CT Construction Digest Friday February 27, 2026

Connecticut Siting Council denies solar farm for Torrington forest on West Hill

Sloan Brewster

TORRINGTON — The Connecticut Siting Council has denied Lodestar Energy's application for a solar farm on 41 acres West Hill Road.

“The Siting Council determined that the scale of forest clearing and the associated environmental impacts outweighed any potential benefits of the project,” Mayor Molly E. Spino said in a statement. “We appreciate the council’s careful consideration of these factors.”

The city has opposed the project since learning of Lodestar’s plans last January to submit an application to develop a 3.0-megawatt ground-mounted solar photovoltaic electric generating facility.

Spino, in her announcement, noted the city also represented the interests of Torrington residents in the opposition. Pointing out that the project offered no direct benefit to local taxpayers, she said installing the more than 7,500 solar panels called for would have required clearing 19 acres of prime forest and impacting 24 acres of farmland soil.

Of the forest, 10 acres are considered "core forest" and the remainder is consider "edge forest" which generally borders non-forested land.

Core forests provide habitat for wildlife unable to tolerate significant disturbance. The loss of such forest cover diminishes water purification and habitat values, according to the state's website.

Spino also noted that the city had “significant environmental concerns,” about the project, including that the site is located near drinking water reservoirs that also impacts an endangered bat habitat.

Lodestar Energy could not be immediately reached for comment.

Torrington had hired attorney Bruce L. McDermott, of Harris, Beach, Murtha, in New Haven, to help fight the project. Last May, McDermott requested and was granted permission for the city to be named a party or intervening municipality in the process. It was the only intervening municipality. 

Because the city was a party, it will be reimbursed by the state treasurer for legal expenses using money Lodestar had earmarked for that, said Attorney Tomasz Kalinowski, corporation counsel for the city.

“There will be no direct cost to taxpayers,” he said.

Former Mayor Elinor C. Carbone, who lead the battle against the project and who has repeatedly said the city is overburdened with solar farms, said she was pleased with the results.

“I’m excited,” Carbone said. “This is the fourth application that was presented for property in Torrington. We felt after the third one, which was on Lover’s Lane, that enough was enough.”

Last February, the Siting Council granted approval for Lodestar to put in a 3-megawatt solar farm on property next to Country Woods Condominiums on Lovers Lane. The city also objected to that application but did not become a party in the process.

A solar farm is also going up at the landfill and there are two other solar farms in the city, Carbone has said.

Clarice "Pinky" Johnson, who has spoken against the project in hearings, said she is “very pleased” about the denial, calling it a win for the town. Johnson said there are plenty of open areas in Torrington more suited to solar than wooded land with natural springs and a nearby watershed.

“Getting rid of 20 acres of forest to me was horrible when there’s open spaces in town, “she said

Johnson was also concerned about electromotive force or EMFs from the solar arrays.

“I’m thankful that they hired the lawyer because if they didn’t it probably would’ve been pushed through,” Johnson said.

Tweed Airport Expansion Moves Ahead as Residents Question Flooding, Wetlands Impact

Amy Wu

As Tweed-New Haven Airport moves closer to a $250 million expansion, officials used a public information session Wednesday to outline the environmental review process as residents continue raising concerns about flooding, wetlands and transparency.

Since launching in 2021, the expansion has been the subject of controversy. Project administrators have said it would benefit the local economy and attract an estimated 2,500 jobs by 2030. However, area residents — especially in East Haven where the airport is located — have expressed concern about quality of life impacts, including increased sound, air pollution and traffic congestion from more flights.

Environmental advocates and groups like Save the Sound are also concerned about the impact on the wetlands and wildlife, considering the airport’s proximity to wetlands and coastal marsh areas.  

The airport is in a coastal flood-prone area about 12 feet above sea level near Long Island Sound. Parts of the airport are in Federal Emergency Management Agency-designated flood zones. 

Save the Sound has a pending lawsuit in federal court in which the organization argued that the Federal Aviation Administration along with the airport authority violated the National Environmental Policy Act and did not adequately assess environmental impacts.

“We want them to do a full environmental impact statement that would require them more meaningfully and honestly evaluating the impact including how many passengers would be flying in and out of the airport, and the impact of the wetlands on the taxiway they are going to build,” said Roger Reynolds, senior legal director of Save the Sound. “They are claiming there is no significant environmental impact, so they don’t need to do a full-on impact report.” 

Reynolds said a ruling from a federal appeals court could come by summer.

The project involves building a new 84,000-square-foot terminal and runway extension. Construction is slated to start in 2026 with completion expected by 2028. As of summer 2025, the Tweed New Haven Airport Authority and operator Avports — the two entities managing the project — said the new terminal’s design is 60% complete. An application for a Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Inland & Wetland permit has been submitted, although there are no specific timelines as to when the permitting process evaluation will be complete. 

The Wednesday public information session was led by Avports, with presentations from Eliza Heins, an attorney with DEEP, and Kimberly Peace, an environmental coordinator at Hoyle Tanner, the design engineer for the project also leading permitting. 

Heins outlined the permitting process, explaining how DEEP evaluates applications and how the public can participate. A team of five analysts assigned to the project is reviewing potential impacts on tidal and inland wetlands, water quality and stormwater runoff before and after construction, and wildlife including endangered and protected species. 

“Technical review is the most intensive part of the process for DEEP, and our analysts must determine whether the permit application satisfies all statutory and regulatory requirements,” Heins said. 

Andrew King, vice president of external affairs for Avports, told CT Examiner the meeting was held as part of public outreach. 

“We are offering these opportunities because the formal process does not,” he said. “We truly care about the community’s understanding of the impacts — this is literally a community airport in a residential neighborhood.”

King said the meeting wasn’t formal because they received a notice of determination per the DEEP permitting process and are not in the public comment period.  

Wednesday’s meeting was the 14th public information meeting held since the project launched in 2021. There will be four more meetings in April in East Haven with dates to be announced. 

However, longtime environmental advocate East Haven resident Lorena Venegas said she didn’t think Avports officials have been transparent. 

“I thought [the meeting] was very misleading and there was disinformation in those slides,” she said of the Wednesday presentation. 

Venegas said she’s been attending the public meetings since the start of the project, but not getting any answers.  

“I live about a mile and a half away and the main thing that’s going to affect my neighborhood is really the access roads,” she said. “… All of the access roads are state roads, and they flood — Short Beach, Hemingway — the entire area is surrounded by marsh. You’re bringing millions of vehicles into an area surrounded by marsh and swamp, and they still can’t explain what happens to all that water.”

Venegas also runs 10,000 Hawks, a Facebook group opposing the airport expansion.

After the meeting, Venegas told Heins via email that it was very difficult to follow what was happening with the project application.  

“Last night, Kimberly Peace mentioned several wetlands areas in her presentation that the public are not aware of including taking up parking lots and substituting 25 acres as mitigation. No details have been given to the public,” Venegas wrote in her email, which was shared with CTExaminer.

Venegas ended the note with: “There is a lack of communication and transparency.”

In response, Heins thanked Venegas for the note and said DEEP does not discuss the details of applications while they are under technical review. 

CT Construction Digest Thursday February 26, 2026

Wage theft, labor violations in crosshairs of Connecticut lawmakers. 'The bad guys ... got the leg up'

Paul Schott

State legislators examined Tuesday two bills that aim to combat wage theft by potentially withholding payments in response to labor violations on public-works projects and making contractors liable for the unpaid wages of subcontractors’ employees. 

The discussion during a five-hour hearing of the General Assembly’s Labor and Public Employees Committee made clear that efforts to bolster worker protections will again be a top objective for the panel. A number of state officials have already rallied around one of those bills, Senate Bill 268, which would allow the state comptroller to suspend payments to contractors and subcontractors for prevailing-wage violations, when stop-work orders are issued by the state Department of Labor. 

“This is just kind of another tool in our toolbox, if we are having difficulty collecting wages for these workers, as well as penalties and fines,” Danté Bartolomeo, the commissioner of the state Department of Labor, said during her testimony to the committee. “It would allow me to hand this over to the comptroller, if we’re having difficulty. And then he could withhold, after a 10-day warning to the employer, public-fund payment to the employer.”

Prevailing wages comprise hourly rates and benefits paid to most workers on public-works projects. Breaches of prevailing wages are among the violations for which the Department of Labor issues stop-work orders.  

“Right now, the Department of Labor can investigate cases when contractors cheat employees and even place stop-work orders on public projects until workers have been repaid,” Comptroller Sean Scanlon, a first-term Democrat, said in written testimony. “However, there is currently no ability for my office to withhold state payments to such contractors, allowing them to still be paid by taxpayer funds even when they are being actively investigated for a prevailing-wage violation. That’s wrong, and we shouldn’t reward employers who fail to follow the law with taxpayer dollars”.

The bill’s supporters also include a number of unions. 

“What this is about is getting the company to come into compliance, getting restitution paid, and these penalties paid back to the state, and everybody can move on, and we can proceed with the project,” said Kimberly Glassman, director of compliance and government affairs at the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 478. 

There was also extensive debate Tuesday of House Bill 5275, the legislation that would make contractors liable for unpaid wages owed to subcontractor employees at any “tier.”  

“In the construction industry, when something goes wrong, the first thing that happens is people start pointing fingers, and no one takes accountability,” said Joseph Toner, executive director of the Connecticut State Building Trades Council, which represents approximately 30,000 construction workers across the state. “When these construction managers… are awarded these projects, it is  incumbent on them to make sure that people are being paid in their entirety.”

Other proponents of the bill include Matthew Capece, representative of the general president of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. In his written testimony, Capece cited data showing that, in Connecticut, up to approximately 28% of the construction workforce is paid off the books or misclassified as independent contractors, resulting in $146.5 million in lost state and federal revenues, $111.7 million in unpaid premiums for workers’ compensation and $30.2 million in theft of overtime wages. 

“Who should be prevailing in the construction industry? Should it be the good guys that are following the law or the bad guys that are breaking the law?” Capece said in his in-person testimony Tuesday. “I tell you, right now, it’s the bad guys that got the leg up, and that is wrong.”  

But several advocates for the construction industry expressed their opposition to HB 5275. Jim Perras, CEO of the Home Builders and Remodelers Association of Connecticut, which represents about 900 businesses statewide, asserted that the measure constituted “a sweeping and unprecedented expansion of liability in private construction” and would exacerbate the state’s “full-blown housing crisis.” 

“This bill will increase construction costs, reduce subcontractor participation and make projects harder to finance and insure,” Perras said. “Small- and minority-owned subcontractors will be the first to be pushed out. Fewer subs means less competition, higher prices and slower production. And slower production is the last thing that Connecticut can afford.” 

Christopher Fryxell, president of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Connecticut, which represents more than 260 businesses, took a similar position. 

“Contractors will figure out a way to protect themselves from liability. The only way they can do is to increase bond requirements on those subcontractors or increase their insurance coverage to help insulate themselves, protect themselves from that liability,” Fryxell said. “Those costs… are going to be built into the overall bid number on a project and eventually be passed down to those subcontractors.” 

Fryxell also submitted testimony against Senate Bill 268. 

The Labor and Public Employees Committee did not vote on any bills on Tuesday. But the committee’s co-chairpersons, state Sen. Julie Kushner, D-Danbury, and state Rep. Manny Sanchez, D-New Britain, as well as state Sen. Jorge Cabrera, D-Hamden, the committee’s Senate vice chairman, issued Tuesday written statements in support of SB 268. 

“What's clear is that if a contractor hires a subcontractor, and that subcontractor is not abiding by all the state's labor laws, that contractor should be held responsible for the actions of their employee,” Kushner said in her statement. “When we pass this bill, it should have the effect of forcing contractors to be much more thorough in vetting and ensuring that the subcontractors they hire have a good track record of complying with state labor laws.”

Torrington eyes 'pie in the sky' ideas for former Hendey site after foreclosure ruling

Sloan Brewster

TORRINGTON — With lofty ideas for eventual redevelopment, the city is working with a land bank on cleanup plans for the former Hendey Machine Company property that burned down last September.

Superior Court Judge Ann Lynch recently issued a judgement of strict foreclosure on the Summer and Litchfield Street properties that make up the nine-acre former manufacturing site. Property owner Wei Wang, who owns the properties under Yun Hua Inc. and Ying Bao LLC, has until March 30 to pay $1.4 million in blight liens and $166,568 in back taxes or the city will take the titles the following day.

The city is working with CT Brownfield Land Bank, Inc. on a planned environmental cleanup of the site, Director of Economic Development William Wallach said. They are currently in negotiations to determine who will hold the title during cleanup.

Wallach, noting they were “pie in the sky” ideas from his “crazy brain,” said he envisions a regional draw such as Stew Leonard’s, Costco, Trader Joe's or Whole Foods.

“Those are things that people travel out of the way to,” he said. “It reshapes what this downtown looks like long term." 

Wallach said it’s too early to say what may eventually be constructed on the property as it is unclear what it will take to clean it up.

“It’s so hard to put something together because of the environmental contamination," he said.

Most recently the former Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. was on the property, but the buildings date back to the late 1800s and early 1900s when it was the Hendey Machine Company, a machine tool company that built machinery on order, according to Mark McEachern, executive director of the Torrington Historical Society.

Now they are a pile of rubble.

Deputy Fire Marshal John Ryan said the fire remains under investigation by the State Police Fire and Explosion Investigation Unit.

Mayor Molly Spino said the foreclosure was a positive step forward and the city is focused on cleanup and positioning the site for redevelopment that will support economic growth and benefit the surrounding neighborhood.

“The city will continue to follow the court process and evaluate next steps as timelines allow,” she said.

The city, land bank, the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the United States Environmental Protection Agency will likely work together on the cleanup, Wallach said.

The $1.4 million in blight liens owed to the city topples the property’s appraised value.

According to the city’s land records, the buildings and land on the property were appraised at $889,500.

The city filed for foreclose in January 2025. In anticipation of a judgement in the city’s favor, officials put in an application for a brownfield cleanup grant last September, days before the fire.

“I think we submitted on September 25 and then the place burnt to the ground,” Wallach said.

In light of the fire, the city did not receive the grant, he said. At the time, officials were considering putting a public safety complex there.

Once it is clear what it will take to clean up the property, the city will apply for more grants for the actual cleanup. In the meantime, it is investing approximately $170,000 towards assessment for the cleanup.

After that, officials will consider potential redevelopment projects.

Wallach said the redevelopment opportunity connects with the mostly abandoned 14-acre Stop & Shop Plaza across the street, which went into foreclosure last year. In September Cushman & Wakefield, a commercial real estate brokerage in West Hartford, was named receiver for the property.

The two properties compile 24 acres, Wallach noted.

He said it's rare to find a redevelopment opportunity like this in a downtown district in Connecticut.

“Twenty percent of the district is ripe for redevelopment," Wallach said.

CT Construction Digest Tuesday February 24, 2026

There are ‘unscrupulous companies’ in CT that use a tactic to make money. A push is on to end it.

P.R. Lockhart 

State Comptroller Sean Scanlon is backing legislation that would cut off companies that commit wage theft from contracting with the state.

The comptroller is putting his support behind Senate Bill 268, which contains several measures to root out wage theft — that is, when an employer does not pay an employee wages they’ve earned. Wage theft includes instances when an employee is paid for fewer hours than they worked or not given certain benefits; in other instances, employers steal tips or force employees to work during off hours.

Under the bill, the comptroller’s office would have the power to withhold payment from state contractors that are under Department of Labor investigations for wage violations until the investigation has concluded.

This is the second year in a row the comptroller’s office has pushed for this legislation. Last year, a similar bill cleared the Senate but was not taken up by the House.

“The premise of this is really simple: We shouldn’t be rewarding companies with taxpayer dollars who are not rewarding their employees and their workers with fair wages,” Scanlon said during an afternoon press conference.

Lawmakers also expressed determination to pass the bill this session.

“People should be able to go to work, get paid fair wages to come home safe and not have to worry about being robbed by an unscrupulous contract,” Sen. Jorge Cabrera, D-Hamden, vice chair of the Labor and Public Employees Committee, said during the press conference. “So let’s get it done.”

For years, state officials have struggled to get their arms around the issue. Many of the state’s most vulnerable workers continue to miss out on receiving their full paychecks or are misclassified as independent contractors by their employers, advocates say. Over the years, that has cost Connecticut workers millions of dollars.

In 2024, the state Department of Labor reported a backlog of around 1,000 wage theft cases, with some waiting several months before they were examined by the state. The DOL has requested more wage-and-hour investigators to help deal with the backlog, but it has faced difficulty getting legislators to agree to the request, which would require more funding for the agency.

Joined by state lawmakers, union advocates and representatives of construction and building trade groups, Scanlon and other speakers described how passing S.B. 268 would be a critical step towards protecting victims.

“This is about accountability,” said Joelyn Leon, executive director of the Foundation for Fair Contracting of Connecticut. “When public dollars are being used to fund the construction project, those dollars should go to companies that are performing the work, follow the law and treat their workers with respect and fairness.”

Others said the bill would help bring Connecticut’s wage theft laws more in line with other states.

“We are so far behind our neighboring states that people are being disbarred from neighboring states, and then they’re setting up camp in Connecticut,” said Joe Toner, executive director of the Connecticut Building Trades Council. 

The problem of wage theft in the state goes back years. Previous reporting from the Connecticut Mirror has found that there were more than 13,000 complaints filed with the state Department of Labor between 2019 and 2023. Almost $17 million in wages has been returned to workers after these complaints were investigated.

The issue affects workers in the hospitality, retail and construction industries, in particular. Wages are more likely to be stolen from vulnerable workers in the state, including undocumented workers, women of color, workers with disabilities and those reentering the workforce after incarceration.

Local advocates noted that involving the comptroller’s office could be a powerful way to help on the issue.

“Wage theft does exist. It is a part of how unscrupulous companies make money,” said Kimberly Glassman, the director of compliance and government affairs for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 478. “These [legislative] proposals help deter companies from breaking the law and from hurting working people here in the state of Connecticut.”

At a public hearing before the legislature’s Labor and Public Employees Committee Tuesday afternoon, the state labor commissioner offered support for the legislation.

“This is another tool in our toolbox if we are having difficulty collecting wages for workers,” Commissioner Danté Bartolomeo said.

Public testimony on the bill, both written and in-person, was broadly supportive.

But some contractors took issue with the particulars of the bill.

In written testimony, Andrew Kao, corporate counsel for The Middlesex Corporation, a Massachusetts-based construction organization, said companies could potentially get dinged before an investigation had actually been resolved.

“Since withholding under SB 268 hinges on the existence of a stop-work order, not on a final violation finding or adjudicated backwage amount, the Comptroller’s ability to withhold after 10 business days even if the stop work order is under timely contest effectively imposes financial penalties prior to final administrative resolution, i.e. punishment before adjudication,” Kao wrote.

Two Bridges Under Construction On Interstate 95 in West Haven

Ken Liebeskind

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) has launched a major bridge construction project in West Haven, replacing two bridges that carry traffic over I-95. The project has been described as involving "one of the longest and most heavily traveled bridges in the state."

That description comes from Middlesex Corp., the lead contractor on the $136.5 million project. Funding includes 90 percent federal funds and 10 percent state funds.

According to CTDOT, Bridge No. 00161, which crosses over First Avenue, was originally built in 1956 and reconstructed in 1990. The bridge will be fully replaced with a new structure designed to increase vertical and horizontal clearances along First Avenue.

The southbound direction of the new bridge will include three 12-ft. travel lanes, a 5.5-ft. left shoulder and a 10-ft. right shoulder. The northbound direction will feature three 12-ft. travel lanes, a 12-ft. acceleration lane carrying the entrance ramp from Exit 43, a 5.5-ft. left shoulder and a 10-ft. right shoulder.

Bridge No. 00162, which crosses over the Metro-North Railroad right-of-way, was built in 1956 and rehabilitated in 1988. This bridge will be removed and replaced with a wider structure. In the southbound direction, the new bridge will include three 12-ft. travel lanes, a 12-ft. operational lane, a 16-ft. left shoulder and a 12-ft. right shoulder. The northbound direction will include three 12-ft. travel lanes, a 16-ft. left shoulder and a 12-ft. right shoulder.

Middlesex noted that the I-95 southbound bridge to the Kimberly Avenue ramp has already been demolished. In addition, the I-95 bridge over Ella T. Grasso Boulevard was replaced with a single-span bridge measuring 101.7 ft. long and 131.8 ft. wide. The project also included reconstruction of approximately 4,659 ft. of I-95 over the Amtrak bridge east of the Howard Avenue structure.

In outlining the project's scope of work, Middlesex listed the following activities:

• Construction of temporary trestles in the West River to access pile-supported pier locations, erection of structural steel and demolition of the existing bridge.

• Construction of a temporary roadway crossing ramp to maintain vehicular access over a pipeline.

• Temporary highway construction to accommodate traffic shifts.

• Reconstruction of highway approaches and exit ramps serving Ella T. Grasso Boulevard and Kimberly Avenue.

• Construction of new West River bridge piers and superstructure.

• Demolition of the existing West River Bridge.

• Replacement of the I-95 bridge over Ella T. Grasso Boulevard.

• Installation of drainage improvements.

Matt Maher, senior project manager of Middlesex, said construction began in spring 2025 and is expected to be completed by spring 2028.

"We completed tree clearing, installed micropile foundations and performed temporary drainage work, and we are now in the middle of demolishing Bridge 00161," Maher said. "We're constructing a new bridge abutment for Bridge 00161, which is being replaced in its entirety. Bridge 00162 is being widened to span the Metro-North Railroad. We're also installing MSE (mechanically stabilized earth) walls and excavation sheet piling to retain soil during excavation."

Construction equipment being used on the West Haven I-95 bridge project includes Cat 308, 321, 335 and 349 excavators; a Cat M322 rubber-tire excavator; Komatsu PC138 and PC238 excavators; two Cat 265D skid steers; two Cat 938M loaders; a Cat CS54 60-in. single-drum roller; Cat D3 and D5 dozers; and a Link-Belt RTC-8080 II rough-terrain crane. CEG

Wilton to rebuild deteriorating bridges and fix others using state, federal grant money

Eric Bedner

WILTON — The Board of Selectmen unanimously approved funding last week for several bridge projects in town, including the complete replacement of two and rehabilitation of four others.

While the replacement of two bridges and renovations to four others is expected to cost a total of nearly $15 million, the town is only on the hook for about $516,000 as the remainder is being paid through federal and state grants, Public Works Director Frank Smeriglio said.

The state inspects bridges every two years and provides a rating system based on their structural integrity. 

The bridge on Honey Road over the Norwalk River was found to have a reduced weight limit due to deterioration, making it a high priority for the state and enabling the project to be largely covered by more than $6 million in grants.

Wilton taxpayers will have to pay about $116,000 for masonry work on the bridge, and Aquarion Water Co. will pay nearly $250,000 to relocate a water main.

The Honey Road bridge spans 46 feet and was originally built in 1957, and reconstruction is expected to begin this spring, according to the state Department of Transportation. 

Grants totaling more than $6.56 million will cover a majority of the cost of replacing the bridge on Cannon Road over the Norwalk River.

Because Cannon Road is a historic area, the cost associated with its masonry work is included in the grant amount, leaving the town to pay only $32,800 for decorative lighting, Smeriglio said.

The bridge was also categorized as a high priority following state inspections that revealed erosion, he said.

It was built in 1956 and reconstruction is also expected to being this spring, according to the DOT.

Four other bridges — Old Ridgefield Road bridge, Middlebrook Farm Road culvert, Seeley Road bridge, and Old Mine Road bridge — are in need of renovations, but not complete rebuilds.

Grants totaling nearly $2.35 million will cover the entirety of construction, but the town will have to pay more than $367,000 for stone work and steel-backed timber guiderails.

Masonry on the bridges are intended to be similar to other bridges in town, leading to the cost of the stonework, Smeriglio said.

CT Construction Digest Friday February 20, 2026

What's next for proposed Bridgeport soccer stadium site after CT nixes state funds?

Brian Lockhart

BRIDGEPORT — The owners of the lower East Side land where entrepreneur Andre Swanston has wanted to build a minor league soccer stadium are moving on from that idea and instead pursuing their own mixed-use, sports-centered redevelopment project.

“We’re continuing to hone the site plan,” Robert “Bobby” Christoph, a consultant for 255 Kossuth LLC, which purchased the property in 2022, said Wednesday. 

The news comes just days after Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration dealt a severe blow to Swanston’s two-plus-year-old proposal by denying the key state funding the entrepreneur had sought. 

The alternative vision for the 255 Kossuth St. address is not a dramatic swerve from what Swanston and his Connecticut Sports Group organization had in mind  —  housing, restaurants, and a hotel, but now anchored not by a soccer venue but a for-profit community sports facility with multi-purpose courts and fields for training, tournaments and other athletic events.

Christoph confirmed the concept is similar though smaller than Stamford-based Chelsea Piers.

“There is a large demand for facilities like this … to practice and play on, whether a college, a university, a high school, a club program,” he explained, adding the intent is to further engage with the local community, Bridgeport and state officials as the plan evolves. 

If Christoph’s name sounds familiar, he and his father, Robert Sr., have spent years slowly redeveloping the nearby Steelpointe site along the harbor just over Interstate 95 from Kossuth Street, which boasts retail, restaurants and a marina, with apartments well under construction and a hotel on the way.

Swanston has been publicly pursuing his minor league soccer venue since fall of 2023 and was negotiating with 255 Kossuth LLC to acquire its property, a longtime industrial site along the Pequonnock River that most recently housed the shuttered Shoreline Star off-track betting facility.

He had been seeking $127 million in state monies for what he claimed was a $1.1 billion mostly privately financed mixed-use redevelopment. Lamont had continually expressed reservations about that size of an investment but never publicly said “no,” and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development had been in months-long talks with Swanston.

Then last Friday, Lamont’s office and the DECD announced that they were taking a pass.

In his response Sunday, Swanston said “we are evaluating our alternative stadium development plans” but acknowledged the venue may not be able to remain in Bridgeport. He does have a team, CT United, whose players launch their inaugural season March 1, practicing in Stamford at Chelsea Piers and playing at to-be-announced locations around Connecticut and out-of-state.

Reached Wednesday about the future of the 255 Kossuth acreage, Connecticut Sports Group said, “CT United’s majority owners reside in Connecticut and own businesses in Connecticut. Several of our minority owners live, grew up, or attended school in Connecticut. Although markets in other states have already reached out to gauge our interest in moving, we are committed to keeping the team in Connecticut.”

Christoph said 255 Kossuth LLC understands that the stadium is just not possible on that particular East Side property without the state support.

“I do believe he will continue to grow the opportunity in Connecticut. It just won’t be at this location,” Christoph said of Swanston, adding, “We waited for two years for this opportunity (the soccer stadium). And if this was able to happen we wanted it to occur.”

Swanston had a purchase option for 255 Kossuth St. but that expired last summer, raising some doubts at the time about the future of his soccer proposal even before Friday’s bad news from the state.

“Now that that’s been decided, we’re going to move expeditiously,” Christoph continued.

And likely try to take advantage of some of the ground work laid by Swanston and his supporters.

That includes tapping a pair of state grants totaling $16 million awarded in 2024 to clean-up the contaminated Kossuth Street land. While those monies were to have been used to prepare the site for stadium construction, Lamont administration officials had emphasized they were not directly linked to that specific project.

DECD spokesman Jim Watson on Tuesday reaffirmed that position.

“The grant funds are tied to the cleanup and redevelopment of specific parcels of land,” Watson said. “Both … grant awards will remain in place at this time. The grant recipients — the City of Bridgeport and BEDCO (Bridgeport Economic Development Corporation) — can work with the site owner and DECD to identify and request a new end use for DECD’s approval to proceed.”

Christoph mentioned the possibility of the Kossuth sports facility idea benefiting from legislation passed by the Connecticut General Assembly last summer allowing Bridgeport officials to establish a tax incremental financing (TIF) district in that neighborhood.

Similarly originally aimed at but not tied to the stadium, the TIF can be utilized to help pay for up to $190 million worth of infrastructure improvements by allowing a portion of any new real estate taxes generated by the redevelopment to pay off the debt rather than going directly into Bridgeport’s municipal coffers.

In a brief interview Tuesday, Mayor Joe Ganim expressed hope Swanston’s CT United might still call Bridgeport home at other locations. He suggested John F. Kennedy Stadium at Central High School as one possibility.

“Let’s prove its success,” Ganim said of having a minor league soccer team in town.

Then on Wednesday, in response to Christoph’s comments on 255 Kossuth LLC’s decision, the mayor’s chief administrative officer, Thomas Gaudett, said the administration would definitely be interested in learning more.

“I think we would be excited to hear … ideas for housing, a hotel and entertainment space on that site,” Gaudett said. “That is consistent with the general vision we have.”

As for using the tax incremental financing legislation, Gaudett added, “That would certainly be in play if we had a formal proposal.”

The Kossuth Street neighborhood is in the district of state Rep. Antonio Felipe’s, D-Bridgeport. He had heard there was a “Plan B” in the works “but any kind of attention paid to that prematurely was a disservice to the possibility of having soccer.”

“Anyone would be foolish not to support a mixed-use development there, especially when it comes to building more housing in the city,” Felipe said.

He wants 255 Kossuth LLC to include affordable units. Swanston claimed 40 percent of the 1,000 apartments he intended to have built would have been for lower-income tenants. 

Felipe said while he respect’s Lamont’s position, he believes it was “short-sighted” for Connecticut government not to embrace Swanston’s and Connecticut Sports Group’s vision.

“That was a much bigger opportunity to create something exciting, fresh and a draw to the city,” he said. “Soccer was the big fish and we just couldn’t reel it in.”

An aging swing bridge in Connecticut could be all yours — if you can move it

Brianna Gurciullo

The Connecticut Department of Transportation may have a bridge to sell you.

Or, actually, you could have it for free.

Though it has yet to make a final decision about the fate of the William F. Cribari Memorial Bridge, which brings Route 136 over the Saugatuck River in Westport and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the state DOT has put out a call for letters from parties interested in moving the structure to a different location and reusing it.

The agency released a draft report this week on the potential environmental impacts of rehabilitating or replacing the swing bridge, which has multiple “structural and functional deficiencies.”

Officials said that if they ultimately decide on replacement, they will contact the parties that have expressed interest in taking the bridge and ask them to submit formal proposals for how they would relocate, reassemble and preserve it.

But who in the world would want to take ownership of a bridge originally built in 1884?

“There are a variety of groups that could be interested in reusing a bridge, including towns, non-profit groups, or community organizations,” said Josh Morgan, DOT’s director of communications. “There is no restriction on who could submit a proposal, assuming all requirements are met, but priority will be given to a potential new owner who would use the structure in a transportation related capacity.”

“The bridge would be available for free, provided that the entity that acquires it has the financial resources to restore and reuse the bridge,” Morgan added. “Additionally, CTDOT would provide monetary assistance for moving the bridge up to the amount that transport and disposal of the structure would cost the agency if it were not reused.”

Morgan said it wouldn’t be the first time a bridge has been relocated in the state. In the 1990s, he noted, Mansfield moved two bridges that used to carry cars to the Nipmuck Trail to instead carry pedestrians. During the same decade, Canton acquired a bridge on Route 6 in Farmington and reused it on Powder Mill Road.

More recently, DOT sought proposals for the relocation of the Stiles Bridge in East Windsor in 2023, but Morgan said the agency received no responses. In Norwalk, no entity was able to reuse the entire Walk Bridge, but parts of it will be repurposed, he said.

If no one expresses interest in the Cribari Bridge, and DOT decides to move forward with a total replacement, “the bridge will be removed to all state and federal standards, like any other bridge replacement project,” Morgan said.

John Suggs of the Westport Preservation Alliance said he's not supportive of the idea of moving the bridge elsewhere, arguing that its location is a part of its historic significance.

“It’s not something that I’m too excited about or think is very probable,” Suggs said.

He said his group has “consistently been advocating for the preservation and the ongoing maintenance of the bridge rather than its destruction.” It has also voiced concern about a new, larger bridge becoming a draw for big trucks looking to avoid highway traffic.

Christopher Wigren, the deputy director of Preservation Connecticut, said if DOT does decide to replace the bridge, it would be good to find a new home for the historic structure. But he said he is unsure how likely it is that any group would be able to take on a project to move and repurpose a span of the Cribari Bridge's size while meeting all of DOT's requirements. 

“It would be a big job,” Wigren said.

The 287-foot-long, 26-foot wide, two-lane bridge carries an average of about 13,000 vehicles every day, according to the environmental assessment prepared by the state DOT and the Federal Highway Administration.

Its vertical and horizontal clearances are inadequate, the assessment says, meaning there isn’t enough space for vehicles to easily cross the bridge without hitting objects. School buses, for instance, are at risk of clipping mirrors or the bridge’s trusses.

And because of the bridge’s “deteriorated condition,” vehicles that weigh more than 20 tons cannot use it, the assessment states. Eventually, the structure will be unable to support the weight of vehicles like fire trucks and buses.

The span also has a substandard guardrail system, and the mechanical and electrical equipment used to open and close the bridge is situated under the deck, making it vulnerable to flood damage. The bridge has gotten stuck in the open position several times in recent years, the assessment notes.

The “preferred alternative” is to replace the bridge where it currently stands with a new one — a project that would cost an estimated $78 million to $86 million. Construction would take about three years.

Another option would be rehabilitating the bridge, which would include higher vertical clearances for vehicles and the installation of a new guardrail system and water-resistant equipment, for an estimated $50 million to $55 million.

But a replacement would have additional benefits, according to the environmental assessment, including wider travel lanes, improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists, more space for boats to pass under the bridge and quicker bridge openings. The service life of a rehabilitated bridge would be 25 to 40 years, while a new bridge’s service life would be 75 to 100 years.

Officials dismissed the idea of leaving the existing bridge in place and building a new bridge to the North or South. Such a project would require “substantial property acquisitions,” and the existing bridge would still need repairs, according to the assessment.

The report acknowledges that members of the public have raised concerns about a new or upgraded bridge leading to an uptick in truck traffic through the town but claims that such an increase would be unlikely to happen.

“Since there are no improvements to the surrounding local roadway network beyond the immediate project area, truck drivers are more apt to continue to use I-95 or Route 1 to cross the Saugatuck River,” the report states. “In addition, the Town of Westport can take the additional action of imposing limitations on truck traffic along its local roads.”

A public hearing on the draft environmental assessment is set to take place March 19 at Westport Town Hall. DOT is also accepting comments online until April 17.

State Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, said he thinks there is a way for both DOT's and town residents' needs to be met.

“I'm hopeful that the town and DOT can arrive at an understanding that will bring this classic swing bridge up to current safety standards — before we have a problem — while also addressing local traffic concerns, particularly regarding big trucks,” Steinberg said.

CT Construction Digest Tuesday February 17, 2026

As Danbury prepares to bond $130M for a cancer center, the company asks for more time to build

Rob Ryser

DANBURY – As the city calls a special meeting on Tuesday about a $130 million bonding package to finance a westside cancer center that has been beset by years of delay, the company is asking Danbury to extend construction approvals which run out this summer.

“The city would not be subject to repayment or liability on the bonds,” Mayor Roberto Alves wrote to the 21-member City Council, which is expected on Tuesday to set a public hearing for Feb. 25 to discuss the bonding. “(O)ur partnership would enable the development and operation of a revolutionary, life-saving cancer treatment center to open in Danbury.”

Alves, who announced in mid-December that the Stage 4 cancer he was diagnosed with before the November election was “virtually gone,” has been one of the strongest supporters of the center, known as Danbury Proton.

The short version behind the delays is that the state’s regulatory process took much longer than expected.

"This development’s start of construction was significantly delayed by the time it took to obtain a certificate of need from the state of Connecticut, which is required to operate this facility,” wrote Meaghan Miles, an attorney representing the cancer center, in a Feb. 9 letter to the city’s Planning Department. “The process took approximately five years, with an application not approved until January 2025.”

As a result, a cancer center that had an estimated cost of $80 million when it received land use approvals from Danbury in 2021 now has a price tag of $115 million.

In response, the city is increasing the amount it will borrow for the nonprofit cancer center from $100 million to $130 million.

The reason: the bond must allow for “flexibility” according to a presentation Danbury Proton representatives made to elected officials and city department heads on Feb 5.

Under the arrangement, the city would use its bonding power to help Danbury Proton get low-cost financing under what is known as a “conduit issuer” agreement.

What the city gets in return in addition to novel cancer therapy is economic benefits such as jobs and visitors who could spend money with local businesses, said Farley Santos, Alves’ economic and community development adviser.

If the City Council approves Danbury Proton’s bonding, how soon could construction begin?

“[Danbury Proton] expects to break ground this spring, with an anticipated 18-month construction period,” Carmody said.

The problem is that the cancer center’s land use approvals expire this summer for a three-acre property at 85 Wooster Heights Road.

The solution is for the city to grant an extension.

“(T)he approval of the site plan is void unless construction is completed within five years, or by July 21, 2026,” Danbury Proton’s lawyer wrote to the Planning Commission. “(T)he commission may grant an extension of not more than five years.”

The Planning Commission could take up the request as soon as its next meeting on Wednesday.

Killingly considers applications for three new massive warehouses

Alison Cross

Killingly — The Planning and Zoning Commission is reviewing two major proposals for distribution centers along the Interstate 395 corridor as residents continue to push back on new developments on undisturbed land.

The separate proposals call for a 1.37 million-square-foot warehouse located between I-395, Westcott Road and Mashentuck Road, as well as a 178,750-square-foot and 297,500-square-foot warehouses at 90 Putnam Pike.

Both projects would be developed in wooded areas that are zoned for commercial uses, and neither applicant has identified the companies that would operate out of the facilities.

At the commission’s next meeting, scheduled for 7 p.m. Tuesday, Planning and Zoning officials will determine whether the town should hire a third-party consultant to review the application for the 1.37-million-square-foot warehouse.

The development, identified as Project Husky, is proposed on a 340-acre stretch of land within the town’s Business Park District where warehousing and distribution centers only require a site plan review for approval. Information about the developer was not immediately available.

According to application materials, the 340-acre development would include a 76-acre conservation easement and 216 acres deeded to the town for preservation of open space. The project, which would sit on a total of 48 acres, would disturb an estimated 22,446 square feet of wetlands, mitigated by 16,921 square feet of wetland restoration.

Town staff have recommended the consulting firm Tighe & Bond to assist the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission in reviewing Project Husky’s applications, for a fee of up to $85,000.

Public hearing continues on Putnam Pike plan

Tuesday’s meeting is also expected to see a resurgence of opposition to the 90 Putnam Pike development as the public hearing for the controversial proposal by the Cranston, R.I.-based company Killingly 1 LLC continues.

In the agenda for the upcoming meeting, town staff said that the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot rule on the application on Tuesday night, given that the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission is still deciding on the proposal. They advised the Planning and Zoning to resume the public hearing for a third time on March 16.

The proposed 178,750 square-foot and 297,500 square-foot warehouses would be built on 58 acres of land that is zoned general commercial and is bordered by woodlands and residential properties. According to town records, Killingly 1 LLC purchased the property, which overlaps an aquifer protection area, in September for $600,000.

Town Council Chairman Ed Grandelski suggested that the zoning classification limits the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision-making power.

“For someone saying that this doesn’t belong here, the decisions made to change these zones … were made a long time ago,” Grandelski said at a Town Council meeting on Tuesday. “Now, it’s too late to make a change.”

“If the P&Z regulations allow for the distribution centers, what you can do is read the regulations (and) scrutinize every single word,” Grendelski added. “If there’s a loophole in the specs and you find it, we appreciate that and hopefully our commission members are looking through the same and making the developers do the right thing.”

Since 2021, the town’s zoning regulations have allowed distribution centers within general commercial zones as long as the proposed development meets all conditions required for a special permit.

At Tuesday’s Town Council meeting, residents argued that the proposed project would negatively impact the environment, health, traffic and safety.

“You guys are building this right in my backyard,” Jennifer St. Vincent, who lives next to the proposed construction site, told the Town Council.

A Change.org petition that St. Vincent started last month to oppose the development has received more than 500 signatures. She said that the warehouses would “transform our serene community into an industrial zone.”

“You’ll see the animals passing through (our property) all day, the birds, the deer — it’s amazing. But to ask us to give up our privacy, our safety and our quietness, is ridiculous,” St. Vincent said. “This is going to affect all of us.”

CT lawmakers press for $40 million to give small UConn campus a dorm

Don Stacom 

Frustrated that the University of Connecticut hasn’t made quicker progress to build student housing at the Avery Point campus, nine state legislators are campaigning to get the Bond Commission to come up with $40 million to pay for it.

Lawmakers from southeastern Connecticut have been pressing UConn for more than two years to create dorms or a public-private partnership for apartments at the campus in Groton.

Despite a hiring surge at nearby Electric Boat and the rise of private apartment buildings in New London, the small Avery Point campus still has no student housing — and no assurance that any improvement is on the way.

Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, said the region is tired of waiting, and she’s concerned that UConn leadership may be looking to phase out Avery Point.

“I’ve been talking about doing more for Avery Point for eight years. I think they’re trying to get rid of it,” she told The Courant on Thursday.

UConn officials have said that coordinating a residential facility at Avery Point is part of the university’s long-term strategic plan. But Osten is skeptical, and results of a highly publicized effort last year to find a developer apparently fell through.

“Everybody talks about housing, but it’s only convenient to put money into housing in certain areas of the state. That’s not fair. It’s taking away a significant part of higher education in eastern Connecticut,” she told Josh Wojcik, Gov. Ned Lamont’s new budget secretary, at a meeting of the Appropriations Committee last week.Today in History: February 17,

Ultimately it will be up to Lamont to decide if that idea goes forward, since he controls the Bond Commission agenda.

The 453 students at Avery Point are all commuters, and its advocates note that the university has spent tens of millions of dollars to add housing at its branches in Waterbury and Stamford as well as the main Storrs campus.

UConn leadership said last year that it was in talks with a potential developer for an Avery Point dorm, but never produced a construction plan, budget or time schedule, and didn’t publicly identify the company. A university spokeswoman this week acknowledged that plan is no longer advancing.

“The university previously sought proposals from the private sector to construct student housing at Avery Point that would be cost-neutral for UConn. No viable proposals that would accomplish this were received,” she said. “As part of its overarching strategic plan, UConn is developing strategic plans for each of the regional campuses. Once final, these plans will be presented to and discussed with UConn’s Board of Trustees.”

The university declined to comment on Osten’s bill.

In September, Osten and other lawmakers from the region told UConn’s board of trustees that Avery Point needs investment in student housing and academic programs. They warned that the school is losing potential students to competing colleges where living arrangements are easier.

So far, talks about a $50 million dormitory have focused on property near the athletic building. The goal would be housing for 250 students with a dining hall as well as health care facilities for students.

It’s important to Groton and surrounding towns, local leaders say.

“Avery Point is the only state school in southeastern Connecticut. We want it to do well,” Groton Mayor Jill Rusk said Thursday. “The campus is very significant and we support housing there. We’d hope it would be on campus.”

As Electric Boat has already begun expanding staff, the tight housing market in her town has grown tougher, Rusk said.

“There’s been a push for student housing for a while. We have very little housing right now, and some residents in the vicinity are struggling because the costs are going up,” she said.

General Dynamics’ Electric Boat operation has projected adding thousands of jobs in Groton as well as Rhode Island, and the campus has specialized programs in marine sciences and maritime studies.

“With the hiring surge at the Groton shipyard speeding up and the historic demand for submarine design, engineering, and construction not letting up in the coming decades, the value of UConn’s Avery Point campus cannot be overstated,” U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney told The Courant on Thursday.

“UConn’s Avery Point campus is uniquely situated to be an academic hub for southeastern Connecticut’s submarine industry,” Courtney said,, calling Defense Department-funded research at UConn’s National Institute for Undersea Vehicle Technology “critical to maintaining U.S. Navy undersea supremacy.”

Until a decade ago, UConn had an additional regional campus in the opposite corner of the state.

Northwestern Connecticut leaders in the ’80s and ’90s fought to save UConn’s Torrington branch, saying it provided invaluable opportunity for students from that region who couldn’t afford or didn’t want to go to Storrs. State leaders at the time wanted to close the campus, but relented.