Shelton gets $1.5 million so developer can turn polluted industrial site into housing
SHELTON — The city is getting $1.5 million in state
money to remediate contamination at a Canal Street site that will be home to a
48-unit condominium development.
This $1.5 million for Shelton will be used in
cleaning up the site at 255 Canal St., the future home to a five-story building
on vacant land between the former Star Pin site and 235 Canal St., former home
to APEX Tool & Cutter Co.
“We’ve lost track at the number of grants that we’ve
received. … The results can be seen in the new buildings that go up,” said
Mayor Mark Lauretti, who has taken advantage of state and federal clean-up
funds for the Canal Street revitalization.
“This is money well spent again,” Lauretti said. “This is
all 35 years in the making. … We’re in the homestretch.”
Gov. Ned Lamont recently announced his administration was
sending the $1.5 million to Shelton as part of $15.2 million in state funding
to support assessment and remediation activities at 12 blighted properties
across Connecticut.
The goal, according to Lamont, is to help cover the costs of
cleaning up unused, polluted parcels so they can be redeveloped and returned to
productive use, including for the creation of new housing and other economic
development and job growth opportunities.
Sheila O’Malley, president of the Shelton Economic
Development Corp., applied for the funds. Over the past year, SEDC has
been awarded some $6 million in clean-up funds. Over the past three decades,
the city has received more than $60 million.
“This $1.5 million grant allows us to take a blighted acre
of our industrial past and completely reimagine it for Shelton’s future,” said
O’Malley.
The contaminated site was historically used for power
generation and manufacturing. Grant funds will support targeted soil removal,
installation of an engineered control to prevent exposure and vapor intrusion
and associated regulatory activities.
These remediation activities will enable the construction of
the mixed-income residential development with public riverwalk access.
“By cleaning up this Canal Street site, we are unlocking new
housing opportunities, extending our public riverwalk, and continuing the
powerful revitalization of our entire downtown waterfront,” O’Malley
added.
Don Stanziale, Jr., a Shelton resident and owner of Midland
Development & Contracting, is developing the condo site. He said
construction will begin in mid-July and he estimates completion within a
year.
The new development at 255 Canal St. calls for construction
of the 61,357-square-foot building with 48 two-bedroom units. The plans call
for 93 parking spaces, many on the ground level under the four floors of
apartments.
Stanziale has numerous projects ongoing in Shelton and
Derby. Stanziale’s newest development is only yards away from his
project at 281 Canal St. — a four-story structure on property known as
the Ascom Hasler site with 129 apartments and 1,745 square feet of retail space
dubbed Cedar Village at The Locks.
That development was opened in early June, and tenants are
already moving in.
State Rep. Jason Perillo, R-Shelton, praised SEDC and
the city administration, saying their long-term commitment to redeveloping
Canal Street continues to produce results.
“This $1.5 million grant will help transform a contaminated
former industrial site into a new mixed-income residential development with
public riverwalk access, further strengthening Shelton’s economy and quality of
life,” Perillo said.
Projects like this, Perillo said, demonstrate what can be
achieved when local leaders pursue a clear vision for redevelopment and work
collaboratively with state partners to bring new investment, housing
opportunities, and public amenities to our community.
The state grants are being distributed through the
Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development’s Brownfield
Remediation and Development Program.
This round of funding will support investigation and cleanup
activities on 267 acres of land and are expected to leverage more than $81
million in private investments.
“By partnering with towns and developers, we can take
unused, blighted properties that have sat vacant for decades and bring them
back from the dead, rejuvenating these parcels and bringing life back to these
neighborhoods,” Lamont said.
“Through the remediation of these properties,” Lamont added,
“we are creating new opportunities to transform otherwise unusable lots into
new spaces that support housing growth and new business opportunities.”
Stamford's $9.8M Perna Lane sewer replacement to be completed this year, officials said
STAMFORD — Stamford's sewer
replacement project in the Perna Lane area is expected to be completed
this year, officials said.
Ann Brown, the Water Pollution Control Authority's
supervising engineer, said in an email that the project in North Stamford extends from High Ridge
Road to the Turn of River Road extension, crossing the Merritt Parkway.
Brown said the project has cost $9.8 million and is funded
by the WPCA's cash reserve. She said it will "provide sewer service to an
area of Stamford with smaller lots, older homes and older septic systems."
She said construction started in June 2024 and the remaining
work includes testing; final paving on High Ridge Road; connecting the sewage
pipe from Northeast School to the new system on High Ridge Road; pipe
inspection and cleaning of the sewers and manholes on High Ridge Road, if
needed.
Brown said it also includes installing pipes, valves and
controls in pump stations at Perna Lane and Turn of River Road, as well
as testing and accepting the system and restoration of the area.
She said Perna Lane is the first part of a three-phase
project. However, she said in an email that the "WPCA has no plans to
proceed with the next phase of the project."
Brown said the homes are located close to the Rippowam River
and sit on small lots, the majority of which are less than half an acre and
"may not have the ability to repair (or) replace the septic systems,
should they fail."
She said the sewer assessment fee is set by the city's
ordinance and the cost is split between the WPCA, which covers 60% of it, and
homeowners who pay 40%. Previously, the average assessment fee was roughly estimated to be $21,700, but Brown said the total
project cost to taxpayers will be estimated after final invoices are submitted
and the project is completed.
She said the payments will be made annually for 15 years and
"each property owner will pay a share based on their number of sewer
units."
Brown said the fee is based on the sewer unit system, which
stipulates that: residences with two full bathrooms or less are assigned at
least one sewer unit; residences with more than two full bathrooms are given an
additional half of a sewer unit for each full bathroom; and one quarter of a
sewer unit is assigned for each half bathroom in a residence.
"Homeowners are also responsible for the cost of work
on their property to connect to the sanitary sewer service lateral installed at
their property line and the annual usage charge," Brown said.
The other two costs homeowners will bear are installation
and annual usage fees.
Connecticut’s solar expansion is colliding with concerns over forests and farmland
As Connecticut pushes for more solar
power, the state is increasingly forced to balance renewable energy goals
against the protection
of forests, wetlands and farmland.
Gov. Ned
Lamont acknowledged the balancing
act when touring East Windsor and Ellington, two towns where farmland
has increasingly, and perhaps disproportionately, become solar farm
sites.
“I’m trying to figure out how we can preserve the open
space,” he said during an April visit. “We’re taking open space, we’re taking
fields and we’re commercializing them, in this case, with solar. I think that’s
going the wrong direction.”
But Connecticut’s clean-energy
ambitions are forcing difficult land-use choices. Adam Gallaher, a land use
researcher studying the effects of energy infrastructure development, said,
“Deciding to prioritize one type of land use means shifting that amount of
development pressure to land now being used for other purposes.”
Connecticut has committed to a carbon-free
electric grid by 2040. But the state’s clean-air ambitions force difficult
land-use choices as developers search for places to build solar projects. Protecting forests often
means placing greater development pressure on farmland, and vice versa.
But that legal commitment to achieve 100% of its electricity
supply from zero-carbon sources by Jan. 1, 2040, looms while forests, wetlands
and farmland continue to decrease. The state lost about 9,500 acres of farmland
between 2017 and 2022, leaving about 372,000 acres statewide, according
to federal data.
A
Changing Landscape project by the Center for Land Use Education and
Research at the University of Connecticut found that the state lost roughly
115,000 acres of forest cover between 1985 and 2015, a decline of about 5.8%.
Development has pushed in toward “core forest” — areas with no houses and no
roads — while Connecticut lost about 15.7% of its core forest during the same
period.
The fulcrum on which the state’s solar balancing act rests
is the Connecticut Siting Council, which has nearly complete authority when
deciding whether solar projects larger than 1 megawatt may be built.
The siting council has come under heavy scrutiny in
recent years, though attempts to reform it have largely failed. Critics argue
that it does not take the “character” of a municipality into account when
making land use decisions, while the siting council sees itself as the
appropriate arbiter, providing both access and funds to towns that want to be
involved in the process.
A bill
proposed in the state legislature this year was intended to “provide
local representation on the Connecticut Siting Council,” but it did not make it
beyond the committee process.
North Stonington First Selectman Bob Carlson said he
attempted to get representation on the council for two years, to no avail,
saying the council wanted to retain that power.
“It would have been nice to have someone on the siting
council on any project that was proposed,” he said.
Connecticut Siting Council Executive Director and Staff
Attorney Melanie Bachman said she thought the authority and relative autonomy
of the council have not changed over its 50 years of existence, nor should they
change.
“There have been significant efforts to erode CSC’s powers,
authority and autonomy through legislation over the years depending on what
facility applications were pending with CSC at the time,” she said. “Other
states are transforming from local or county models to statewide models for
siting energy facilities. We’ve got over 50 years of experience.”
When asked to define the siting council’s work, Bachman
said, it has “exclusive jurisdiction over the construction, operation and
maintenance of energy and telecommunications facilities throughout the state,
including ... electric transmission lines, substations and generating
facilities, and cell towers.”
Forests and farmland
A project North Stonington is an example of how the
siting council and individual communities can struggle to find common
ground.
The town remains more than 70% forested, but UConn CLEAR
data shows North Stonington lost about 1,631 acres of forest between 1985 and
2015.
The SR North Stonington solar project would have clear
cut 44 acres of trees on both sides of Route 184 and encroached on existing
homes.
The town appealed to the siting council. Carlson argued that
residents on the north side of the road had purchased property in a wooded
area, which would be replaced by a solar array.
“These people spend money to buy these homes, and now you’re
going to be basically in their backyard,” he said.
The developer and the council agreed to amend the proposal,
limiting the project to the south side of the road, and dropping the megawatt
output to 8.5.
“We agreed to that, so it was a compromise,” Carlson said.
“We lost the war, but we won a battle.”
On the opposite side of the state from North Stonington sits
Morris, which last month passed a moratorium on data center development. The
town had recently lost a battle to stop two large solar projects that are
planned for what once were working farms.
“Not to say everyone’s a big fan of the siting council, but
at least they have to go through a rigorous review process,” town Zoning
Officer Tony Adili said.
Adili said the hope is to preserve the “character” of the
town. Morris’ land use officer, Janelle Mullen, who also works with
Sharon, Canaan, Falls Village, Warren and Cornwall, said the data center
moratorium made sense, “given the solar farms that they’re currently dealing
with.”
“The town doesn’t quite feel like they had a fair say
regarding the solar farms,” she said.
Although the siting council has final say on projects that
exceed 1 megawatt, the process includes town input, by law, Bachman said.
“Applicants for energy and telecommunications facilities are
required by law to consult with the host municipality of the proposed facility
site prior to submitting an application with CSC,” Bachman said “Municipalities
may suggest location alternatives, hold public information meetings, ask for
more information related to the proposed facility, request design changes, etc.
that are financed by the applicants.”
Towns can access $40,000 to participate in the process, if
they choose, she said. The statutorily mandated participation fund is “financed
by the applicants when a facility application is submitted to CSC to defray
expenses of a municipality participating in the CSC proceedings held on an
application,” she said.
By law, Bachman said the siting council must take into
account “every significant adverse effect,” including electromagnetic fields;
ecological balance; public health and safety; scenic, historic and recreational
values; agriculture, forests and parks; air and water purity; and fish,
aquaculture and wildlife.
“CSC’s charge is to balance the public need/benefit of a
proposed facility at the lowest reasonable cost to consumers with the need to
protect the environment of the state,” she said.
While public opposition to solar projects often focuses on
the loss of farmland, environmental impacts to forests and wetlands appear
frequently in the siting council’s recent denials. It repeatedly cited
concerns, including forest clearing, habitat fragmentation, wetlands,
stormwater runoff and water quality, in denials issued in Hamden, Manchester,
Winchester and Naugatuck, according to review of recent
Connecticut Siting Council solar decisions.
Political priorities
Gallaher, an assistant professor in the Department of
Geography and Environmental Studies at Central Michigan University, studies
what he calls “sustainability trade-offs” in these kind of land use
decisions.
“So, if you convert farmland to solar, what does that mean
for carbon emissions? What does it mean for potential habitat? If it’s an
alfalfa field, for example, that may support grassland birds, as well as parts
of forests,” he said. “If you were to remove those for solar, what sort of
ecosystem services might be lost — habitat, water retention, sediment
retention, etc.”
Gallaher, who received his doctorate from the University of
Connecticut, said his research shows that while solar power is renewable and
relatively cheap, it provides a fraction of the power per acre that coal and
natural gas-fed power plants provide. Having solar panels that move, tracking
the sun as it traverses the sky, makes a difference, but not that much, he
said.
That does not mean, Gallaher said, that solar power is not
effective or valuable: It’s a question of priorities and political
policy.
“Protecting farmland could lead solar developers to consider
using existing forests,” he
wrote recently. “Yet forests not only soak up carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere, helping reduce the effects of fossil-fuel emissions that are
changing the global climate, but also support biodiversity by providing
important habitat for wildlife.”
Gallaher said that if the priority is to minimize
electricity costs, farmland and forests suffer. If a state prioritizes
pastures, then costs don’t go down and forests are razed. Choose to conserve
forests and costs remain higher while farmland is converted to solar.
Based on Gallaher’s research, however, prioritizing forests
keeps costs down about the same as when a state focuses on cost, though it is
at the expense of pastures.
“What that means is, we can preserve natural habitat,
species, etc. with only a marginal increase in the amount of total costs that
you would have to see for that system to be developed,” he said. “You’d meet
your decarbonization goals, you’d preserve biodiversity, and you’d still have
impacts to agriculture, but no different than if you were to take a
conventional, business-as-usual approach.”
Port Authority Chair Leads Effort to Shift Traffic Off I-95
WESTPORT – The state’s Port Authority will help lead an
effort to find opportunities to shift freight traffic off the busy I-95
corridor using the state’s ports and railroads.
“The goal of the working group is to look at policy changes
in the state of Connecticut or incentives that could be applied to improve the
use of freight rail, the sea lanes, and our ports to move freight around
Connecticut to alleviate some of the traffic on I-95 coming out of New York,
and to make our roadways less impacted by freight traffic, and to manage
municipal solid waste better,” Port Authority Executive Director Michael
O’Connor explained at a board meeting held at the Westport Library on Tuesday.
The effort was prompted by the transportation omnibus
SB-416: An Act Concerning Transportation System Modernization.
The group will include members of the Department of Energy
and Environmental Protection, Department of Economic and Community Development
and Department of Transportation, said O’Connor.
O’Connor said that he is looking for other agencies or
organizations to invite into the group.
“I’m interested in other working partners that have some
ideas about what policy changes would be beneficial and where we can maximize
the legislative actions that would need to take place in January to help out
this part of the industry,” he said.
O’Connor said he will chair the group.
But he admitted there are limits on how the state handles
such freight.
“I don’t want to bring a container ship into Connecticut,”
he said. “We don’t have the water depth, port capacity, or the infrastructure
to do that, but there are ways to move cargo into Connecticut without bringing
a 23,000-container ship into the harbor. We will continue to pursue federal
grants” for dredging and other harbor improvements.
The working group is also tasked with bolstering the
capacity and economic health of the state’s freight rail industry, according to
the bill, while also studying the environmental, economic, and transportation
impacts of increased freight rail use.
New Haven Harbor dredging continues
The Connecticut Port Authority finished its oversight of
dredging the 35-foot channel at New Haven Harbor last October and will expand
on that work with an improvement project this October.
The $75 million improvement of New Haven Harbor will add 5
feet of depth to the channel and make the channel 100 feet wider. The size of
the federal turnaround basin in the harbor will also be increased, O’Connor
said.
The project will deepen the channel to 40 feet, make the
channel another 100 feet wider, and increase the size of the federal turnaround
basin.
The non-federal share of the project, about $17 million, was
funded by the Connecticut State Bond Commission.
A Norwalk resident who spoke during the 35-minute meeting in
Westport, Linnell Jones, thanked the authority for the authority’s grant work,
which he said resulted in $3.5 million in improvements to Norwalk’s Veterans
Park and another program, in which $44,000 was used to open dead-end Norwalk
streets to public access near its port.
“Reimbursement should follow municipalities doing what they
proposed, what was approved by the Connecticut Port Authority. Only if that is
the case will reimbursements be in line with approved harbor management plans,
something you understand,” Jones said.
He urged the authority to review both Norwalk projects to
ensure their compliance with the approved plans before reimbursing the city for
the work.
Buckeye Groton fuel terminal grant
The authority has sought grants through the U.S. Maritime
Administration to revitalize the Buckeye Groton fuel oil terminal, but that
effort has been unsuccessful so far, O’Connor said.
The authority competed against $3 billion worth of grants
submitted from the nation’s coastal towns seeking an available pool of $800
million in federal funds last year. The agency reapplied for a grant on June 1
and was told that the application was very strong, O’Connor said.
“When you’re only working with so many dollars, then there’s
a cut line somewhere and we were below the cut line last time. We did make some
improvements. Buckeye changed the structure of the grant applications, so they
were contributing more money for a slightly larger project,” he said.
The grant awards announcement is likely within six months,
O’Connor said.
Old Lyme moves forward with solar field project at closed landfill
Gianni Salisbury
Old Lyme — The Board of Selectmen has agreed to accept a bid
from Green Skies Clean Energy LLC, advancing the town’s solar field project at
the closed landfill at 109 Four Mile River Road.
The town received two
bids for the project. The other was from Verogy Holdings LLC. After
considering both offers, the town’s consultants on the project, CSW Energy and
Klee Sustainability Advisors, recommended that the town accept Green Skies’
offer as it is expected to produce 1.3 million kilowatt-hours of power in the
first year, more than Verogy Holdings would have generated.
Consultants Alan Brown and Robert Klee explained in a
presentation to the Board of Selectmen that this will not only produce the
400,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity the town uses each year but generate an
extra 632,938 kilowatt-hours that can be given to other entities under the
State, Agricultural, or Municipal program.
SAM
is an Eversource billing structure that allows public entities to share with
other SAM customers renewable energy compensation generated at one of their
facilities.
Brown and Klee explained that Green Skies’ proposal has a
higher projected return to the town than Verogy’s, with a $610,856 return over
20 years.
The Old Lyme school buildings might be among the facilities
to benefit from the SAM program.
The project would also earn the town $899,199 in energy
credits over the next 20 years, which could benefit the Region 18 school
district if Old Lyme schools decide to join the project. The schools’
electricity usage does not currently fall under the 400,000 kilowatt-hours used
by the town.
Under Connecticut’s virtual net metering and SAM
programs, if a town-owned solar project produces more electricity than the
town uses, the excess generation creates credits. Those credits can be assigned
to other municipal accounts, such as schools, public works buildings, town
halls, libraries or other eligible facilities. The credits appear as reductions
on those electric bills rather than as cash payments.
Brown said he and Klee recently spoke with Region 18
officials who expressed interest in the partnership. First Selectwoman Martha
Shoemaker said that in a recent conversation with Superintendent Ian Neviaser
he also expressed interest but that the school district needs to ensure there
is no conflict with Green Skies solar panels on a portion of the high school
roof.
Another reason Brown recommended the town accept Green
Skies’ bid is because it has experience building on landfills.
Klee said the project should take a year or two to complete.
The board also approved a resolution allowing Shoemaker to
sign any documents related to the project.