work.
Much had changed since the initial estimate, Bombria said. Along with jumps in construction and changing market conditions, he said building and fire code requirements helped boost the cost.
The original estimate also did not include architectural and engineering fees or the money needed to relocate the entire workforce from City Hall for a year or the construction of a vault for the City Clerk.
The planned work at City Hall, prompted by a citation from the health department in 2014 involves both interior and exterior restorations, Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant entrances and updating of the heating, cooling, electrical and plumbing systems.
Bombria said the city is working on a grant application to the State Historic Preservation Office for Connecticut Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits and plans to apply to the National Park Service for federal historic preservation tax incentives.
Council member Michael Tranchida asked if a designation on the National Register of Historic Places might help the case. City Hall, build in 1912 to replace an older building on the same site, sits in an historic district, Bombria said, and so is therefore already eligible for preservation grants.
Bombria said the project eventually will go back out to bid but not until more funding sources are identified.
Developers outline scaled-down condo plan for Mystic Color Lab site
Mystic — The group proposing to develop the former Mystic Color Lab site into 42 condominiums outlined its plans to the Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission during a public hearing Tuesday night.
Greylock Property Group LLC is seeking approval of its master plan to build the condominiums in seven buildings placed around a central courtyard on the five-acre site. The hearing was continuing late Tuesday night and the commission had not yet made a decision on the application.
Called Mystic Harbor Landing, the proposed $20 million project would have 13 fewer units and 26 percent less square footage than a previous plan for the site that called for a large single structure.
Town Planner Keith Brynes told the commission that in his opinion the master plan is an improvement on the previously approved plan for the site.
Greylock attorney Bill Sweeney told the commission the project has been downscaled in almost every way compared to the earlier approval and would be compatible with the neighborhood. He said a brick wall, which is the only structure remaining from the original mill, is so deteriorated, it cannot be saved. But he said attempts will be made to salvage the brick so it can be reused on the site. In addition, some type of memorial will be placed on the site to recall its historical uses.
He pointed out that the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development calls for the redevelopment and reuse of historic mill sites, something the project does.
Sweeney told the commission that the abandoned and overgrown property has a long history of failed development along with piles of contaminated soil. He called it a “white elephant” in a neighborhood which is seeing new investment with the planned renovation and expansion of the adjacent YMCA.
“This is a property in desperate need of redevelopment and shouldn’t sit idle for another decade,” he said.
Sweeney said the units would cost between $470,000 and $550,000, and conservatively generate between $45,000 and $65,000 in annual net tax revenue for the town. That number could be much higher, as the project is not expected to attract families with schoolchildren.
During the hearing, Economic Development Commission Chairman Dave Hammond told the commission that the tax revenue generated by the project would be closer to $300,000 a year.
The project would be built in three phases and the timing would depend on market demand for the units.
But Masons Island resident Steve Wolinsky pointed out the existing congestion at Route 1 and Masons Island Road and said the project would worsen the problem. He then checked off a "No" box on a large chart he titled "Good for Mystic?" Using drawings, photos and maps, he went on to point out how other aspects of the project, such as the size of the building, do not fit in with the character of Mystic. He said approval of the project will open the floodgates to other large projects that are not in keeping with the size and scale of residential development in town. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE
Battles over labor's wages heats up at Capitol
The clash over labor costs intensified Tuesday at the state Capitol.
While one legislative panel split down the middle over whether to raise Connecticut's minimum wage, unions and their allies rallied to battle proposals that would allow communities to cut worker wages on public construction projects.
In little over an hour, the legislature's Labor and Public Employees Committee defeated one bill that would have raised the minimum wage, and then adopted a second measure that ordered the same increases.
Both bills would increase the minimum wage, which currently is $10.10 per hour, to $11 next January. It would increase by another $1 per hour each January until it reached $15 in 2022.
From there, the minimum wage would be tied to the consumer price index and rise annually in proportion to the rate of inflation.
The back-and-forth nature of the committee's actions is tied to its composition, and to strong partisan disagreement over the minimum wage.
The panel, which has four senators and 13 representatives, has the option of splitting its membership and voting separately on bills.
One measure, earmarked for the Senate, failed in a 2-2 vote, with Republican senators opposing it and Democrats voting in favor.
"In this economy it is prudent for this legislature to stop sending a shot across the bow to businesses in Connecticut, to stop creating an unfriendly business environment," said Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury.
"Connecticut already has one of the highest minimum wages in the United States," said Sen. Craig Miner, R-Litchfield. "The last increase in the minimum wage wasn't thirty years ago, it was in January. Increasing the minimum wage yet again will send a clear message to businesses in Connecticut and elsewhere that the state has no intention of providing them with a predictable regulatory environment."
But Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, said more than 70 percent of Connecticut's minimum wage earners are adults supporting a household, which they cannot do at the current rate.
"They are not teenagers starting out with their first job," she said. "They are working sometimes two and three and four jobs just to make ends meet."
Democrats hold a slim 7-6 edge on the labor committee. So while the Senate bill failed in a 2-2 deadlock, representatives on the committee passed an identical bill in a 7-6 vote also along party lines. That measure now heads to the House of Representatives. CLICK TOTLE TO CONTINUE
West Haven High School project back in gear
WEST HAVEN >> After years of delay, the three-year project to build a mostly-new West Haven High School is moving again and appears headed for a ground-breaking this spring, with full-scale demolition and reconstruction beginning just as soon as school lets out in June, officials said. The “renovate-as-new” project has been partially redesigned — including to remove all asbestos rather than just encapsulate it, by replacing existing cinderblock walls, which previously were going to remain in some locations, with Sheetrock.
“There’s going to be no asbestos in the school, which is a new thing,” said Mayor Ed O’Brien. But beyond that, overall, “It’s a better-quality building,” he said. The estimated price tag, which was $124.69 million when O’Brien told state officials that the city wanted to put the previous design of project “on hold” 16 months ago, is now just under $130 million, said William Sapienza, chairman of the equally revamped West Haven High School Building Committee. After O’Brien stopped the project in October 2015, state officials subsequently visited the high school in November, saying they wanted to find a way to move the project forward. That resulted in a subsquent decision to move ahead with some changes. Now they all appear to be on the same page. “The state has approved an amount. It looks like the numbers are working,” said Sapienza, a West Haven architect. “We’ve got a few things we’re still working on,” but “they’re satisfied with all the presentations so far by the project manager and the architects.” Sapienza said the square footage has been reduced somewhat because of the contracting student population, but while there are fewer classrooms overall than in the previous design, amenities such as dedicated shop classrooms are in the latest plan. “We (designed) the school to the enrollment it is now,” said O’Brien. Antinozzi Associates of Bridgeport remains the architect, the Capitol Region Education Council, or CREC, of Plainville remains as owner’s representative and Gilbane Building Co. has been hired as the new construction manager, he said. The state reimbursement rate remains at just under 77 percent — the same as it was under the previous design, said O’Brien and Superintendent of Schools Neil Cavallaro.
“The plan is to break ground for the shops in the spring,” Sapienza said. “When the project was stopped, the project (design) was 65 percent completed,” Sapienza said. “That reallly hasn’t changed a lot. But with the help of Gilbane, there’s been a lot of value engineering” to achieve similar goals at a lower cost in order to accomodate more new construction, he said. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE