In some CT towns, clouds form over new solar developments
The first time Chris Dahl heard rumblings of a plan to build
a large solar array among the corn fields and tobacco sheds of East Windsor,
she said the project sounded like a good enough idea.
A portion of the land slated for development included a sand
and gravel quarry that had become an attractive hangout for underage drinkers
and ATV riders, much to the displeasure of local residents and town officials.
Plus, Dahl said, the project promised to produce gobs of
clean, carbon-free electricity — the kind of mission that she and her wife,
Robin Chesky, had supported by installing solar panels on the roof of their own
home in town.
Dahl wasn’t alone in her initial feelings about the project,
which even adopted a name highlighting its adaptive reuse of the old quarry:
Gravel Pit Solar.
Local officials also threw their support behind it, citing
the project’s benefits to the town as well as Connecticut’s broader effort to
shift away from its reliance on older fuel-burning power plants. While testifying in favor of Gravel Pit Solar’s application
before state regulators in 2020, East Windsor First Selectman Jason Bowsza said
the community was “very supportive of renewable energy projects, especially
when the projects make sense for us.”
“This is not going to be something that becomes an eyesore,” he added.
But by the time Gravel Pit Solar began to take shape in late
2021, Dahl and others were having second thoughts.
They grew alarmed as they watched construction spread beyond
the gravel pit area onto hundreds of acres of surrounding farmland. Trees and
shrubs were cleared to make way for solar panels, and workers erected a wire
fence around the site, which Dahl said she feared would block the movement of
local wildlife.
The first time she drove over a hill and witnessed the
extent of the project, Dahl said she began to cry.
“It just overwhelmed me,” she said. “Gone was the farmland.
Gone was the open space, now it was filled with panels … It was really
unexpected for me, and I think other people have had similar experiences.”
With an output of up to 120 megawatts, Gravel Pit Solar is
by far the largest solar array in Connecticut and one of the largest in New
England. Its thousands of panels are enough to cover more than 350
football fields and are capable of producing roughly one-quarter of all the
existing utility-scale solar power in the state. The site runs from
Apothecaries Hall and Windsorville roads on the north side to Plantation Road
on the south, according to the site plans.
Its construction has made East Windsor the forerunner in the
state’s charge toward solar energy development. Surrounding towns, too, have
joined in the bonanza with other large arrays sprouting up on former farm
fields throughout the region.
After initially welcoming the Gravel Pit project, however,
many residents and local officials now say they’ve soured on the town’s
status as a hotbed for the solar industry. Critics have accused developers of
snatching up farmland, altering the rural character of the town and ignoring
local concerns about noise and safety.
And East Windsor isn’t the only Connecticut community where
solar opposition is on the rise. Experts warn the growing pushback could
threaten the state’s ability to meet its long-term commitments to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by deploying new, cleaner forms of electricity
generation.
Still, solar developers haven’t slowed down.
Roughly a month after commencing full operations in April,
Gravel Pit’s developers, DESRI Holdings,
filed a request with the Connecticut Siting Council to expand the existing
facility by another 30 megawatts onto adjacent properties. The company has also
revealed its plans to build a second 100-megawatt facility, Saltbox Solar, on
farmland in the towns of East Windsor and Ellington.
“Connecticut needs additional power to meet future demand,
and state law requires all electricity to come from renewable sources by 2040,”
the company said in a statement.
“Regulators determine how to balance those needs with local
concerns,” the statement continued. “DESRI is proud to help provide affordable,
clean power to the state by developing projects that are consistent with state
policy and is committed to engaging local communities throughout the process.”
In an effort to marshal the local opposition to solar
expansion, Dahl and Chesky formed East Windsor Residents for Responsible Solar Development and
have been collecting hundreds signatures from people urging the Siting Council
to reject the latest proposal.
Their efforts have attracted the support of state lawmakers —
even some who strongly support the state’s clean-energy efforts — who are
now pressing for systemic changes to the process of approving larger solar
arrays and other renewable energy projects that would give cities and towns
more of a say in determining whether those facilities get built.
“We don’t want any more of these,” East Windsor First
Selectman Jason Bowsza said recently. “I want to be very clear — we don’t want
any more of these.”
Who gives the go-ahead
That systemic change lawmakers are considering could begin
with the Connecticut Siting Council. Established in 1971, the council
regulates the placement of power plants and electric transmission lines, a
process that was previously controlled largely by the use of eminent domain by
utility companies.
The council’s jurisdiction has since grown to include cell
phone towers, hazardous waste facilities and other types of vital
infrastructure projects that often meet with heavy pushback from neighbors. For
that reason, the council has the final say over siting such facilities,
preempting local control.
“It was basically to end town-by-town regulation of these
larger projects that impact interstate commerce,” said Melanie Bachman, who has
served as the executive director of the Siting Council since 2013.
If each town had the authority to veto projects within its
borders, she added, “the lights would go off and telecommunications would go
out.”
Critics, however, say the Siting Council has gone too far in
weighing the interests of developers over local opposition. They point to the
fact that the council has, in recent years, approved more than 80% of its
applications to build large solar arrays. (By statute, the council has
jurisdiction over siting any electric-generating facility over 1 megawatt,
though developers of smaller projects can waive their exclusion to avoid
leaving the decision up to municipal officials.)
“We look at the state and say, ‘You need to do a better job,
because these are being built in residential zones, and the impact on the
community and the residents that have purchased property next to them is
huge,'” Dahl said.
That sentiment has grown particularly powerful within a
handful of towns along the eastern side of the Connecticut River, just south of
he Massachusetts border. The area — also known as the “Tobacco Valley” — has
become an attractive destination for solar developers due to an abundance of
relatively cheap farmland and easy access to existing transmission lines.
Aside from Gravel Pit Solar, a few smaller facilities are either operating or under
construction in East Windsor’s southeast corner, an area of town known as
Windsorville. Nearly a dozen other arrays, ranging in size from a few acres to
larger than Vatican City, have been built or are under construction in nearby
towns such as Enfield, Ellington and Somers.
By contrast, the Siting Council has approved just a single
solar project in all of Fairfield County: a 2-megawatt facility in Bridgeport.
Mike Trahan, the executive director of the Connecticut Solar
and Energy Storage Association, said solar development is concentrated in
places where substations connecting to the regional electric grid have the
capacity to handle the power produced by larger arrays. In more densely
populated parts of the state like Fairfield County, Trahan said, higher land
values and a backlog of available interconnections serve as an impediment to
solar development.
“The bottom line is these projects, all of them, have to
interconnect with the existing infrastructure, and that’s where developers go,”
Trahan said. “There’s just no way around it.”
While Bachman declined to comment specifically on the Gravel
Pit project or its proposed expansion, she defended the council’s overall track
record by noting that developers often go through years of careful planning and
consultations with utilities and other state agencies, such as the Department
of Energy and Environmental Protection, before even submitting their
applications to the Siting Council.
That process ends up weeding out many projects that could
raise flags, she said.
Bachman said council members are limited to considering a
specific set of criteria when reviewing a project application. That criteria
requires the Siting Council to determine whether there is a public need for the
proposed facility and whether its impact — either alone or cumulatively with
other existing facilities in the area — would pose significant harm to the
environment, wildlife, public health or scenic and recreational areas.
More local concerns, such as the impact on property values
or municipal tax rolls, are not part of the council’s evaluation criteria, she
said. “Anything related to an environmental effect, we can look at
cumulatively,” Bachman said.
But Bowsza, the first selectman in East Windsor, accused the
council of ignoring its own criteria to look at the cumulative impact of
existing facilities, given the number of projects that have already been sited
in his town.
“If I show you an aerial map of my town, or if I show you
the chart that demonstrates the aggregate renewable energy in the state and how
much East Windsor produces, how — with a straight face — has that not had a
cumulative impact on the community?” Bowsza said. “It’s not fathomable that
they’re considering that.”
Trahan, of the solar trade association, said he
can understand some of the frustrations raised by people living next to large
arrays, but he said developers have also worked with neighbors to minimize
those concerns — by planting shrubs or other vegetation around a project, or
locating them in areas where they’re less likely to draw attention, such as on
top of old landfills.
He also defended the Siting Council’s scrutiny over solar
projects. Often, he said, the council has required developers to
undertake costly revisions to their plans that address concerns raised by
neighbors or environmental advocates.
“The Siting Council is being asked to make decisions that
make everybody happy, and that’s just not possible,” Trahan said.
Where there’s smoke
On a windy afternoon in March, Dana Van Steenburgh was in
his front yard in East Windsor, fixing the mailbox with his son and a neighbor,
when a loud noise startled the group.
The source of the noise, Van Steenburgh said, was an
exploding transformer along power lines rising up from the nearly 30-acre solar
array across the street. The perimeter of the array is surrounded by fencing,
dry grass and a line of ornamental shrubs installed by the facility’s owners.
“I heard this loud explosion,” he said. “I saw the brightest
green light you’ve ever seen, and then a spark fell to the ground and those
[shrubs] went up like a Q-tip soaked in alcohol.”
Van Steenburgh said he called 911 and watched as the fire
spread to within 100 feet of a nearby tobacco shed before firefighters arrived
and doused the flames, narrowly averting an even bigger calamity.
The March fire was the latest in what neighbors say is a
series of issues with the array and its developers, dating back to when the
facility began construction in 2021. Located on Middle Road, roughly two miles
from the much larger Gravel Pit Solar, the array was developed by West
Hartford’s Verogy, which later sold the facility to a subsidiary of
Florida-based NextEra Energy.
Among the most persistent complaints has to do with a
high-pitched buzz, or “ringing” noise that neighbors say is produced by the
facility’s power inverters during bright, sunny days. They say the noise can be
heard throughout the tract of homes directly across the street from the array,
which is otherwise located in a largely agricultural area, dotted with corn and
tobacco fields.
“You’re trying to enjoy the outdoors, in the fresh air, and
then you’re hearing ringing noise in your ears,” said Rich Levesque, one of the
local residents who has raised complaints. “It’s just annoying, you know? It’s
just not right.”
In response, attorneys for the project’s developers
have submitted evidence to the Siting Council showing that
the noise emitted by the facility is below the 55 decibel limit, or about the
volume of a kitchen refrigerator.
NextEra has also attempted to mitigate the problem by
installing a plywood fence and, later, a full sound barrier around the solar
array.
“While our project was already in compliance with applicable
noise requirements, we voluntarily installed a sound barrier, as a good
neighbor, to further reduce noise levels from the inverters at the site,”
NextEra spokesman Chris Curtland said in a statement. “A subsequent study
confirmed that the sound barrier successfully reduced sound from the inverters.
We continue to engage with a sound engineer, despite remaining in compliance
with the law and observing significant noise improvement at the site.”
Curtland added that the March fire was caused by equipment
owned by the local utility company, Eversource, and that it did not result in
damage to the solar array.
In a statement, Eversource spokeswoman Tricia Modifica said
that the fire was caused by equipment failure during high winds. “We
quickly identified the issue and replaced the equipment within 24 hours,”
Modifica said. “The incident is currently being reviewed by regulators.”
Both Van Steenburgh and Levesque said the fencing has
reduced the noise somewhat, but the problem persists. They said NextEra
officials stopped responding to their complaints and requests that the company
invest in a costlier solution: relocating the inverters farther away from their
homes.
Chesky, the co-founder of the East Windsor Residents for
Responsible Solar Development, said she believes the issues surrounding
the facility on Middle Road are the result of failures in the siting process
that could have been avoided. She said the Siting Council could benefit from a
more specific set of guidelines for considering solar projects and clearer rules
for how close equipment can be to homes and businesses. (In 2024, state
lawmakers voted to require that certain solar facilities locate
inverters at least 200 feet from the nearest property line.)
“They need to know more about what is right and what is
wrong in these situations, and what is best practices and what is not,” Chesky
said. “And I think that the state probably could do a better job giving them
the tools that they need to be making educated decisions.”
During a public hearing on Thursday, officials working on
the Gravel Pit expansion project acknowledged that a small brush fire broke out
at the original facility in September but said it did not damage any equipment.
Jon Gravel, DESRI’s Director of Development, said the fire
was the result of a “tractor malfunction” and was safely extinguished by the
local fire department.
‘Plants, not panels’
Meanwhile, plans to build even more solar panels in the
vicinity of Middle Road have irked the small group of neighbors and local
farmers, many of whom have placed yellow signs on their lawns urging “plants,
not panels.”
Blueprints for Saltbox Solar, the latest project from DESRI
Holdings, show fields of solar panels surrounding three sides of the small
subdivision where Van Steenburgh and Levesque live.
“I don’t have an issue once they fix this,” Levesque said,
referring to the noise emitted by the existing facility on Middle Road. “But I
would have a real issue if they went and bought up the rest of the land and put
solar all around us, because now we’re in a bowl.”
Seth Bahler, a dairy farmer, rents 310 acres of land slated
for development by DESRI’s Saltbox project, where he currently grows corn and
soybeans to feed his roughly 3,000 cows. He said developers can afford to lease
the same land for three to five times the current rate, pricing farmers
out of the market.
“I don’t blame the landowners either, because they’re
getting a better price than what we can offer,” Bahler said. “The challenge is
these solar developing companies don’t care about the future, and there’s a
limited amount of land that all of us farmers use.”
On the website for Saltbox Solar, DESRI states that the
noise emitted by its facilities is “minimal” and that it will use “best
management practices” to preserve topsoil so that the land can be returned to
an agricultural use after the solar panels are eventually decommissioned and
removed. In addition, the company says that solar arrays are expected to cover
less than 0.03% of farmland nationally by 2030.
The project has yet to be submitted to the Siting Council
for approval.
Opposition could slow solar’s faster, cheaper path to clean
energy goals
Even with large projects like Gravel Pit Solar,
Connecticut is lagging behind neighboring states when it comes to the
deployment of utility-scale solar.
According to a database published by the U.S. Geological Survey,
Massachusetts is home to nearly 500 arrays with a combined capacity of 1,344
megawatts. Connecticut, by comparison, has just 69 projects with a capacity of
around 294 megawatts. (The data was published in April as Gravel Pit was
nearing completion and reflects only a fraction of the project’s full 120
megawatt capacity.) Rhode Island, with its much smaller geographic size and
population, has 65 arrays with a capacity of 397 megawatts.
All three states have made commitments to slash greenhouse
gas emissions by mid-century as part of their efforts to address climate
change. But over the next decade, the New England region is expected to
see demand for power grow sharply due to the
electrification of cars, home heating systems and the development of AI data
centers.
Other sources of power that could be tapped to meet that
demand — including nuclear, offshore wind or even new gas-fired power plants —
generally face longer construction timelines and added costs when compared to
solar, according to Erik Katovich, a professor of energy and resource economics
at the University of Connecticut.
“Thee quickest thing to scale up right now for Connecticut
would be the utility-scale solar,” Katovich said. “Relative to other options,
it’s pretty quick to build, and it is very cheap.”
And as more communities resist large solar arrays, state
lawmakers in Hartford are joining in.
Earlier this year, a group of lawmakers representing East
Windsor proposed legislation that would have allowed town
leaders to veto proposed solar arrays within a five mile radius of any existing
array with an output of over 100 megawatts — a threshold that would have
applied only to Gravel Pit Solar.
“This isn’t anti-solar, this is about one town being
disproportionately impacted,” said state Rep. Jaime Foster, D-Ellington, one of
the co-sponsors of the bill, during a press conference earlier this year. “The
Siting Council has jokingly called East Windsor the solar capital of the
Northeast. We don’t want to be.”
While the legislation failed to gain traction, Foster said
she’s hoping to keep attention on the issue by renting a bus and inviting
fellow lawmakers and Gov. Ned Lamont on a tour of her district before next
year’s General Assembly session, when she plans to file legislation to impose a
moratorium on new solar development in the area around East Windsor.
Foster said the tour will showcase the number of existing
arrays in the region while giving officials a chance to meet with neighbors
opposed to further development.
Other ideas put forward by lawmakers this year included
granting municipalities and local zoning boards more authority to weigh in on
Siting Council decisions, as well as requiring developers of large solar
projects to provide upfront bonds to cover the restoration of
forests or farmland after the project is decommissioned. The first two bills
failed, but Lamont signed the decommissioning legislation into law.
Even state Rep. Mary Mushinsky, D-Wallingford, a former
co-chair of the Environment Committee and longtime solar advocate, put
forward legislation that would have prohibited the clearing of
forested land for the purpose of building utility-scale solar. The bill was
unsuccessful.
Mushinsky said that while solar developers had offered the
state the “sales pitch” of building on top of existing buildings and parking
lot canopies, many have instead opted for the more economical path of building
on plots of rural undeveloped land.
“It’s just because it’s cheaper,” Mushinsky said. “That’s
the only reason they go there. It’s cheaper to buy a tract of forest and
clear-cut it and sell the wood, and then put in a solar farm.”
Trahan, with the Energy and Storage Association, said such
claims are overblown. He said existing solar arrays cover less than one quarter
of 1% of the state’s forests and farmland, and he said the Siting Council
already considers impacts to farmland and core
forests — a designation that refers to large, unbroken tracts of
forest — when considering project applications.
“Developers were recruited here to come to the state of
Connecticut to help the state meet its clean energy goals,” Trahan said. “They
didn’t just invite themselves here and say, ‘Here we are. Suck it up.'”
He also took issue with critics who say Connecticut has too
much solar development.
“I think that concern is misplaced if you look at the facts
in terms of how many projects have been developed, compared to how much forest
and farmland is out there right now.”
Foster and her allies had more success with a proposal to
apply a tax of $10,000 per megawatt on large solar arrays. The proposal, known
as a uniform capacity tax, was included within a much larger energy bill that Lamont signed on July 1.
The tax was intended to address disputes between local
officials and solar developers over facilities that qualified for various
property tax exemptions, along with difficulties assessors face in determining
the appropriate value of solar panels and other associated equipment.
While the new tax does not go into effect until next year,
Foster said she hopes the deadline will bring developers to the negotiating
table to settle for long-term tax stabilization agreements.
“My hope is that the existence of this [law] helps them
negotiate for a better rate in the meantime,” she said. “The previous examples
in the town are they’re sued and they lose litigation money, and then they get
no taxes, or they settle for something that’s sort of de minimis.”
In early 2020, East Windsor officials entered into a tax
stabilization agreement with Gravel Pit Solar, making the project the town’s
biggest taxpayer. Bowsza said it was that promise of revenue that led to his
initial support for the project.
It was only after the full scope of the project became
apparent, he said, that he began to have regrets. “If we had done a full
stabilization agreement later, I don’t know that we would have made a deal.”
According to meeting
minutes posted on the town’s website, Gravel Pit’s proposed size was
“approximately 75 megawatts” at the time the agreement was signed in May.
However, Bowsza acknowledged during that meeting that the developers had the
option to increase the size of the project to up to 125 megawatts.
By the time Bowsza indicated his approval before the Siting
Council that November, the project had reached its final size of 120 megawatts.
‘A mad dash’
As part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” signed into law by
President Donald Trump in July, Republicans axed federal tax credits that were put in place under
the Biden administration to spur the development of large solar projects.
In order to qualify for the remaining credits, projects must
begin construction next year or enter service no later than the end of 2027. As
a result, developers are rushing to gain approval from state regulators to
begin work while their opponents are hoping to delay until the deadline passes.
“There’s a mad dash going on right now” said Trahan. “It’s
all hands on deck, not just on the residential but on the commercial side.”
A spokesperson for DESRI Holdings, the developer of the
Gravel Pit project, declined to comment about whether the impending loss of
federal tax credits might affect the company’s plans in and around East
Windsor.
Late last month, the developer requested and received approval from the Siting
Council for additional time to respond to hundreds of written questions from
local residents in East Windsor. On Friday, the Siting Council moved to extend
its deadline for a final decision from November to May 10.
DESRI Holdings is based in New York City and operates
two other solar arrays in Connecticut — Tobacco Valley Solar in Simsbury and
Fusion Solar in Sprague.
Katovich, the UConn economics professor, said that while the
loss of federal subsidies may doom projects that are on the margin of
profitability, they are unlikely to freeze the industry entirely. That’s
because the long-term decline in the price and efficiency of solar panels
has made them more competitive against traditional forms of power such as oil
and natural gas, he said.
“Honestly, a big part of the cost is being driven not by the
panels themselves but by the permitting, the planning, the installation, the
labor and the electricity hook-up to the grid,” Katovich said. “So those have
become the really big cost drivers, much more than the actual materials of the
solar panels.”
In addition, while Katovich said that solar arrays have
historically been subject to less local opposition than more visible forms of
renewable energy such as wind turbines, they are beginning to face similar
headwinds in places like California’s central valley, where developers
have been accused of covering up farmland and pricing out farmers who lease the
land.
In August, the Trump administration announced it would no longer subsidize the
installation of solar panels on “productive” farmland through the Department of
Agriculture’s Rural Energy for America Program.
“It has been disheartening to see our beautiful farmland
displaced by solar projects, especially in rural areas that have strong
agricultural heritage,” Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a statement
accompanying the announcement.
The program had previously funded over a dozen solar projects in Connecticut farms, vineyards
and stables, according to the USDA.
Foster, the state lawmaker representing East Windsor, said
she was unsure whether the changes in federal policy would come quick enough to
affect projects that are already well-along in the planning stages, such as
proposed Gravel Pit expansion.
However, Foster said that slowing down a decision from the
Siting Council would likely benefit the town and the project’s critics.
“Delaying has two benefits,” she said. “It has the benefit
of them running out the clock on the extensions possible under the Trump
administration for tax credits. But the delay is also beneficial, because it’ll
guarantee that the [uniform capacity tax] applies.”
What it means for Plainfield now that Amazon is open and two more warehouses are coming
In the near future, Plainfield could be home to four
large-scale commercial enterprises that could bring more than 1,000 jobs and
millions of dollars in property tax revenue to the town. The new jobs could
cause new homes to be built and the population of the town to grow.
While Plainfield First Selectman Kevin Cunningham said there
was no way to know exactly how much tax revenue the projects will bring to the
town or how the town will use those funds, the four projects would truly
reshape Plainfield. The hundreds of employees working at the facilities might
become residents of the town. If all four facilities open, the employees would
patronize the businesses in Plainfield, which would bolster the town's economy.
One project is open for business, and one is under
construction. At the Amazon
delivery station located at 137 Lathrop Road, employees have begun
work and the Uline warehouse on 113 Plainfield Pike is expected to
open in the middle of 2026.
The other two projects are still in the planning and
approval stages. The proposed waste processing plant on Norwich Road and
Black Hill Road has been met with opposition from residents. On Sept. 17, Costco Wholesale
Corporation proposed building a distribution facility on the Plainfield/Canterbury
town line at a public presentation.
The four projects are spread out throughout Plainfield. The
proposed trash to energy plant is in a residential area, which
has drawn criticism from residents who have said the project would
cause their property values to decrease. They have also said the facility could
cause or exacerbate health conditions such as COPD, create extra traffic and
damage the area's rural character.
Amazon delivery station
After being first announced
back in 2021, the certificate of occupancy was signed on Oct. 7. Plainfield
First Selectman Kevin Cunningham said employees have already begun working at
the facility and more employees will start work there on Oct. 15.
"I am not privy to their starting schedule,"
Cunningham said. "I just know that more employees will be staffing
positions that day (Oct. 15), and I cannot answer for sure when they will
actually start shipping out packages."
Cunningham said there was a groundbreaking ceremony for the
Amazon delivery station, so he doubts there will be a grand opening for the
facility. He added that he anticipates that approximately $1 million in
property taxes will be paid on the delivery station each year, now that it is
operational. According to tax
records, Exeter Plainfield Land LLC, the owner of the property, paid
$948,394.90 in property taxes from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025.
He said the facility will employ approximately 150 people
who will be working inside the building and about 400 delivery drivers.
Uline warehouse
The Uline warehouse is currently under construction.
Cunningham said it will open in June 2026 at the earliest.
“We anticipate a partial payment of about $900,000 in tax
revenue,” Cunningham said. “Annually, once they’re up and running it will be
$1.6 (million in tax revenue).”
Cunningham said the date in which the town expects to
receive the $900,000 in tax revenue is to be determined, however the payment
could be made later in Fiscal Year 2025-2026. The Uline warehouse will employ
more than 300 people. Like the Amazon facility, the Uline property was zoned
industrially prior to the project’s approval, so no zoning changes needed to be
made in order for the project to be approved.
Trash-to-energy plant
Bill Corvo, manager at SMART Technology Systems, the company
who is developing the project, said SMART Technology plans to file the
application for a permit with the Siting Council in December 2025. After that,
the public hearing process could take up to six months before the Siting
Council renders a decision on whether or not the project can be built.
Cunningham said that the town has not had discussions with
SMART Technology Systems in regard to what the property tax revenue would be
for the trash-to-energy plant.
“That would be a discussion if it was to come in later down
the line,” Cunningham said.
If the project gains approval, Corvo said the facility would
employ 165 people.
Costco distribution facility
Cunningham said that the Costco facility could be years away
from opening, as the project still has to gain approval from the Plainfield and
Canterbury inland wetlands and watercourses commissions and zoning boards.
Costco representatives said at their public presentation Sept. 17 that they had
not filed any formal applications to any boards or commissions in Plainfield
and Canterbury.
Cunningham is unsure of how much Costco will pay in property
taxes for its proposed distribution facility. He anticipates that the amount
would be similar to what Uline would pay, as both are about the same size in
terms of square footage.
“I have no idea only because we haven’t seen any of the
plans for it,” Cunningham said regarding the amount of property taxes Costco
will pay for the facility. “We don’t know what equipment's going to be there on
site. So, I couldn’t give you an estimate for that other than a real rough
estimate. I would say a little less than Uline because of the square
footage.”
Costco plans to hire for 190 positions in year one. The
company plans on increasing the number of employees at the
Plainfield/Canterbury facility to 250 positions in year five.
Opinions on the projects
Trave Harmon, a Moosup resident and member of the Plainfield
Economic Development Commission, spoke highly of the Amazon, Uline and Costco
facilities because they not only will create jobs, but they will benefit other
businesses in Plainfield. If all three facilities open, Harmon said the
warehouse employees will frequent stores and businesses, which will bolster the
economies in Plainfield and Canterbury.
“Those jobs don’t just generate jobs by themselves, they
generate a lot of tertiary and secondary jobs,” Harmon said. “You got to have
somebody to build a house, you got to have somebody deliver some pizzas. You
got to go shop.”
Harmon was particularly excited about the prospect of a
Costco distribution facility opening in Plainfield, as he heard that Costco
treats their employees well and offers great benefits.
Brais agrees that the projects will benefit the town.
“They will bring in tax revenue and create jobs,” Brais
said. “Those are the main benefits.”
Residents oppose proposed trash plant
While there is support for the warehouse projects,
Plainfield residents have voiced their opposition to the proposed
trash-to-energy plant on a number of occasions.
Residents spoke out against the facility at an informational meeting May 7. They also voted decisively
against having the plant during the June 2 budget election. At that election, residents
rejected the plant with 1,148 “no” votes and 125 “yes” votes. Residents’
opposition to the project is on full display all over Plainfield, as signs
saying ‘no trash plant’ can be found throughout the town.
“I think the town has made it very clear that they’re
against that particular project,” Karla Desjardins, chairwoman of the
Plainfield Planning and Zoning Commission, said regarding the proposed
trash-to-energy plant.
CT DOT plans $61 million rail project in central location. What to know.
The
Connecticut Department of Transportation has a plan for the Amtrak
Hartford Line corridor that would establish a double track from West
Hartford to Hartford, according to the agency.
The purpose of the project is to improve safety and capacity
for the Amtrak
Hartford Line corridor, according to the DOT.
The estimated construction cost for the
project is $61 million, which is expected to be paid with 63% of
federal funds and 37% state funds, according to the DOT.
The project would include “right-of-way impacts” that are
expected “to occur at several properties in the project area, with acquisition
types including permanent (slope) easements, construction easements, and
partial takes,” according
to the agency. The information shared by the DOT does not name
locations for right of way acquisition.
A federal notice of the public comment period on the draft
memorandum of agreement for the project notes the complete proposed Hartford
Line Rail Program Phase 3B Double Track Project would take place
within three segments on the Hartford Line Railroad, those located in West
Hartford and Hartford, Windsor and Windsor Locks, and Enfield,
Hartford County.
The Federal Railroad Administration said it looked at the
impacts the project could have “on the historic New Haven-Hartford-Springfield
Railroad” and, in consultation with the Connecticut State Historic Preservation
Officer and DOT, developed a draft
memorandum of agreement “to document commitments for mitigating” any
possible adverse effects. According to the FRA, the public comment period on this
proposed agreement has closed.
The DOT will hold a public
information meeting this month to offer the public a chance for input
on Phase 3B of the Hartford Line Rail Program at 6 p.m. Wednesday, October 22,
at the Elmwood Community Center at 1106 New Britain Ave. West Hartford.
“This project will improve safety and capacity for the Amtrak
Hartford Line corridor by establishing a double track from West
Hartford to Hartford,” Connecticut Department of Transportation Supervising
Engineer Jonathan Kang in a statement. “We encourage the public to attend this
meeting to share their feedback with the CTDOT project team to incorporate into
the design.”
The public will have the opportunity to comment or ask
questions about the project for two week after the presentation at the
meeting.(by Wednesday, November 5, 2025) People can also submit comments or
questions via email at info@NHHSrail.com or over the phone at (860) 594-2020 or
(860) 594-2754 until Nov. 5. The CT DOT asks residents to reference Project
No. 0320-0008 with their comments.
Middletown mayor wants forum on Route 9 signal removal. DOT says not until late 2026
MIDDLETOWN — Mayor
Gene Nocera said he will ask the state Department
of Transportation to host a public presentation on the
Route 9 traffic signal removal project after the Common Council and
the public complained they had questions over specifics.
Representatives from CT DOT, however, said public outreach
for this phase of the project has concluded and the department will hold an
information meeting when the project design and environmental reviews are
finalized. That is expected to happen by the end of 2026 or early 2027,
according to a DOT spokesman.
CT DOT has had several workshops and meetings with local
officials and residents since 2024, according to spokesman Joshua Morgan.
"In February 2024, we held two different public
workshops at Town Hall, and in April 2024, conducted a public meeting,"
Morgan said in an email. "Additionally, CT DOT has been meeting regularly
with the working group organized by the Chamber of Commerce, which includes the
chief elected officials of Middletown, Portland, East Hampton, and Cromwell. We
also remain in communication with the local delegation and the
RiverCOG."
CT DOT will hold more informational sessions as the permit
reviews are finalized, Morgan said.
The DOT stated recently designs and permit applications
for the entire project are complete. But the extensive permit review process
has pushed construction completion to 2032.
A separate plan calls for a new ramp on Route 17 at Route 9
to eliminate rear end crashes at the merge and is currently underway. That
project ran into some unexpected utility work and is now expected to be
completed in spring of 2027, according to the DOT.
CT DOT aims to remove two traffic signals that clog the
highway and create accidents. The project ranges from Exit 22 near Silver
Street in Middletown to Exit 25 at Route 99 in Cromwell. The traffic signals
have been the cause of many accidents, but several people said they want final
numbers from the DOT.
The signal removal plan calls for a three-legged roundabout
on River Road and realignment of River Road onto Union Street. and a pedestrian
bridge to move people over the highway to the riverfront. There is also a
proposed northbound entrance from St. John Square passing under elevated
southbound lanes. The central idea is to reduce congestion through the city and
to the Arrigoni Bridge.
Ed McKeon, a former Common Council member and
Middletown Board of Education member, has been an outspoken critic of the
proposed $143 million project over environmental and traffic concerns.
The signal removal is supported by the local business
community and Route 9 commuters, McKeon said. But others are not convinced the
plan solves the city's problem and may add to it.
"The plan will hurt commerce in
Middletown," McKeon said. "With increased traffic, and vehicles
speeding down Middletown commercial thoroughfares, restaurants, retail and
other businesses will suffer. In addition, the four years of highway
construction will discourage drivers from visiting Middletown's Main Street and
some businesses may not be able to survive."
McKeon and Common Council member Vinnie Loffredo asked
Nocera at a council meeting Monday if any city official had signed off on any
paperwork to move ahead with the project. Nocera told them no. According to
city officials, the mayor and traffic authority, which is the police
chief, have signatory rights.
"We as a city have not received any official
information," Nocera said. "This is something we all dealt with for a
while."
Lofreddo and McKeon also questioned the projected numbers
for traffic coming up DeKoven Drive and blocking the interchange at various
times during the day. Some estimates are as high as 6,600 vehicles a day.
"That is hundreds or thousands of cars back and
forth," Lofreddo said.
The DOT has hosted some public hearings, including one at
Wesleyan University, and a year ago at the Middlesex Chamber of Commerce
that Common Council members were invited to attend. However, the public was
denied entrance and McKeon
was escorted off the property.
“I was told it was a ‘private’ committee meeting,"
McKeon said at the time. "I protested that if public elected officials,
and state and city staff were in attendance, I can't imagine it would be a
private meeting," he said. "I added that a topic of significant
public interest was being discussed, and as an interested citizen, I was
anxious to hear if progress was being made."
East Haven prepares for speed humps, Main Street paving with capital and state funds
EAST HAVEN — Towns officials are preparing to implement a
number of traffic and pedestrian safety upgrades, with the first expected to
begin next week.
East
Haven announced Monday it received $4.8 million in competitive Local
Transportation Capital Improvement Program funds from
the state Department of Transportation, which will be applied to
paving Main Street from Town Hall to the New Haven line and paving Messina
Drive from Hemingway Avenue to Main Street, plus the addition of a new traffic
signal light on Messina Drive, new sidewalks and improved street lighting.
The town is currently completing an environmental review and
traffic study for the LOTCIP project, which will lead to the final design phase
before construction.
However, as soon as next week some residents will see the
start of traffic calming measures implemented in some residential
neighborhoods.
Next week, town officials are beginning the first phase of
installing speed humps in some residential areas, starting with Forbes Place,
Laurel Street, Thompson Street and Charnes Drive. That project is funded
through the town's capital improvement budget, said Assistant Director of
Administration and Management Ed Sabatino in an email.
“Public safety is always the priority,” said Mayor Joseph
Carfora in a statement Tuesday regarding the speed humps. “This program
reflects months of collaboration and careful planning with our engineers and
public works team."
In a Monday statement, Carfora said the Main Street and
Messina Drive project "represents a major investment in our community’s
infrastructure and safety."
"These improvements will modernize our roadways,
improve traffic flow, and provide safer conditions for pedestrians," he
said.
Winchester seeks developer for 118-acre site, prior subdivision stalled amid 2008 financial crisis
Winchester town officials are seeking a developer to build
on a 118-acre property where utilities and groundwork were installed for a
planned housing subdivision that stalled amid the 2008 housing crisis.
Town Manager Paul Harrington, hired in April 2024, said he
has made restarting residential development of the Mountainside Drive property
along Wallens Hill Road one of his early priorities.
“I knew about this development when I interviewed for this
position,” Harrington said. “I said to the board, I will get this property
listed and sold because we need to grow our grand list.”
In 2004, Winchester approved a 104-lot subdivision on the
property, which is located a little more than a mile east of its downtown. The
developer behind the proposal ran about 1.2 miles of roadway, along with water,
sewer and stormwater utilities and nearly completed two houses before
withdrawing amid the 2008 housing market crash, town officials said.
The two houses were invaded by squatters and vandals,
heavily damaged and eventually demolished by the town, which claimed the
property through blight liens in 2015.
Now, officials see the site as an opportunity to grow tax
revenue, create new housing options and draw new residents to the roughly
11,500-resident town in the northwest hills of Litchfield County. The town is
testing the quality of the existing utilities installed in the property and
expects to release the results next week as an enticement to developers,
Harrington said.
Earlier this month, Winchester advertised a two-step request
for qualifications/request for proposals. It’s seeking developers to submit
their qualifications, experience and references, along with a rough plan, by
Dec. 1.
A selection committee will notify up to three preferred
candidates by 4 p.m. Jan. 5. Those selected will have until 4 p.m. on Feb. 2 to
submit detailed development proposals.
Ultimately, Winchester’s Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting will select the
winning developer, who must then work out an agreement with the town concerning
development and land transfer details.
Assistant Town Planner Geoffrey Green said developers are
already showing their interest.
“Once we started talking about this property, we had a lot of interest from
developers right out of the gate,” Green said.
While the property is zoned for single-family houses, the
town’s advertisement acknowledges a willingness to adjust zoning to accommodate
a mix of housing types.
“Ultimately, the town and the community’s goals are to
create a new opportunity for residents in a community unlike any that currently
exists within the town,” read a portion of the town’s invitation to developers.
The property has potential for a variety of building types, as well as open
spaces and “active outdoor uses,” according to the town advertisement.
Winchester officials want a plan that accommodates a variety
of age groups and draws new residents, while also respecting the natural beauty
of the site and its surroundings.
Harrington said the site is perched on a hill that offers
fantastic views.
“It’s a beautiful area, kind of sitting on a mountain,” said
Harrington, adding he will carefully consider making a move to the property
himself, given its setting.
Proposals can include any combination of single-family
houses, townhomes, cottage clusters or multifamily dwellings.
Developers should consider amenities such as a clubhouse,
pool, walking trails and other “creative community spaces,” according to the
town’s advertisement. Environmentally friendly building techniques and
materials, and a design respecting the natural environment are also pluses.
Developers can direct inquiries to Harrington at
tm@townofwinchester.org.
The RFQ/RFP can be found on the main page of the town’s
website at www.townofwinchester.org.