Start of demolition at high-rises marks end of an era in New London 

Greg Smith

New London — The claw of an excavator tore into the side of a nine-story Crystal Avenue high-rise apartment building on Wednesday, marking the end of an era in the city.

It was the ceremonial start of demolition for the 124-unit Thames River Apartments, which had for decades been the source of complaints of substandard living conditions by the families that had lived there.

Mayor Michael Passero marked the occasion with a news conference, saying it was with mixed emotions that this chapter in New London’s history was coming to an end. While hundreds of families had raised their children here in the decades after it opened in 1967, it was also an example of a failed government policy in an era of urban renewal that forced low-income families to live in an industrial zone.

Thames River Apartments was a federally subsidized complex managed by the New London Housing Authority that was a constant source of complaints about crime and poor living conditions. It is surrounded by commercial and industrial facilities, in the shadow of the Gold Star Memorial Bridge and within view of the city’s transfer station.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development had cited the housing authority on various occasions for violations in upkeep of the buildings through the years. The housing authority was taken to task in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of residents by the Reardon Law Firm in New London. The suit started with the case of a resident and single mother of five, who in 2003 had fallen in a puddle of urine and was injured in the hallway inside one of the buildings.

The lawsuit claimed “substandard, dangerous and uninhabitable conditions” and cited police statistics showing that in the six years preceding the lawsuit, police had reported more than 3,000 incidents and 300 arrests at the complex that included robberies, assaults, sex crimes and drug and weapons cases.

The suit led to a court-stipulated agreement in 2014 that the housing authority needed to act and provide better homes for residents. Under pressure from Reardon and tenants, the city joined with the housing authority on the effort to vacate the buildings and gain federal housing vouchers for tenants. The last of the more than 300 tenants moved out in 2018.

Old Lyme officials seek federal relief for backed up sewer project

Elizabeth Regan

Old Lyme — The hopes of those who have been working for years to resolve pollution flowing from local beach communities into Long Island Sound are now resting on the federal government.

Old Colony Beach Association President Douglas Whalen on Wednesday said the four beach communities that have been involved in devising a shared sewer system are looking for between $6 million and $10 million to bridge the gap between what residents agreed to pay and the ever-rising cost of construction.

"The project is moving forward, we're just sort of in a pause until some of this grant money gets released," he said. In what he called an aggressive timeline, he estimated construction could begin in late winter of 2022 if "the funding falls into place."

Whalen said the sewer system will cost residents of Old Colony Beach Association $2,300 a year, based on a 20-year note at 2% interest through the state.

The associations governing Old Colony Beach, Old Lyme Shores Beach and Miami Beach, which are chartered neighborhoods and considered their own municipalities, approved the project at separate referendums. The public Sound View Beach came on after a townwide vote.

President Joe Biden in November signed a bipartisan, $1 trillion infrastructure deal into law. In the area of water infrastructure, U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, said the package will increase resources for states over the next five years to support the construction or improvement of local drinking water and wastewater facilities.

The U.S. Environmental Protection agency in a December release said the state will receive $76.91 million to upgrade water infrastructure as part of the federal spending package, "with nearly half of this funding available as grants or principal forgiveness loans that remove barriers to investing in essential water infrastructure in underserved communities across rural America and in urban centers."

Neil McKiernan, a spokesman for Courtney, confirmed the congressman's office has been "in regular touch" with members of the beach associations and local officials on the issue. He noted the water and wastewater programs have not yet been implemented.

Old Lyme Water Pollution Control Authority Chairman Richard Prendergast on Tuesday told members of the commission that local officials are looking for grants, not loans. "They need to lower the overall project cost," he said.

Gov. Ned Lamont in December tapped state Department of Revenue Services Commissioner Mark Boughton to serve as senior adviser for infrastructure to coordinate the rollout of funds across state agencies, according to a release. Boughton was formerly the mayor of Danbury.

The effort to secure federal funding is the latest step toward installation of sewer lines to homes in the popular beach area that has been closely monitored for years by state environmental officials. The state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection has mandated something be done to reduce groundwater pollution and potential for pollutants entering the Sound.

'Shovel ready'

The planned system for the four beach communities revolves around a shared pump station — to be located in the Sound View neighborhood — as well as a force main pipe, enabling all four entities to send their sewage through East Lyme to New London for treatment.

The cost of the shared infrastructure, originally estimated at roughly $9 million by project engineers with Fuss & O'Neill of Manchester, has proved to be higher than anticipated.

Old Lyme Shores Beach Association President Matt Merritt on Wednesday said more than a decade of planning couldn't have culminated in a more "perfect storm."

"Right in the crosshairs of COVID, after 10 years of planning, we went out to bid," he said.

Two rounds of bids — first presented as one big project in the spring and then separated into parts in the fall — came back higher than the amount approved in separate votes held over the years by the private beach associations and the town of Old Lyme.

Prendergast at Tuesday's WPCA meeting said the second round of bids were lower "but still too high for the town's liking and the associations' liking." He told members the beach associations are looking at going out to bid again this year or early next year when pandemic-related price surges have normalized.

Whalen was optimistic that the release of federal funds could allow the project to go back out to bid in the late summer or early fall. Describing the project as "shovel ready," he said all the work that has been done so far should make it more likely that it will be deemed a good candidate for federal funding.

He said officials also are seeking infrastructure funds to address flooding that has been affecting the beach communities.

Merritt and Whalen both noted that a DEEP grant for design work has been extended a year because state officials understood why the project has stalled.

If the grant hadn't been extended, the associations would have had to pay back costs accrued so far for things like engineering and legal fees. For Old Colony Beach Association alone, Whalen said that amount could be "north of $1 million."

Merritt, when asked what the options are if the funding doesn't come through, said that's a what-if that's always been in the back of officials' minds — though it now has "come to the forefront."

But he said there have not been any formal conversations with DEEP about other ways to address pollution that will satisfy the regulatory agency.

"That could be new septic tanks for those that have failed; it could be pumping out on a more regular basis those septic tanks we already have," Merritt said. "We're just not sure."

He said those talks with DEEP haven't happened yet because local officials remain "laser focused" on securing federal funds so they can build their sewer system.

According to Whalen, there aren't a lot of options on small lots that don't have the square footage to upgrade their septic system to meet the state's standards.

"The project needs to move forward because there's no other possibilities, that I know of, to get it cleaned up," he said.

Developer: Proposed East Hartford logistics center expected to create 2,000 jobs

Skyler Frazer

Massachusetts-based National Development met with the East Hartford Town Council Tuesday night to give a detailed look at its proposed four-building manufacturing, research and development and logistics hub near Rentschler Field, a project that could create about 2,000 permanent jobs and generate an estimated $4 million in new annual tax revenue, the developers said.

In November, East Hartford jet engine maker Pratt & Whitney announced it reached an agreement to sell its 300-acre former airfield to National Development for an undisclosed purchase price. Few details about the project were shared publicly until Tuesday night. 

According to National Development’s presentation, the project will include two flex manufacturing facilities near the existing Cabelas outdoor retail store: an 80,000-square-foot, one-story building and a 75,000-square-foot, two-story building.

There will also be two larger distribution buildings on-site. It wasn’t clear how big those facilities will be, but the entire brick-and-mortar build-out will only take up about 20% of the 300 acres, the developers said.

National Development also said it’s in talks with potential tenants, but declined to disclose specifics. Uses proposed for the development  include research and development, medical, biotech, and specialized manufacturing. The logistics center area will be used for distribution facilities and other similar uses driven by the site’s highway access.

Joseph Balskus, senior traffic engineer with the developer’s engineering firm, VHB, said the developers are planning for two major tenants on the site, which would simplify communication on truck management, as well as dealing with any issues that may crop up.

East Hartford Mayor Mike Walsh said he’s “very much in favor of the project” and it has been well received by council members.

“National Development is a solid community partner so we like everything about this project,” Walsh said.

Walsh said that he and members of the council have a few outstanding questions related to truck traffic impact and emissions that still need to be addressed.

“Let’s take a hard look at that and the studies,” Walsh said. “There will be large trucks and we want to make sure the emissions are appropriately looked at.”

Representatives from National Development will be at a follow-up meeting about the project at 6 p.m. on Feb. 16 at Goodwin University. The developer expects to file its master plan with the town in mid-March.

Manchester, developer differ on status of Parkade deal

Austin Mirmina

Attorneys for the town of Manchester and the former developers of the Parkade site are locked in disagreement over whether a deal between the two sides is null and void.

Developer Michael Licamele, who is a principal of the Easton-based Manchester Parkade 1 LLC, the Parkade’s former developer, said he and his partner, Harry Freeman, would fight the town’s recent decision to pull the plug on negotiations for redevelopment of the Broad Street property that once held a retail plaza.

“Unfortunately, while we have worked together in good faith, the developer struggled to move the project forward,” Mayor Jay Moran said in a news release announcing the town’s decision to end negotiations last month. “We were hopeful we could work out a new agreement after the original development agreement expired, but it is now clear that the project as envisioned was not progressing as we had hoped.”

The JI obtained a series of letters between attorneys for the town and the developers. In the first letter, dated Jan. 24, Assistant Town Attorney Tim O’Neil notified Licamele that the town’s agreement with his company was “null and void” due to the “passage of time and the actions and inactions of the parties.”

David Shufrin, the developer’s attorney, replied a day later saying his client disagrees with the town’s claim, and remains “ready, willing, and able to hold the initial closing as called for in the development agreement.”

“It is our hope that the Town feels the same way and will honor its commitments under the development agreement,” Shufrin wrote.

Shufrin also said the town failed to give the developer an official notice of default, which is a statement sent by one contract party to notify another that the latter was in default by failing to fulfill the terms of an agreement, according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School.

Responding to Shufrin’s Jan. 25 letter, Kevin McEleney, an attorney with Updike, Kelly & Spellacy who represents Manchester, wrote Feb. 4 that the town didn’t have to give official notice because the developers committed a “breach” of the agreement when they admitted that they couldn’t obtain the proper financing through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The breach effectively discharged the town from any future contract liability, McEleney said.

McEleney, who heads the firm’s bankruptcy and creditors’ rights practice group, also wrote that agreement “had a clear deadline and the town repeatedly expressed to the developer the importance of closing and promptly commencing redevelopment of the Parkade.”

The town and Manchester Parkade I signed a development agreement in April 2021, which was extended twice but lapsed last September prior to the developer securing the necessary financing to close on the property, the news release said.

“It is completely unreasonable,” McEleney wrote, “for (the) developer to request a closing in February 2022, approximately five months after the agreement expired.”

McEleney added: “Given that the agreement is no longer in effect, the town reserves the right to pursue any and all alternatives for development of the Parkade.”

Last month, Licamele called the town’s decision to part ways “one of the biggest mistakes, if not the biggest mistake, that the government of the town of Manchester has ever made.”

Licamele said Monday his company has yet to take any legal action against the town, but “we feel we’re on very strong legal footing here.”

“There’s nothing I want to do more than move forward with the project,” Licamele said. “If we were to file suit … we wouldn’t be suing for damages, we would be suing to just do the project.”