Fairfield officials say $3M state grant for Bullard factory site could add $25M to cost
Jarrod Wardwell
FAIRFIELD — More than six months after state officials awarded Fairfield a $3 million grant for a proposed development that would transform a vacant lot near the Fairfield Metro train station into housing and shops, the town may not use it after all.
The grant had been set to cover the remediation of contamination at the site of the former Bullard Machine Tool Company factory as the first phase of construction, but those overseeing the project say its legal terms would make it nearly a third more expensive.
The developer and Fairfield's head of economic development said they're leaning against accepting the money after learning that wages mandated by the terms of the grant would, in their estimation, jack up the project's cost by 20 to 30 percent, which amounts to at least $25 million.
"The negatives outweigh the plusses here," Mark Barnhart, Fairfield's director of community and economic development, said.
The remediation work would have been one of the preliminary steps in a roughly $125 million project to build a five-story, 245-unit, mixed-use development that include 30 affordable units at 81 Black Rock Turnpike near the Fairfield Metro station, where the town has looked to add more housing and commercial retailers.
Under the grant's conditions, the developer would be required to comply with the state's "prevailing wages rules," which regulate compensation for workers involved in construction projects, including those that the Department of Economic and Community Development funds. The DECD's Brownfield Remediation and Development Program distributed the Fairfield grant, which came as part of a statewide funding spree over the summer for brownfields that have turned into industrial graveyards across Connecticut.
The wages that workers in the Fairfield project would be required to receive would depend on factors including who received the grant, the nature of the project and the amount of state financial support and other financial sources, according to a state notice of funding availability about the grant.
Andrew Montelli — founder of Post Road Residential, the developer of the proposed project — said the state-required wages would match union premiums and account for the major jump in the project's cost, which he added would be a tough sell to investors and lenders.
"The analysis that we're trying to figure out is how or why it makes sense to take a $3 million grant to then add $25 million of hard cost," Montelli said at a Town Plan and Zoning Commission meeting last week.
He said under the grant's terms, the state can have a say in "major business decisions" with the project; the grant also requires developers to either set aside 10 percent of their units as affordable housing for residents earning within 50 percent of the median area income or reserve 30 percent for those who make within 80 percent of the median area income. The 30 affordable units in the proposal are 12 percent of the total and are designated for those making within 80 percent the area median income.
Barnhart said "the devil's in the details," and he questions whether the grant makes financial sense for the town.
"While we haven't advised DECD that we're going to turn down the money, it's probably heading in that direction," he said.
Barnhart said the town and developer held off immediately rejecting the funds so they could weigh alternatives for the project to work in tandem with the grant. He said they're open to explore other potential sources of funding to cover project-related costs if necessary.
He added that he's encouraged Post Road Residential to increase the number of affordable housing units in the development, which the developer has been open to. Barnhart said he expects Post Road Residential to purchase the site sometime this year.
Kayla Mutchler
WESTPORT — The former Bridgewater Associates property is prepping to become new office spaces and housing, including affordable housing for people with disabilities, while paying homage to the outdoors in its aesthetic.
The development would be called The Glendinning Village, named after its 1 Glendinning Place address and the man who built it in the 1960s, Ralph Glendinning.
"The Glendinning Village community of single-family homes will complement the bucolic setting that currently thrives on light filtered through the canopy of robust trees, cool water traveling downstream, and the cushion of pine needles underfoot," reads an explanatory statement filed with the Planning and Zoning Department.
The project is a partnership between David Adam Realty President David Waldman and Eric O'Brien of Urbane Capital LLC and Sachem Capital. The duo began reviewing the project when the facility hit the market in late 2022.
"What inspired our design was a need for reasonably sized housing options within the market as well as a real need for adults with disabilities housing," Waldman said.
The plan has changed since its original iteration in September because of opposition, Waldman said. The development originally included 14 houses with three designated as affordable. Now, the number has been reduced to 10. Of those, two houses will contain six studio apartments for adults with disabilities, one room being for a site supervisor. All of the units in those two houses are designated as affordable.
The current building on the property is also set to remain there and will be renovated to house multiple offices. Waldman said they have leased half of the building and are looking for tenants for the remaining half, which totals about 25,000 square feet.
He added this project helps add to the town's points needed to reach an affordable housing moratorium to prevent 8-30g developments from coming to Westport.
The completion of this project will add 12 affordable housing moratorium points, while the original iteration only offered two, Waldman said.
The Glendinning Village will also house parking, electric vehicle chargers, community gardens, a compost area and the beginning of a pollinator pathway, the explanatory statement reads.
"There is a lack of quality inventory in our town housing supply," Waldman said.
He said this project will add to that inventory and the developers feel it will be a reasonable size in a beautiful location.
The explanatory statement says the new homes are going to replace an existing concrete mechanical structure on the property and match the design of the natural surroundings using wood paneling and windows to bring in light.
Each home will also pay tribute to the "office building with modern style, modest proportions and an eagerness to bring the joy of nature indoors."
The homes will be all electric and include LED lighting that can be dimmed, high-efficiency appliances and low volatile organic compounds in the paint, the statement reads.
Waldman and O'Brien were eventually selected as the buyers and began evaluating development options, Waldman said. They found the best one to be a complete renovation of the existing office building into a multi-tenant building with a potential rezoning of 3.4 acres of the property to become residential uses.
This isn't the first time Waldman and O'Brien have teamed up. Their first project was the Bankside House condominium in downtown Westport.
Waldman said, as with that project, they want to create "a very high quality and design centric commercial and residential housing development."
Waldman added they are proud of what they accomplished with that project and are grateful for the opportunity to restore a historic office complex, while building a sustainable and visually pleasing, small-scale residential community.
The prices have not yet been determined for the project because it is too early, he said. They are hoping to start construction, though, sometime in the late fall of this year.
The plan will have to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission, but the date has not yet been determined.
East Hartford Mayor Connor Martin’s vision for Main Street includes a ‘Parkville Market East’
Steven Goode
EAST HARTFORD — Development, development, and more development. It's clear that's what Mayor Connor Martin has in mind for his town.
And that apparently includes big plans for Main Street.
Martin, speaking at town hall meeting Thursday, said he envisions a revitalized Main Street area, with streetscape and traffic-calming improvements, as well as the possibility of traffic circles in high accident areas.
By closing Bissell Street to motor vehicle traffic, Martin said, it could promote foot traffic in the area.
"I'd like to turn it into East Hartford's version of Pratt Street," said Martin, who also would like to incorporate a "Parkville Market East" into the project. "We deserve this in East Hartford."
Martin said residents could soon begin to see Bissell Street closed down to motor vehicle traffic one or two days a week and then fully closed by summer.
"Main Street is looking pretty bleak and bland these days. It needs some work,” he said. “I want to give Main Street a complete face lift.”
As for the derelict Silver Lane Plaza, Martin said a blue construction fence has been erected, signaling that the demolition of the plaza would be coming soon.
Grossman Realty Group, a company that had been involved in the Blue Back Square project in West Hartford, has expressed an interest in redeveloping the longtime eyesore that the town took by eminent domain last March, he said.
"We're really happy with their interest," Martin said, adding that there were still three proposals that the town was considering, but that he favored one with less housing and more commercial retail because the town will be getting a boost from Concourse Park on the former Showcase Cinemas site near Interstate 84.
Concourse Park will feature 400 apartment units in nine buildings with amenities such as a gymnasium, simulated golf, party/meeting room, and dog play area. The closing is scheduled for March with construction to begin sometime in April.
Among other ongoing or future projects include the redevelopment of the former Holiday Inn on Roberts Street, which is being transformed into a Fairfield Inn & Towneplace Suites By Marriott, and the renovation of the Church Corners Inn, which will have 24 apartments, including two affordable units, and three separate commercial spaces on the ground floor. Construction is expected to begin this summer with completion expected in December 2026.
Habitat for Humanity is building 10 single-family homes on Burnside Avenue with construction currently underway and completion expected in December 2025. Martin said the Rentschler Field Logistics Center, featuring two 2.5 million-square-foot warehouses for Lowe's and Wayfair, will bring in 2,000 local jobs and $4.6 million in new property taxes when the five-year tax abatement ends, and a Noble gas station at the corner of Prospect and Governor streets will feature a fast-food restaurant, coffee shop, convenience store, and ice cream shop with construction expected to start in the spring.
The town has completed a dog park and a cricket field, and expects to build 15 basketball courts in seven parks, as well as a lighted pickleball court and basketball court on High Street in the spring.
The town is in the early stages of redeveloping Founders Plaza near the Connecticut River for mixed use, with residential, medical offices, retail, entertainment, restaurants, and recreation planned. It also plans to renovate the Veterans Memorial Clubhouse with a $6.5 million budget to continue its use as a banquet facility, and is currently in the assessment stages of a youth sports facility and community center.
"Economic development also provides people with something to do and places to spend money," Martin said.
Steinberg Embraces Nuclear Energy, Supports Third Nuclear Reactor at Millstone
Robert Storace
Once a skeptic of nuclear energy, Energy and Technology Co-Chair State Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, is now one of its staunchest supporters.
Steinberg told CT Examiner this week that, like many of his contemporaries, he questioned the benefits of using nuclear energy. But those concerns have been alleviated through research, talking to field experts and visiting nuclear facilities throughout the country. Steinberg visited a power plant in South Carolina in November while attending the National Council of State Legislators’ quarterly meeting.
“When I first came to the legislature, I didn’t know about energy. Like anyone else, I flipped the switch and the lights came on,” he said. “Then, we were a little skeptical of nuclear. We thought it was yesterday’s kind of energy. But as soon as I started doing my homework I discovered that nuclear was a viable option — it’s carbon free, and if you do a really good job managing the environmental and safety concerns, it really should be considered in the mix.”
Steinberg noted that nuclear power can “also reduce the risks of blackouts and brownouts.”
He also said he favors and would advocate for a third reactor at the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford, the state’s only such facility.
The 2,073-megawatt Millstone site, owned by Dominion Energy, covers about 500 acres. According to the company, the plant produces enough electricity to power 2 million homes with low-cost and carbon-free electricity that helps the state fulfill its carbon-reduction goals.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, nuclear power provided 37 percent of in-state generation in Connecticut in 2022. Connecticut ranks among the 10 states with the highest share of electricity generated from nuclear power, according to the EIA.
Steinberg understands the timetable of having a third reactor — which could translate into powering even more homes — is up in the air. At best guess, he said, the process of placing a third reactor at the facility could take years, maybe more than a decade. However, Steinberg said, it’s something worth pursuing and investigating now.
“I know there are a bunch of obstacles related to nuclear, not just the environmental and safety ones, but the economic ones too,” the lawmaker said. “If you look at what has happened in Georgia and North Carolina, they’ve had huge overruns in traditional nuclear reactors, and they’ve abandoned the concept. We have not built a new nuclear reactor in the United States for a long time. There are genuine hurdles there. I am hopeful for small modular reactors [or SMR’s] which would use less concrete, which is one of the big expenses.”
Steinberg said he favors having an SMR at Millstone, but supports having a traditional reactor as well.
Currently, only Russia and China have SMRs in their plants, but the U.S. Department of Energy has said it wants to deploy SMRs at home by the end of this decade or by early 2030.
According to the Department of Energy, advanced SMRs offer numerous advantages over traditional reactors, including offering a relatively small physical footprint, reduced capital investment and the ability to be placed in locations not possible for larger nuclear plants. SMRs, the agency said, also offer distinct safeguards, security and nonproliferation advantages.
The practicality of having an SMR at Millstone in the short-term, Steinberg said, is wishful thinking.
“I would say, realistically, it might be 2040,” he said. “Maybe we could cut a few years off; that would mean some basic coalescence of the industry, which a lot of people are betting on. A lot of people want to see this happen.”
The state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection would have to approve any plans to have another reactor at Millstone.
In a statement, DEEP spokesperson Will Healey said, “The decision to possibly pursue adding an additional reactor to the Millstone facility is up to the site owner, Dominion. In our deregulated market, these kinds of decisions are market decisions to be made by the market participants, if they deemed it made business sense to do so. DEEP continues to explore opportunities and policy options to incent any low carbon sources of energy.”
Dominion, in a statement to CT Examiner this week, said it anticipates SMRs will be the wave of the future and is on board with such technology.
“As for nuclear technologies, Dominion Energy is exploring SMRs as an option in the next decade and beyond. This technology is still being developed and new advanced nuclear designs may be ready for large-scale deployment by the early 2030s,” the statement read. “SMRs provide the potential to expand capacity at existing nuclear sites. … Dominion Energy has a great history of providing carbon free energy to the state of Connecticut and we look forward to the opportunity to work with the Energy & Technology Committee and policymakers on constructive solutions to continue to operate the current units and to discuss the policy environment that would be necessary to take full advantage of the potential for nuclear power in meeting increased energy demand as well as the state’s decarbonization goals.”
Steinberg said there are many unknowns when it comes to the cost of reactors and, potentially, SMRs, but that It’s something to keep an eye on.
“The project overruns and the projects that have been tried in the United States in recent years are a cause for alarm,” he said. “They’ve gotten to the point where they can’t complete the project at a reasonable cost and they wouldn’t be able to recover. That is one of the reasons why some are not overly excited about jumping into the new nuclear facility [concept]. So, we need to get to a point where the economic formula for building a new plant makes sense so that it can attract investors.”
Siting Council Rejects UI Rail Line Project in Nonbinding Vote
Sophia Muce
In a non-binding vote Thursday, Connecticut Siting Council members rejected a proposed United Illuminating project in Bridgeport and Fairfield while encouraging local officials in their fight against the utility company.
Under the $225 million proposal, UI would have swapped aged transmission lines with new 100- to 135- foot monopoles south of the Metro-North railroad line, requiring 19.25 acres of easements and 6.5 acres tree clearing.
Officials, including U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, State Sen. Tony Hwang, R-Fairfield, State Rep. Jennifer Leeper and Fairfield First Selectman Bill Gerber, have staunchly opposed the plan, pointing to lasting impacts on historic properties and the local environment. Gerber recently promised a legal battle if the Siting Council were to approve it.
But at the Thursday meeting, council members rejected the plan as currently proposed. In sum, one member opposed the proposal completely and four voted to instead move the new lines onto the northern side of the railroad line.
According to council documents, the northern configuration would increase project costs by about $66.7 million, but reduce the needed easements to about 8 acres and tree clearing to 5.3 acres.
“I believe that the northern route is the way to go on this,” council Chair John Morissette said.
While leaders in Fairfield and Bridgeport have called for an underground alternative, Morissette said that option would be far too expensive, too difficult to accommodate and was opposed by the state. Building double-circuit lines on the existing northern corridor, he said, would lessen the impacts.
If UI adjusts its proposal, Morissette said he’d be willing to approve the application. Although many have questioned the need to increase capacity along the rail line, he said the area is in clear need of an upgrade.
“Traditionally, southwest Connecticut has been known as a congested area, so any improvements in the transmission system are well taken,” he said.
According to the utility company, the equipment south of the railroad is more than 60 years old and unable to meet projected customer demands, which they expect to double by 2025. UI has not yet inspected the northern equipment, having rejected that plan due to cost concerns.
Council member Quat Nguyen agreed that upgrading the transmission lines is important, but argued that UI failed to provide a sufficient cost analysis.
Given that local ratepayers would be financing the project, Nguyen said he’d like the utility company to provide detailed cost estimates for numerous alternatives, including underground lines, before moving forward.
“I cannot, in good conscience, approve the proposed project or any other alternatives absent a robust cost analysis,” Nguyen said.
According to Morissette, the council will issue its final decision on Feb. 15, as the Thursday discussion was not an official ruling. But on Friday, Gerber, Hwang and Leeper celebrated the non-binding vote.
Gerber, who previously questioned the council’s motives in application hearings, said the meeting was a “significant step in the right direction,” adding that the town still believes undergrounding to be the best option for Fairfield.
“We continue to have serious concerns about the potential impacts of a double-circuit design. There should be no easements over sensitive areas to the north of the railroad tracks, and the monopoles should not be taller than those that are currently there,” he said.
While the northern configuration would decrease impacts on historic resources, private properties and the environment, Gerber said the council should reconsider easements over “sensitive areas” north of the tracks.
The council members have not yet presented a map detailing their proposed easements. Some historic properties along the northern side of the railroad include the Henry W. And Florence B. Sherman House in Fairfield, and the Railroad Avenue Industrial District and St. Peter Roman Catholic Church in Bridgeport.
Similarly, Hwang said the northern alternative would not stop officials from opposing UI, and warned the council that the fight to preserve local resources would continue.
“I am part of a bipartisan coalition of legislative leaders from Fairfield and Bridgeport which is united in our support of the towns, residents and commercial businesses,” he said. “This is a fight for fairness. It is a fight to demand respect for ratepayers and their property rights.”
Leeper, however, said she wholeheartedly supports the council’s decision to reject the application as proposed. She thanked the members for taking the concerns raised by local homeowners, businesses and officials into account and holding UI to a “reasonable standard.”
“This decision is non-binding and, therefore, does not mark the end of our advocacy,” she said. “Nonetheless, today, we breathe a small sigh of relief here in Fairfield and Bridgeport.”
In a Friday email, Jim Cole, vice president of projects at United Illuminating, urged the importance of the project, and said the company is committed working with the council to move the upgrades forward.
“We appreciate the opportunity to engage constructively with the CSC, and as we await the final decision, we look forward to further opportunities to discuss the benefits of this project by working individually with our towns, businesses, and residential customers in the coming weeks and months,” Cole said.