Demolition in New Haven starts on last Winchester factory building for Science Park development
NEW HAVEN — No one involved in creating Science
Park on the former site of the Winchester
Repeating Arms Co.firearms factory complex, and certainly not founder Henry
"Sam" Chauncey Jr., thought it would take 45 years to reuse or
demolish the entire Winchester complex.
Demolition started Monday on the last of the buildings in
the complex to come to down, located at 270 Mansfield St. off Winchester Ave.
"When I look at this, I get tears in my eyes,"
said Chauncey, now in his 90s, and the former Yale University secretary who got
the Science Park ball rolling back in 1981,
He said that when he began working to preserve and reuse the
former Winchester property, he "was concerned about this community,"
which in many different ways was built around it.
Though he thought it would take 25 years to redevelop all
the different Winchester properties, he was not surprised that it ultimately
took 45 years.
He joined other officials Monday to celebrate the last bit
of demolition and remediation starting.
"I wanted to see this last piece," he said after
the ceremony. "This project was the dream I had all by myself."
Since that initial dream, many others have signed on to
help. Everyone involved, from Mayor
Justin Elicker to present day Science Park President David Silverstone
and Jake Pine, senior director of developer LMSC, seemed thrilled to finally
move forward.
"This is really a momentous occasion," Silverstone
said as heavy equipment worked a few hundred feet behind him to begin taking
down the old factory building.
Science Park managed to save and reuse about two-thirds of
the historic Winchester complex.
The building being knocked down is on a three-acre site
containing nine former factory buildings that have been unused and blighted
since 1987. The tract it's on will be redeveloped into at least 100 residential
units or 100,000 square feet of commercial space, depending on market forces,
officials said.
"These are the last of the contaminated sites that will
be demolished over the next year," Silverstone added.
It's part of a larger multi-phase redevelopment effort by
the Science Park Development Corp., which was founded in 1981 by the city of
New Haven, the state of Connecticut, Yale and the Olin Corp. to redevelop the
former Winchester Repeating Arms Company factory complex.
More than 65% — 1.1 million square feet of buildings — have
been rehabilitated and repurposed into offices, biotech labs, educational
facilities and apartments. Every residential building includes 20% affordable
units.
Elicker called the start of work on the final site "a
big deal" since it will take down a building inundated with oil
contaminated with trichloroethylene, a carcinogenic industrial metal-degreasing
solvent, and allow for new development.
"It is unbelievable what has happened at this site over
the last 45 years," Elicker said.
As he spoke, he stood a few hundred yards from the
adjacent Winchester
Green project, currently under construction — and two months ahead of schedule, which
will include 283 units, and directly behind the 156-unit
Winchester Lofts project being built within a former factory building.
"So much life is being created at this site, which formerly made
instruments of death," Elicker said.
He said over the past five years, 3,000 new housing units
are being built in New Haven, 30% of which are affordable, with 7,000 more
housing units in the pipeline.
"Once this thing comes down, we've got to put something
in its place," Elicker said.
The demolition, abatement and remediation is expected to end
next June and is being done with the aid of $10.8 million from the
Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development.
Binu Chandy, director of the Office of Brownfield
Remediation and Development within the state Department of Economic and
Community Development, called the current project "the last piece in the
grand plan," and lauded "the potential of the site and the promise of
what comes next."
She pointed out that the project began as an adaptive reuse
but turned into a remediation project after it became clear that the building
could not be reused for residential purposes.
Right now, officials don't know for sure whether the future
use will be housing or other facilities, and said market forces will determine
that over the next year or so.
Pine said the plan was to transform 270 Mansfield into
housing, but environmental concerns intervened.
"Today is a big step and it really is only the
beginning," he said.
Alder Maceo "Troy" Streater, D-21, in whose
word the project is, and Alder Kimberly Edwards, D-19, used to walk about the
Winchester factory while growing up in the neighborhood.
"This building has been vacant, being an eyesore, for
decades," Streater said.
Edwards said she has lived in the neighborhood for 51 years
and it "was kind of scary" to walk by the building growing up.
"We're going to see great things happening here,"
she said.
State Rep. Steven Winter, D-94, who used to be the
district's alder, said he regrets the building has to be demolished but he's
pleased to see the developer and Science Park "pushing forward with
environmental remediation."
Among other things, the state Department of Public Health
ruled out any kind of future housing in the building, officials said.
"These are really difficult decisions ... to determine
when to take down a building," said Michael Piscitelli, the city's
economic development administrator. The city has spent about $14.5 million
in rownfield remediation funds, much of it from grants, in recent years,
he said.
State DECD Senior Development Specialist Lindy Gold said the
project is about social and environmental justice.
The work is being done by Winchester Partners, a
collaboration between Twining Properties and LMXD, with investment from Urban
Investment Group within Goldman Sachs Asset Management, KeyBank, and the New
Haven Housing Authority.
Plainville officials observe Tilcon blast
Jack Crowley
PLAINVILLE – As residents near the Tilcon quarry continue to
raise concerns over blasting vibrations, noise, and potential health impacts,
town officials and local leaders are visiting the site Monday afternoon to
observe a scheduled quarry blast.
“This is an invitation that Tilcon has extended to the town
staff, myself, and council members to witness a blast and to pose more
questions that they may have with respect to the safety of operations and the
concerns that the residents have,” Town Manager Michael Paulhus said before the
blast on Monday.
“This is one step in our effort to get additional
information,” he said.
Members of the Plainville Town Council, town staff, and the
director of the regional health district will be present.
The blast, scheduled for 2:00 p.m., comes after Tilcon
withdrew a request to expand its Plainville quarry by 83 acres, under pressure
from neighbors concerned with the disruption and silica dust they say comes
from blasting at the quarry on the town line with New Britain.
The Plainville Town Council held a special meeting Thursday
night aimed at addressing residents’ concerns.
Paulhus said other concerns nearby residents have raised are
the level of blasting, the vibrations and potential property damage, as well as
health issues related to air quality and the quality of drinking water from an
aquifer that sits below.
“Those are the things that we have to gather more data on,”
Paulhus said, referring to air and water quality issues.
Paulhus said town officials are noting those concerns from
residents and using this site visit to address them.
He said the site visit was not open to the public or the
media.
“We’re taking advantage of this opportunity to witness a
blast and to talk about the regulatory guidelines for this type of activity
within a quarry and blasting levels.” Paulhus said, “so we can have a comfort
level and understanding that what they’re doing is within the limits.”
A Bill, a Veto, a Question of Where to Build What’s Unwanted in Connecticut
Ally LeMaster
Who decides when a big disputed project is planned for a
small town in Connecticut?
Nearly a decade ago, state and federal officials
tried, and
may try again, to build a high-speed rail bypass through the historic
district in Old Lyme.
Plans last year for new transmission
lines through two much bigger municipalities, Fairfield and
Bridgeport, spurred the legislature to carve a role for local government and
state lawmakers before the state’s Siting Council can approve a utility
project.
In East Haven, local
activists opposing the expansion of Tweed airport, called into question the
commitment of Democrats in Hartford to so-called environmental justice
communities.
This year the legislature passed a bill, House
Bill 7004, to allow small towns with 16,000 or fewer residents to
vote by referendum on state permitting of unwanted projects.
A sponsor of the bipartisan bill told CT Examiner the
legislation was a direct response to plans for a trash incinerator in
Plainfield. But it could also prevent the construction of a second incinerator
in Preston, and the third trash incinerator located in the immediate area.
On July 1, Gov. Ned Lamont took the side of local control
when he vetoed House
Bill 5002, an omnibus bill that would have shifted power away from town
zoning boards.
But a week later, on July 8, Lamont vetoed House Bill 7004.
“I appreciate the motivation behind this bill: to give
residents in smaller municipalities a stronger role in environmental decisions
that may affect their communities,” Lamont wrote in a letter to the Secretary
of the State, before concluding that local control would undermine the
“objectivity” of the state’s decision making.
“Allowing permitting decisions to be overturned by referenda
undermines the principles of objectivity embedded in our state permitting
process, will discourage important investments in infrastructure, and will
drive up the cost of living for residents,” Lamont said.
State Rep. Aundré Bumgardner, D-Groton, a co-sponsor of the
bill, told CT Examiner that while the legislation was initially drafted as a
response to residents’ uproar over a proposed waste
processing plant in Plainfield, it was also intended to give small,
rural communities across the state a voice over development.
“At this point, there’s no recourse for citizens to reverse
an approval of a facility that the community may find to be an affront to their
best interest or the health and wellness of the community from the standpoint
of pollution,” he said.
Bumgardner said that many residents in Plainfield were upset
with the proposed plant since the community already surrounds affecting
facilities, which are facilities that release an elevated amount of
pollution.
Small, rural towns in the state, Bumgardner said, have a
“disproportionate number” of these facilities
“There are fewer people living in our rural communities,” he
said. “But at the same time, what we’ve seen is a denigration of rural
character of Eastern Connecticut, largely driven by a loss in a significant
decline in agriculture.”
While the bill, as it is written, was voted on by lawmakers
at the end of the legislative session, it received bipartisan support.
One of the other co-sponsors of this bill, State Sen.
Heather Somers, R-Groton, called Lamont’s veto “disappointing” and
“unfortunate” in a joint statement with Sen. Jeff Gordon and Sen. Stephen
Harding.
“Eastern Connecticut has had to accept more than its fair
share of polluting facilities,” they wrote. “Local communities in eastern
Connecticut – and throughout the state for that matter – should have more of a
voice in siting decisions.”
Somers did not respond to multiple requests for comment
about this bill.
A second planned incinerator in Preston
Preston selectperson Jerry Grabarek, who has been sounding
the alarm over what he claims are environmental impacts from a waste
incinerator in town, said that he believes Lamont vetoed House Bill 7004 to
prevent residents from stopping the development of a second trash incinerator.
Under state law, environmental
justice communities are defined as census groups where 30% of the
population earns an income under 200% of the federal poverty level or as a
distressed municipality.
For the past ten years, the Town of Preston has been added
to and taken off the state’s distressed municipality list, and currently has
remaining eligibility until September 2026. A section of Preston has also been
designated as an environmental justice community, according to DEEP.
A current map of environmental justice communities (Credit:
DEEP)
In 1991, Reworld, a New Jersey-based waste management
company, began operating a waste incinerator in Preston named SECONN.
And just less than 10 miles from SECONN is a waste
incinerator in the neighboring town of Lisbon.
Tom
Koltis, senior vice president of Reworld, confirmed in a statement to CT
Examiner that the company plans to expand its operations of SECONN, which would
include the addition of a second incinerator to the site.
He said that Reworld has been driven to expand its
operations as the state faces an ongoing shortfall in waste processing
infrastructure. Approximately 94% of waste that enters SECONN comes from
Connecticut. The remaining 6% is from Massachusetts, he said.
Reworld intends to submit permit applications within the
next couple months, and has plans for the incinerator to begin operations in
2030, said Koltis.
This means that three waste incinerators could be located
within a less than 10 mile radius.
Grabarek owns a dairy farm about 2.5 miles from SECONN and
has had blood
work done, which shows that he has an elevated amount of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise known as PFAs, in his body. He said that
he believes the emissions from the facility have caused these high
levels.
“I consider myself the perfect guinea pig for PFAs exposure
from that incinerator,” Grabarek said.
Grabarek has been urging state agencies to conduct more
tests for PFAs and claims that Lamont’s veto has cleared the way for a second
incinerator.
“Preston is one of the most affected towns here,” he said.
“We get no say. They just bulldoze right over you.”
Grabarek said that he believes a town referendum would stop
the second incinerator from being built.
Asked about Grabarek’s claims, Koltis confirmed that House
Bill 7004 would have had a “negative impact” on the planned expansion of the
SECONN facility, and admitted that the company “was among several organizations
that formally requested a veto of the legislation.”
David Bednarz, a press secretary for Lamont, did not respond
to questions about the veto or the Preston incinerator.
Koltis said that there will be major changes to SECONN, and
that the new proposed incinerator in Preston would burn garbage at a
temperature in excess of 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, which he said has been shown
to “destroy” PFAs in lab settings.
Patrick McCormack, the Director of Health for the Uncas
Health District, said that district does not test the air or water for PFAs and
has not received many inquiries about PFAs to date.
Grabarek, who has been a member of the local Democratic
Party for over 50 years and has been honored by state
and federal lawmakers for his public service, told CT Examiner that he
often feels like he is battling his own party to take these environmental
concerns seriously.
Grabarek called on Lamont to have a meeting with him about
this issue.
DEEP did not respond to a request for comment about
environmental testing in areas around the incinerators in Preston and Lisbon,
or potential cumulative impacts of having three incinerators located close
by.
Traffic shifts, ramp closures coming for next phase of I-95 project in East Lyme
Jack Lakowsky
East Lyme — The $155 million reconstruction of Interstate 95
here has passed the halfway point, and in September it begins a new phase that
shifts the current layout of the southbound lanes near Exit 74.
Southbound traffic will then shift into what is now the
project work zone, and vice-versa, Project Engineer Andrew Millovitsch said
Thursday.
Millovitsch said from July 28 until Aug. 11, the area of
Flanders Road beneath and near the southbound I-95 bridge will be closed from 8
p.m. to 5 a.m. to let crews safely install steel for the new bridge. After that
two-week period, drivers can expect the two-week closure of the Exit 74
southbound off-ramp that drivers take to get to Costco. A detour will bring
drivers to Exit 75, Millovitsch said.
The project's Resident Engineer James Therrien said the I-95
shift might sound like a big deal —and it is, especially to managers and crews
—but to drivers, it won't feel hugely different.
"We're not closing any lanes," Therrien said.
"For us it's gigantic. We're shifting about 30 feet."
This is all part of the fourth of six stages in a project
meant to make travel safer between Exits 74 and 75, an area with a high number
of traffic accidents and 80,000 drivers a day.
The project aims to correct the sightlines and layout of
I-95, to replace the I-95 bridge over Route 161, and to build new on- and
off-ramps at Exit 74.
Due to the existing conditions, this area of I-95 has a
posted speed limit of 50 miles per hour. The on- and off-ramps at Exit 74 lack
the proper acceleration and deceleration lanes that merge on and off the
highway and they have very tight turns. Also, drivers on Route 161 southbound
must make a near-hairpin left turn to access the I-95 northbound on-ramp. This
improvement will include a dedicated righthand turn exit lane to enter I-95
northbound.
The work on I-95 covers about 1.3 miles, while about 0.60
miles of Route 161 has also seen work.
The project is on schedule and largely on budget, with
Millovitsch saying in March costs have risen about $6 million, relatively low
for a project of this scope.
"I'd definitely call this project a success,"
Therrien said of the work, which is set to finish in 2027.
Millovitsch, who represents the state Department of
Transportation, said there have been fewer complaints from the public about
this project than others he's worked on, attributing that to successful
communication with drivers and the town.
Developer downsizes huge CT housing complex on river, drops out of talks
Shortly before a highly anticipated public meeting Monday
evening about its ideas for a sprawling residential development, Crown Equities abruptly dropped
out — a decision that stops the project from advancing until September at
soonest.
The Minneapolis-based developer in mid-June showed preliminary
plans for nearly 300 apartments and townhouses during an informal talk
with the Farmington Planning and Zoning Commission.
Last week, it
put forward a revision with just 228 units, all rental or ownership
townhouses and single-family homes.
It was scheduled to present that revised plan Monday night
and introduce analyses projecting a relatively
modest impact on school enrollment but a $1.6 million-a-year net increase to
the tax rolls.
However, attorney Robert Reeve of the local Scully, Nicksa & Reeve law firm advised the town Friday that Crown was withdrawing from the informal talks, but provided no further detail. Neither Reeve nor Crown could be reached Monday.
The company is still free to request further informal talks
or to submit a formal zoning application. However, the commission takes August
off and isn’t scheduled to meet again until Sept. 8.
The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip
the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard
Residents have been talking extensively about the project
since the first informal discussion June 23. It’s one of the largest
residential proposals in Farmington in recent years, and would cover 65 acres
between the Farmington River and Route 4, a thoroughfare that is already badly
traffic clogged at the morning and evening rush hours.
Commissioners on June 23 raised questions, particularly
about the impact on school enrollments. Moderate-income Connecticut suburbs
have grown increasingly wary of large residential projects likely to draw
families, since the state provides relatively little education aid compared to
what it gives poor suburbs and large cities.
Farmington reported spending a little under $20,200 per
pupil in 2022-23, and its enrollment currently hovers around 4,100.
Last week, Crown Equities submitted a report from one of its
consultants, Goman + York, concluding that the impact of the 228-unit plan
would be about 50 new students.
Analysis by Goman + York, a consultant for Crown Equities.
(Courtesy of Town of Farmington)
“Demographic changes in population structure (age),
household type, and household size, are disrupting conventional understandings
of housing, school district enrollments, and municipal fiscal impacts,” wrote
Donald Poland of Goman + York. “As a result of demographic change, Farmington’s
existing housing stock only generates 0.382 enrollments per occupied housing
unit.
“From 2007 to 2023, Farmington added 1,130 newly constructed
housing units, while school district enrollments declined by 15 pupils—stagnant
enrollment growth over 16 years,” he wrote. “The 228 proposed rental and
ownership housing units are projected to generate a total of 100 school
district enrollments (0.44/unit), of which 50 are estimated to be
new-to-district enrollments (0.22/unit).”
The consultant’s report suggested the Enclave would add
about $895,000 a year in new municipal expenses, with $548,000 of that going to
pay for new school students. But the complex would also add about $2.5 million
in new property taxes, car taxes and sewer use fees.
“Goman+York finds the 228 proposed rental and ownership
housing units will generate approximately $1,647,988 in net positive revenues
annually,” Poland wrote. “In addition, the proposed 228-unit development will
pay approximately $1,104,525 in one-time development fees.”
A Facebook page called Citizens for Farmington has
questioned the practice of allowing developers to hold informal,
pre-application talks with developers.
“Require applicants to complete the application process
before being allowed to present at public meetings and solicit feedback from
commissioners,” said a recent post, which also said residents should be
entitled to speak at all such meetings.
State law has permitted pre-application discussions since at
least 2003, and many communities use them as a way to give developers an early
sense of community reservations or questions before committing to the expense
of a full-scale proposal and presentation.
White House announces infrastructure priorities, permit updates
The Trump administration laid out its infrastructure
priorities last week — key among them permitting overhaul and speeding up
construction.
“We want to streamline the rules and regulations around what
you do as much as possible,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said
Thursday during
an infrastructure conference, ahead of Congress’s Surface Transportation
Reauthorization process later this fall.
At the conference, Duffy signed an agreement with the Texas
DOT that allows it to take more ownership of environmental permitting
requirements, in an effort to help the state build infrastructure projects
faster and to serve as a model for other states.
Duffy also said he will work with Congress to adequately
fund the country’s highway system and spoke on the removal of Biden-era DEI
initiatives. Duffy’s
“America is Building Again” agenda includes, according to the Thursday
DOT release:
Enhancing transportation safety.
Accelerating project delivery for transportation projects,
by “reforming the National Environmental Policy Act and permitting, enhancing
One Federal Decision and increasing the use of technology.”
Investment in transportation infrastructure that promotes
economic growth, including more private sector investment.
Strengthening partnerships with states and other
stakeholders.
The DOT also announced $488 million in funding
through the BUILD program for 30 infrastructure projects across the
country, ranging from bridge replacements to flood resiliency
efforts.
NEPA changes ahead
In a letter
that same day, Duffy urged governors nationwide to assume NEPA
responsibilities and take the lead on project delivery. Historically, federal
agencies have been responsible for conducting environmental reviews and
preparing documentation.
“Driving project delivery efficiencies through regulatory
streamlining is one of the top priorities [of the DOT],” the letter reads.
“That is why I am writing to encourage your State to take advantage of unique
statutory authority and assume the Federal environmental review process under
the National Environmental Policy Act.”
Duffy also cited NEPA authority when asked about the Trump
administration’s priorities at the surface
transportation reauthorization hearing July 16, saying that the bedrock law
is “costing too much and taking too long.”
“We’re actually using our unique authority for procurement
that’s not been used in the past. We are getting CEO engagement with us on
this,” Duffy said in the hearing.
Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) testified that most rail
projects take place under existing right-of-ways and asked if routine
maintenance and replacement infrastructure projects could be eligible for
categorical exclusion under NEPA.
“That’s a broad question, but with balance, yes, I do think
they should fall under categorical exclusion,” Duffy said.
Bottom of Form
Infrastructure changes
The most recent surface transportation reauthorization was
included in the broader Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act, which expires
in September 2026. Congress is hashing out replacement legislation.
At the reauthorization hearing, Duffy said the DOT wants to
focus on innovation and “the efficiency with which we can deliver these
projects.” When Rep. David Rouzer (R-N.C.) asked about potentially
consolidating newer, smaller IIJA programs, Duffy was in agreement and said he
wants to simplify the department’s grant process altogether.
“We have like 12 different programs in regard to grants, and then tech and
programming and computers. Everything’s different, all under DOT. We want to
consolidate, and so we can have a dashboard where all of you can see where your
grants are, your constituents can see, ‘where’s my grant, how fast is it
moving?’” Duffy said.
Webster also asked Duffy whether the creation of a federal
infrastructure bank, that would levy only private investment, could supplement
current federal funding tools.
“I do think there is a role for private capital to play, I
would agree with that,” Duffy said. “A lot of the private capital I do see
coming in is foreign private capital, and it would be nice to see more American
private capital because some of these returns are pretty good.”
Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) asked about the mass layoffs at
the DOT and other transportation agencies, noting that the Federal
Highway Administration has seen a 26% reduction in force since May,
according to Reuters. Pappas noted many DOT offices were already understaffed,
and expressed concern that they don’t “have enough staff to fulfill their
critical mission to our state DOTs providing front line assistance and transportation
project development and delivery.”
Duffy responded that the agency “preserved all of the
critical safety positions,” adding, “We’re trying to do more with less, and if
we’re ineffective and we need more people on board to make sure we accomplish
the mission, I’ll bring them in.”
Other takeaways
Rep. Jesus Garcia (D-Ill.) requested support of the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, which increases the participation of
certain small businesses in federally funded transportation projects, and asked
Duffy not to defund Small Business Transportation Resource Centers, which
provide DBEs with technical assistance and advice.
“If you want preferences for race and sex, I think that’s
not constitutional,” Duffy responded.
Duffy also indicated conditional support for rail projects,
noting that numerous rules and permits drive up the cost of building them in
the U.S. versus elsewhere. The agency said Thursday that it was pulling $4
billion in unspent grants
for the California High-Speed Rail and may seek to claw back
previously awarded funds, according to Smart Cities Dive.
“I’m open — you give good money to invest in high-speed
rail, I want to see a project that we can do it,” Duffy said. “I’ve been
tentatively supportive of LA to Las Vegas, and want to see how they do. There
were conversations about Dallas to Houston.”
Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) said he planned to introduce a
bill that would ban federal transportation dollars for states that don’t comply
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — something a judge
in June ruled illegal, according to CBS News.
“I couldn’t agree with you more, if you allow your city to
be burned, or even in LA when we’re allowing riders to destroy our streets, the
federal taxpayer should not come back and then rebuild that when they allow it
to be destroyed,” Duffy said.
In June protests against ICE raids broke out in Los Angeles,
but they
were largely peaceful and destruction was limited in scope and to a
small area, ABC News reported.
The DOT wants feedback
on surface transportation priorities, per a Request for Information titled
“Advancing a Surface Transportation Proposal that Focuses on America’s Most
Fundamental Infrastructure Needs,” published Monday.