Fight Over Planned Decadelong Leveling of Mount Decatur Comes to a Head in Ledyard

Francisco Uranga

GALES FERRY — Months of tense hearings and court-like drama before the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission will wrap up Dec. 19, but the fault lines are evident between advocates of a large-scale excavation and development, on the one hand, and neighbors fiercely opposed to a project they say will lower nearby property values and their quality of life.

Neighbors of a proposed decadelong project to level the north side of Mount Decatur, sell off 3.6 million cubic yards of rock, and flatten the parcel into 26 acres of land suitable for industrial development say the site work amounts to a quarrying operation — an activity banned from the town since 1975.

Developer Gales Ferry Intermodal, owned by Massachusetts-based Jay Cashman Inc., has pitched the plan as a money-maker for the town that’s appropriate for the industrial-zoned property. 

The company has the support of Ledyard Mayor Fred Allyn III. 

GFI has applied for a special permit allowing the company to grade the site and blast the north side of the 256-foot-high Mount Decatur, also known as Dragon Hill. The company has proposed a 10-year excavation during which it would cart off and sell the granite rock to prepare the site for development afterward.

Some neighbors say they doubt the company intends to develop the parcel.

But Allyn told CT Examiner in late November that he supported the project for its expected fiscal impact.

“This is a town that has a very low tax base. We have more than 95% of our property is either residentially zoned or residentially used,” he said. “When we have an opportunity to bring in an industrial user or a commercial user that would increase our tax base, I have to welcome it.”

Allyn also defended the project as appropriate for the property’s industrial zoning.

“When you buy a home adjacent to an industrially zoned property, that’s something you have to be aware of,” he said. “And just because somebody may not be using that property to its maximal capacity, doesn’t mean it’s not gonna happen at some later point in time.”

However, according to Donald Poland, a consultant with Goman and York hired by Ledyard to estimate the economic and fiscal impact of the project, the town will have to wait until at least year 13 of the project to see the benefit, when the land is redeveloped and the slated industrial buildings are constructed. 

At a public hearing in November, Poland told commissioners that the property value had fallen since Dow Chemicals closed in 2015 and part of the facility was torn down. 

He estimated the planned investments would increase annual tax collections on the property from $20,000 to $1.3 million.

In the meantime, Cashman has offered to pay the town $0.25 per cubic yard of rock in lieu of taxes until new facilities are constructed. 

Poland estimated that the company would cart away nearly 3.6 million cubic yards of rock, allowing the town to pocket $892,500 over a decade.

Poland labeled opposition to the project “not-in-my-backyard syndrome.”

Bruce Edwards, a neighbor, hadn’t forgotten that comment.

“NIMBYs have a connotation of somebody objecting to something without a fair reason. We are not NIMBYs,” Edwards told CT Examiner. “Now, do you want to say not a quarry in my backyard? I’m OK with that.”

The critics

At a hearing last Thursday at Ledyard Middle School, Eric Treaster, a former chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission and current member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, offered a list of 22 reasons why the commission should reject the proposal.

Treaster argued that the project is a quarry, even if the proposal only refers to an excavation permit. He outlined a series of additional concerns shared by many nearby residents, among them the impact on traffic, vibration, noise and exposure to cancer-causing silica dust.

Critics also warned that the project risked damaging Fort Decatur, where Commodore Stephen Decatur hid during the War of 1812.

The company signed an agreement in early December with the State Historic Preservation Office to donate the 3.4 acres where Fort Decatur is located to the nonprofit Archeological Conservancy and committed to donating an additional 5.9 acres if its project receives the necessary approvals.

The proposal doesn’t include permits for any buildings, which must be requested in a separate application, but the company presented a conceptual development plan for its 165-acre Gales Ferry property in February 2023. The plan envisioned 26,000 square feet of equipment maintenance facilities on the north side of the property and four buildings totaling 260,000 square feet of industrial rental facilities on the south side, the part to be leveled by excavation.

An earlier proposal to use the property to temporarily store dredge materials was put on hold after initial meetings with state regulators.

Cashman speaks

Company President Jay Cashman told CT Examiner he bought the property because he saw the potential for industrial development given the access to deep water, freight rail and state roads. He also denied that the project was a quarry.

“In a quarry, basically, you come to a grade and then you dig down,” he said. “If it’s material with no commercial value, it’ll cost you to clear it. If you’ve got a product with commercial value, you could get your land leveled off for free or you can make a little bit of money.”

Cashman said he intended to redevelop the Gales Ferry property and build industrial space as the company had in East Boston and Quincy, Massachusetts. He said his company had already been fielding interest in the property from possible tenants including SouthCoast Wind, a bidder in the recent tristate wind energy auction. 

“Believe in the town’s experts, believe in the state agencies. Trust in the checks and balances,” he said. “That’s the biggest protection anybody has.”

He also pledged to compensate neighbors for any losses in property value.

Cashman said he planned to offer residents a “property value guarantee,” which he also offered when developing wind farms in Maine. If a homeowner was unable to sell a property at its appraised value, Cashman said he would offer up the difference or buy the home. 

He said he hadn’t pitched the idea earlier during the public hearing process so that his intentions would not be misunderstood as an effort to win residents’ support through money.

But given that the commission had approved the Baldwin Hill project, a similar excavation in the same area, Cashman said he was confident in the outcome. 

“They gave him a permit about a year and a half ago, so I don’t see how they can deny it to us,” he said. “He’s a lot closer to other residents than we are.”

‘They have already disrupted the community’

Edwards lives a few miles south of the GFI property. 

From his back windows, he can see a stretch of the Thames River where it narrows before making an eastward bend at Mount Decatur. He can also see the Montville power plant on the far embankment.

While on his boat one morning in late November, Edwards explained why he believed Cashman’s project would destroy the calm of the neighborhood.

“Cashman would like you to think it’s industrial and it was industrial before, so they’re the same,” said Bruce Edward. “If they were the same, they wouldn’t get objections.”  (CT Examiner)

He acknowledged the neighborhood had been ringed for decades with industrial facilities, but argued that the proposal wasn’t just more of the same.

“Cashman would like you to think it’s industrial and it was industrial before, so they’re the same,” he said. “If they were the same, they wouldn’t get objections.” 

Edwards, who has lived in town since 1965, warned that the project would disrupt the long-term recovery of the Thames Valley Estuary. 

Edwards said he used to swim as a child in the river, not realizing it was polluted, drinking beers as a youth on the rocks in front of the naval submarine base where his father worked. 

Today, he said he often his pilots his boat off Mount Decatur to photograph bald eagles.

“We have American bald eagles along here, which are protected species,” he said, pointing to the mountain. “I photographed eagles right out here, but they are kind of pretty tricky when it comes to cameras.”

Like other Gales Ferry residents who testified at the hearings, Edwards spent hours studying the project, learning the details and sharing concerns with his neighbors.

At last Thursday’s hearing, he emphasized the physical effort of attending every meeting, which collectively total over 28 hours since September. This week will be the last chance for neighbors to testify. Attorneys for both sides — Harry Heller for Cashman and Wilson Carroll for the opposition — will speak at the final meeting on Dec. 19. 

“We put time into this and we don’t get paid to do it,” Edwards said. “They say the project is not going to disrupt this community. They have already disrupted the community without being given a permit.”

Project support

Testimony in favor of the project came mostly from the business community and GFI.

Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut President Tony Sheridan supports the project, as does John Fuller who runs a radio station in Ledyard, and former Ledyard Planning Commission Chair Mike Cherry.

Kevin Blacker, for years a vocal opponent of efforts to stage offshore wind off State Pier, also supports Cashman. 

Blacker said he admired Cashman as an entrepreneur and saw it as a positive to have someone like him in the area.

“He is the type of person that believes anything is possible,” Blacker told CT Examiner. “That’s like the most American thing that I can think of and I love it.”

Commission Chair Marty Wood tried to maintain equanimity throughout the hearing discussion, which proved challenging. More than once, Wood warned that he would suspend the hearings in response to shouting directed at Cashman’s attorney. 

Jim Kelly, a neighbor who opposes the project, summed up the dilemma.

“Somebody’s gonna get sued here. And from everything that I’ve seen, I’d rather have GFI suing the town than have the residents suing the town,” he said. “Because I think we have a much stronger case.”

Wallingford moves forward to bring data centers to town

Christian Metzger

WALLINGFORD — Technological development may be part of Wallingford’s economic future, as the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to allow for data centers in the Watershed Interchange District - an area set aside for low-intensity tech-based businesses.

This comes at the end of a three-month hearing brought forward by Charter Development Group LLC, who is seeking to develop a mid-sized data center within the district just behind the Hilton Garden Inn at 1181 Barnes Road. 

Subject to a special permit, the approved regulations specify architectural considerations to reduce disturbances to the nearby residents, and now requires design analysis from an acoustic engineer to reduce potential low-frequency noise from generators and equipment. 

With many residents having expressed environmental concerns from the proposed center, as it sits directly on the watershed to the vital MacKenzie Reservoir, the center can only use water supplied from the town’s water system, rather from drawing or discharging into the nearby Muddy River and will have a comprehensive response plan in case of spills or other environmental hazards. 

While there were some concerns from members regarding the power draw that such a facility would have, officials from Wallingford’s electric division stated that the overall draw wouldn’t have an impact on residents' rates or service - though some agreement with Eversource would likely be required depending on the needs of the center.

The size of the buildings would also be capped with the approved amendment, with the size of buildings limited to 250,000 square feet. There seemed to be some room for flexibility within this, however, as representatives of the group stated interest in building a 300,000 square foot structure if certain parameters were met to the satisfaction of the commission, but said they could make due with the smaller footprint if it made it more palatable for residents and officials.  

Overall, the members of the development group expressed an openness to collaborate with the commission to come to a resolution that would make the data center possible and acceptable to the town, taking into account criticism of a much larger data center project in the same area from another group that was rejected in 2022. 

“We heard and took to heart many of the comments that were heard at the time and we approached this project with the sense that this is a town that’s a little nervous about this use. So it made sense to us to approach this from a standpoint of ‘let’s try a prototype’,” said Donald Gershman, a principal with Charter Development Group.

“We were trying to be sensitive to what we thought would be more acceptable to the community.”

Many residents still were critical of the amendment and what they felt was a threat to the watershed area and Spring Lake just south of the potential project site, saying that development in the area has already impacted its waterflow and the accumulation of algae in the lake. 

Others remained concerned with the noise, still dissatisfied with the assertions that the noise pollution created by the center wouldn’t have an impact on nearby residences. 

Despite this, many of the commission members were receptive to the changes put forward in the amendment and felt that it satisfied the requirements of the WI District’s purpose for “low intensity uses and emerging technological development,” outlined in town regulations.

“With all these changes it’s clear to me that there’s a sincere interest to mitigate and address public concern,” said Commission Member Bryan Rivard.  

The commission voted 4-1 to approve the amendment, with member Jeffrey Kohan voting against. This will allow the developers to proceed with a concept plan for the data center, which will have to be presented separately to the commission at a later date. 

Should the project progress, it will be one of the first data centers in Connecticut since the state passed a law to attract more data centers and technology-focused businesses, which has seen little adoption by other towns. Representatives of the Charter Development Group have said that it could attract interest from big tech firms like Google and Meta, or be used for hosting burgeoning artificial intelligence infrastructure - overall with the potential to bring in over $1 million in taxable revenue to the town. 

CT Port Authority failed to seek bids, properly purchase supplies

Bill Cummings

The Connecticut Port Authority failed to seek bids for a marketing vendor and improperly purchased a variety of services and supplies, a new state audit found.

“The authority could not explain why it did not solicit the procurement, obtain board approval before executing insurance policies or properly review invoices,” auditors said.

In a lengthy response included with the audit, the port authority partly agreed with the criticism while pointing out the agency was understaffed during the audited period and has since hired more personnel. The authority provided an explanation for each purchase criticized by auditors.

“It’s imperative to note, that upon employment, this new team has reviewed all policies and procedures and operates in accordance with the authority’s policies and procedures,” the authority said.

The audit covered the fiscal years 2022 and 2023.

The authority, located in Old Saybrook, has long endured criticism over its operations and purchasing practices, including ethics violations by members of the staff and board and the redevelopment of the State Pier in New London into an offshore wind hub. The project’s initial budget of $93 million has grown to nearly $310 million.

The authority has been without an executive director since 2022 and recently faced widespread push back for allowing the construction manager for the State Pier to hire itself for subcontracting work.

Three state legislators quickly seized on the latest audit as evidence the authority is not improving despite numerous mandated reforms by the state legislature.

“How — and why — does this keep happening,” said a joint statement from Republican state Senators Heather Somers, Henri Martin and Stephen Harding, who is the Senate Republican Minority Leader.

“It was only a year ago when the auditors cited the port authority for allowing the construction management company that is overseeing the redevelopment of the State Pier in New London to recommend itself for several multimillion-dollar subcontracts for the public infrastructure project,” the senators' statement said.

“The years go by, but the lack of transparency at the Connecticut Port Authority endures,” the senators added. “Year after year, we as lawmakers work in a bipartisan fashion to craft and pass legislation to reform the authority, yet it seems we will always have more reforms to make.”

In a press release, the authority noted it had received its third consecutive "clean audit" from an independent company hired to review its books.

“For a variety of reasons, the (authority) did not have full staffing for significant periods of time going back to 2020, and that undoubtedly hindered some processes,” said Paul Whitescarver, who was elected board chairman in August, after former Chair David Kooris stepped down following a five-year tenure but remains on the board.

The authority stressed all of those recommended improvements have been implemented now that the agency is operating with appropriate staffing.

“I want to assure our legislators and the taxpayers of Connecticut that the (authority) is operating in full compliance with policies and procedures as it continues its mission to support and enhance the state’s maritime economy,” added Whitescarver, a retired U.S. Navy Captain who also served as Commanding Officer of U.S. Naval Submarine Base New London.

The authority oversees three deep water ports, in Bridgeport, New Haven and New London, and various small and mid-size coastal and river harbors which contribute to the state’s economy, along with the State Pier. The authority’s mission is to develop and market the state’s ports and promote its maritime economy.

Not following purchasing rules

Auditors noted purchasing procedures dictate the authority maintain and consult contracted price lists and hourly rates before approving invoices. The authority should also review adequate supporting documentation detailing the services provided prior to approving an invoice, auditors said.

A review of 60 expenditures, totaling $2.8 million, found:

The authority overpaid a vendor $192 because it applied the incorrect hourly service rate. Auditors also said the authority could not provide documentation to support the contracted hourly service rates for six invoices, totaling $16,810, and as a result it could not be determined if the authority paid the proper amount.

The authority reimbursed a vendor $18,400 for subcontractor drilling services (within the budgeted contractual agreement) without reviewing or requiring proof of the vendor’s payment to the subcontractor.

Two invoices, totaling $4,626, did not contain sufficient detail describing the provided services.

The authority was unable to provide evidence of review and payment approvals for two invoices, totaling $6,325.

The authority last solicited communications and marketing services in October 2018 and executed a month-to-month contract with its current vendor on October 1, 2018. The authority paid $19,880 and $29,965 to its current vendor in fiscal years 2022 and 2023, respectively, without obtaining quotes from other vendors.

“Additionally, there was no evidence the authority received board approval for its marine general or excess marine liability insurance policies for calendar years 2022 and 2023 before executing them,” auditors said. “The annual premiums for these policies ranged from $61,200 to $138,771. We noted that the policies were within the board approved budgeted amounts.”

Auditors noted noncompliance with purchasing and procurement policies increases the risk of improper purchases and incorrect payments.

“The current administration could not comment on some issues because the previous administration processed the transactions, or they were approved by the Office of Policy and Management,” auditors said.

The finding had been previously reported, in part, in two prior audits covering the fiscal years 2018 through 2021.

“The Connecticut Port Authority should strengthen internal controls to ensure compliance with established purchasing policies,” auditors concluded.

In its response, the port authority partly agreed with the criticism but pointed out the authority only had 3.5 personnel during the audit term, which saw the hiring of an intermittent Finance Director and part-time Fiscal Analyst for financial management.

“This staff acted within policies and procedures, even under those limiting circumstances,” the authority said. “The authority has since stabilized its team with the permanent employment of key positions, which include a Finance Director, Maritime Development Manager and Office Manager. The authority is also in the process of hiring a permanent executive director.”

Regarding the seven invoices totaling $16,810, the authority said the suppliers “have been advised, and are required to fully adhere to the agreed upon rates. The overpayment of $192 was the result of an incorrect rate submitted by a vendor. This was detected by the Finance Director, and the credit of $192 has been returned by the vendor.”

On other issues raised in the audit, the authority said the drilling contract was within budget; the two invoices amounting to $4,626 were issued by month-to-month contracted suppliers for provision of supplementary services and the invoices the authority auditors said had not been reviewed occurred during the Covid epidemic and a period of remote processing.

“The approval and issuance of a check by the signing authority, at that time, served as evidence of review,” the authority said.

Additionally, the authority said the agreement for communications and marketing services was executed in 2018 and amended in 2019.

“Section 2.1 of the amended agreement indicates that it is a month-to-month agreement, and has been operating as such, as advised by the Office of Policy and Management,” the authority said. “Management of the authority utilized the services of the provider for jobs which were within the scope of services. The authority now requires quotations for supplementary services sourced by the vendor. The authority has posted an RFP for communications and marketing services.”

Neighbors voice angst at proposed Amazon facility

STEVE BIGHAM 

WATERBURY – A plan to build a 4 1/2-story Amazon retail distribution facility in the city’s South End continues to draw opposition from neighbors looking to keep the massive facility out of their backyard.

Bluewater Property Group is proposing to erect the 650,000-square-foot structure on a portion of the 155 city-owned acres along the Waterbury-Naugatuck line, an undeveloped, wooded area adjacent to Naugatuck Industrial Park.

The developer has been holding informational meetings to explain its plan to residents in both communities, bringing in experts to reassure them that the project, despite its enormity, would have little impact on the area.

But those on hand Tuesday night at Gilmartin Elementary School weren’t buying it. Many of them live in Waterbury’s Gilmartin section where the Amazon structure, if approved, would tower over their modest homes, forever altering the landscape.

“I’m not happy,” neighbor Ruth Barry said. “They’ve been trying to develop that land for years. I’ve lived here for 67 years. They tried to put in a dog track, a casino, a shopping mall and now this. The land is all rock and ledge, and I’m afraid when they start blasting, our little houses are going to be in trouble.”

The city of Waterbury has owned the property for several years after purchasing the land from a private owner.

Tommy Hyde, executive director of Waterbury Development Corp., said the city has long marketed the industrially zoned property as an attractive location for a variety of uses, but, so far, to no avail.

In May 2022, Waterbury, Naugatuck and Bluewater entered into an agreement for a project that has the potential to create up to 1,000 permanent jobs. Details of the proposed sale have not yet been disclosed.

The site plan calls for traffic improvements to enhance access to Route 8 through Naugatuck, sound barriers, ambient lighting and a storm water management plan that already has received local wetlands approvals.

Bluewater traffic engineers say about 90% of the traffic to and from the site would be from employees, with only 10% truck traffic.

The plan calls for 37 loading docks and a three-story parking garage to accommodate 1,350 vehicles.

Any potential blasting in the area would be determined after a general contractor is hired, Bernardin said.

Waterbury resident Steve Schrag said the city is trying to make a quick $2 million to sell the land “at the cost of the neighborhood,” but yearly taxes would be minimal despite the building’s estimated $2 million value because property is in a “state enterprise zone,” which allows tax breaks for the first five years.

Schrag said the idea that Amazon’s arrival would create jobs is great, but wonders why it needs to be on this particular site. He said there are plenty of brownfields in the city that would be more suitable.

 “We spent $50 million to clean up the brownfield on the site where Sears is – a company that’s now going out of business,” he said.

A year ago, the Board of Aldermen unanimously approved extending the purchase and sales agreement to allow Bluewater to continue with a construction feasibility analysis. Bluewater officials say the process has taken longer due an uncertain economic climate and what they describe as complicated site conditions, including the topography and rock conditions, which are significant challenges.

Naugatuck resident Lynn Mallery expressed concern about the impact of blasting and the potential for water draining off the property into his yard.

Bluewater’s special permit application was slated to be discussed Wednesday night at a zoning meeting in Naugatuck and is scheduled to be taken up by the Waterbury Zoning Commission in the coming weeks.

“I want to know how many trees they’re going to tear down,” Schrag said. “I want to know how much they’re going to destroy the air quality in the South End, which already has air-quality challenges.”