I have said very little about the Rabina Properties plan for the Pratt & Whitney site, but it seems increasingly amazing to me how little has been said about the necessary cleanup of the polluted property, especially considering that there are plans to have people living on it.
With all the talk about children, roads, runoff, etc., according to Planning & Zoning Commission Vice Chair James Giulietti (in today’s Register article), “the commission does not have any information on the cleanup of the land.”
How can anything happen until we know the current environmental state of the property and the cost and possibilities of its cleanup?
I would like someone to explain to me and to the rest of North Haven’s residents why this aspect of the development has taken such a back seat to all other considerations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Unless I'm mistaken, there was a cancer cluster among former P&W workers who were employed there. They'd contracted some very (statistically) unusual head and neck cancers--too many to be coincidence--presumably from exposure to exotic chemicals used during the manufacturing processes there.
I e-mailed the EPA in Nov. 2005 after reading Mr. Kopetz's statement that "shovels would be in the ground in Fall of 2006". I was concerned about the cancer cluster as well as all the chemicals and heavy metals in the ground at the site. They e-mailed me back and at that time, 12/1/05, they stated the CT DEP is the primary environmental agency contact for the property clean-up. They said the status of continuing work is reported in semi-annual updates, and that these updates are available for public review at the file room at the CT DEP (wherever that is!). At that time they said there were 50 areas of potential concern for "past chemical and waste management activities indicate a potential for releases to the environment". They also said, "for some areas the final clean-up plan will likely call for land use restrictions and on-going monitoring to ensure long-term protection of human health and the environment". They also said "the final clean-up plan and work must be available for public review and comment and must receive approval from the State of CT DEP". This e-mail was from Diane Duva of the state DEP, (860)424-3271.
Granted this was 2 years ago, however I haven't heard anything since except for Rabina Properties wish for zoning approval. Since the property is within a mile of my home, I am very concerned about what they'll unearth (and where it will go) when they start any excavation/construction. The list of contaminants at the site was quite extensive as of 2005--the people of No. Haven should know what was done for clean-up, any DEP reports, etc. BEFORE a zone change is granted, in my opinion. I would rather hear about the remediation of the site than the train station. I hope the Zoning Board moves carefully and does not rubber-stamp this massive project.
UTC is on the hook for the clean up regardless of development. The property cannot be developed until the remediation is defined and a plan accepted (no debt financing available until then). Remediation standards are much higher for residential use...
The environmental issues will be well defined and remediated at the right time..
That is not the issue for North haven residents or P & Z. The issue should be the ratio of residential development to commercial development. The way it works is that North haven residents want more commercial/office /medical/retail square footage and less residential. The developer needs the residential to make the economics of the project work or else it won't get built. As residents we need to accept some housing to get the benefits of the entire development. The discussion should be some type of ratio for the Zone change. (i.e. 50 sq. ft of residential for every 100sq. ft of commercial) With protections built in that no more than x sq.ft. of residential can be built before the x sq. ft of commercial.
I did some quick on-line research on the Pratt & Whitney site. The EPA ID for the hazardous waste remediation project at the Pratt & Whitney site is CTD001449511 (from the CT Department of Environmental Protection and federal Environmental Protection Agency agreement on hazardous waste remediation).
Here’s a special webpage for the cleanup project, which gives a summary of the problem and lists the contacts at the EPA and the state DEP.
An EPA report from 2005 states that current human exposures are under control, the migration of contaminated groundwater is also under control.
There was a State Order No. 8027, with Compliance Timetable, for the site, effective on March 31, 1989. There was also a Technical Support Document prepared by the Connecticut DEP providing a complete description of the reasonably available control technology determination imposed on the site. I didn't find these, however.
Here is a possibly related link: a press release on willful violation of recordkeeping requirements with respect to worker injuries and illnesses (1999).
I am very suspicious about this whole project, since it was apparently cooked up in a "smoke-filled" back room. The taxpayers of North Haven still don't know how much we will have to invest in this complex.
I challenge Rubina Properties to name one company committed to investing in this project. If they can't, then we are being asked to pour perhaps millions of dollars into a project with absolutely no guaranteed return on our investment. For example, who is going to pay for the interior streets, access roads, sewers and the like?
I question the projected tax revenue figures. Anybody can make up numbers to justify their position.
Developer pays ...approval should be done with no obligation for the town for infrastructure...
if you question this project, there is no project that you will ever be in favor of...
Re use of a old industrial property, access from a main rd, existing industrial zone anyway, no adverse impact to existing neighborhoods...
I agree that it is going to be difficult to attract retail tenants because of the location of the two malls, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be accomplished.
You can't be against everything & then expect your taxes to go down.
Wait, tiss the season, maybe the will be some divine intervention...or santa will just cap town expenses...nah i'll stick with increasing the grand list...
Correct development with the right mix of residential to commercial can only be a win for the town.
Mr Wechsler:
A good person to ask about this might be Susan Iverson. She is a Biology/Environmental Science teacher at the high school as well as President of the North Haven Historical Society. She is very well researched as far as this issue is concerned.
To Anonymous-
According to the NHRegister and the weeklies, the town may be on the hook for almost half a million dollars for the Valley Service Rd. Extension (part not covered by State grant). Not to mention police, fire, school, and public works expenses--don't count your mil rate reduction before the shovel hits the sand. Also, I would advise you google "Rabina Properties" and read about their lawsuits in FL and Mass.-if they don't get their way, they seem very litigious. Add in the pollution-State DEP has not signed off on this, and the town could have a mess in more ways than one!
You can always find a way to be against something but to have a informed opinion there should be at least minimal aggreement on the facts......
Zoning approvals require developers to pay for (and bond prior to building permit)off site improvements all the time...it is standard practice.
For this size project it is better to have a developer with experience and capital..with capital being more important..there is no guarantee that the real estate project will work, but having committed equity money helps get it built and over the hump...
All developers, and towns by the way, use the courts to enforce rights/settle disputes..I agree,some more than others, but for now it is irrelevent. the zone change and the future approvals are, by law, indifferent to who the developer is. They run with the land and can be sold from owner to owner.
Your pollution issue is a non issue...I repeat... a remediation plan must be in place...and depending on the issue, some level of success of the remidiation must be defined, before any construction can take place.... This is a undisputable fact.... This will not get started without sign offs from the State, but more importantly, sign offs from the money behind the project.
Don't take your eye off the ball. This develeopment will help North Haven tax payers. It needs to be approved correctly with the right controls to protect us from overdevelopment of the residential portion (a future potential drain on town services as you correctly state)and maximise the business and industry portion which is a big win for the tax base.
I watched a show on NHTV called North Haven Business News. The entire show was about Rabina Properties and it was pretty special. From what they talked about, I would fully support this project. I cannot recall off-hand everything but it seems like they have a good head on their shoulders. Granted, this project might cost North Haven some money. However, everything costs money. If we can afford pulling money out of the unappropriated fund balance (and the money saved from that job in the first selectman's office that Mrs. McCarty eliminated can also go towards paying this off :P), we can find the money for a wonderful development that Rabina is offering us (It will also be the biggest of its kind in New England and will bring people to North Haven!).
Why more development?
Why the burning need to bring in any and all commercial projects into North Haven under the auspices that they help the tax base?
There are so many beautifully protected towns in CT that do not have the endless stripmalls with duplicates of many useless and unnecessary businesses. Those towns are not crushing their residents with taxes but they are protecting their open spaces and healthy environments. I see North Haven as a junk food paradise, lots of neon and ugly chainstore landscapes. Calculations of increased revenue commonly ignore the real costs to the town in terms of police, fire, water, garbage and other services.
I guess I am in a tiny minority in this town as all I seem to hear is the desire to bring in more retail. Sadly, there is so little thought for future preservation here.
Naomi,
I totally agree. North Haven can't fill the strip malls we have now. There are for sale signs on commercial and residential properties all over town, and they aren't moving too quickly. If we can't support our local businesses (except for the fast food chains) why are we so eager to bring in more? More construction, more traffic, more police calls, more kids in our schools (so we can be threatened at budget time about all-day kindergarten), more traffic lights on Washington Ave. (it's in the preliminary plan), 10 story buildings on the property--enjoy the view, hundreds of condos and apartments... All we have to do is TRUST an out of state developer to do right by North Haven. Do we NEED this? I just don't see the burning need to bring more people into town-especially ones that won't be supporting the local mom and pop businesses. If the CMB project, a fraction of the size, was going to be such a drain on town resources-what makes this project so different and so good?
What initially got me suspicious about this project was the projection that our school system would not have a large influx of new students. I believe they estimated less than 10 families would have school age children. That's a totally unrealistic estimate. If there are 300 condos or apartments, a conservative estimate would be 300 children attending classes.
As "empty nesters" leave their single family homes to move into this complex, their former homes will most likely be purchased by families with children. Many of those will come from outside North Haven, adding even more pupils to the school system.
Before this project ever gets final approval from the officials here in North Haven, We need to write some important items into the contract.
1) North Haven's capital investment is limited to $250,000
2) The property owner is responsible for all police and fire coverage and will reimburse the town for those services (it will cost us a lot of money to service this complex)
3) If more than 20 families have school age children, the property owner will reimburse the town $8,000/year for each additional school age child attending schools in North Haven
Special Forces,
The plan is for about 800 condos/apartments-a lot more than 300. I agree, there will be a large influx into our school system. Their numbers are based on the condos already in town (not apartments), none of which is anywhere near as large as what is proposed here. There is already a debate on WHO will pay for the State's shortfall of $ to expand Valley Service Road, sounds like the town at the moment. The developer keeps saying the public will be informed, yet so far, nada. I don't think many in town realize the size and scape of this project. I don't think many realize what's in the soil up there either. This is scary on many levels-I see us paying a lot for this and don't believe it will reduce our taxes.
I am curious as to why you do not see it reducing taxes?
Don't forget, 1 br apartments / condo's do not bring school kids. two br's bring some but much less than their pro rata share as the expense nature of new apartments makes them geared more to young professionals as opposed to families. Also sometimes the kids in the 2br units would often be with us anyways as these units are transitory in nature, divorces, relocations etc...
It's not just school kids. 800 units and a mall, train station, satellite emergency room, walking trail, a green...do you think this can be handled with the same number of fire, police, public works, etc.? With all the commercial development on Washington Avenue and Universal Drive over the last 5 years have you seen your taxes go down? There are also the quality of life issues-increased traffic, strain on town services and infrastructure, more empty stores around town as retail migrates towards the mall. Drive around the Trumbull or Meriden mall neighborhoods, then add 10 story condos/apartments attached-is that the view of North Haven you had when you moved to this *town*? Why would Westfield be joining CMB in fighting this project if it wasn't going to be so HUGE it would be competition for the Meriden mall? Also, low-paying retail jobs and apartments bring in a mobile workforce that is not as invested in their neighborhoods as owner-occupied single family homes (what CMB proposed building). So my question stands, if the CMB project was going to be such a drain on town resources-why is the Rabina project going to be better?
#1. Location...the infrastructure is in place to support this development. It sits on Washington Ave between the two exits of 91. It will not affect neighborhoods.
#2. Project mix. The nonresidential is a win from a grand list standpoint.
#3. Existing zone. This property is a industrial zone with an existing 1.0M sq. ft building on it. It allows high density industrial use by right. a re-use to a more valuable use should be encouraged provided the residential is not overweighted.
They are two different projects, besides the fact that CMB wants to intervene to try and leverage some type of approval for their half baked project, they have nothing to do with each other.
Even if the CMB deal had all its approvals today, it would never get built. Too expensive, bad site plan, wrong location, no financing available,lousy existing road network, inconsistent with existing zoning and inconsistant with existing neighbors....shall I go on?
Additional junk business development is not our salvation!
Logic tells us that even if we wished for continued junk business development into the indefinite future, it could not happen. Physics and economics impose upper limits.
Whatever the merits of past increases in strip malls, package stores, condos, junk food and junk retail, drive through banks, and nail and hair salons, there must be an upper limit to further benefits in terms of tax relief and quality of life.
Let us agree that at some point, there cannot be any further benefit to the town. I SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE NOW REACHED THAT POINT. In fact we passed that point.
More generally, let's agree that we cannot blindly assume that in general more development = more good.
There is no compelling need for further growth of the kind that the town has experienced during the decades of previous business- oriented administrations.
Instead of more junk business, it's time to consider transitioning to future-oriented communities that could distinguish North Haven from other unremarkable cities that have cultivated mindless, ugly, junk- business sprawls.
There is no proof that the Rubina project will help residents. With the Republicrooks swept out of office, now is the time to consider a more optimistic and creative future.
In these regards, I'm not a visionary or a genius. But, for example, how about if we try to replace junk business with internet- and education-based companies, information- and computation-based businesses, and efforts to foster alternative energy sources and local food production?
Melvin-
I agree that we need to start thinking about a different future. What about the near certain fact that gasoline costs and, ultimately, gasoline availability will cause transportation problems for both North Haven residents and North Haven businesses. Is it too soon to anticipate energy-related problems? Should we raise the bar for energy efficiency in all new constructions? If so, should this include the proposed new condos, etc.
I beg to differ that the Rabina project will not affect neighborhoods-it will DEFINITELY affect my neighborhood. I live near 415 Washington Avenue and I dread the construction mess, noise, effect on traffic and displacement of the wildlife that lives there. When the Big Y/Hollywood Video construction projects were going on, you wouldn't believe how many dogs in the neighborhood were "skunked", the groundhog that moved in under my next door neighbor's pool and the other critters that moved into my (fenced) yard along with their ticks and destruction to lawn and gardens. As I was driving down Kings Highway yesterday, I could see the Pratt and Whitney building-hope everyone in Blue Hills enjoys the view of the 10 story residential complex and mall!
How will the remediation keep the toxins in the soil out of the air and water during constuction? How will this benefit the Quinnipiac River-or do we not care because it runs to Hamden and New Haven and will become their problem?
As to the comment that the developer pays for remediation-that's not true-the previous property owner (UTC) pays. Can anyone answer-Has this brownfield been cleaned up? I can't find any evidence that this site is 100% cleaned up. How can they be debating zoning and building there when they can't tell us that the site is not polluted.
Does anybody know if the developer has been given any future tax abatements? We also need to know the maximum amount of money the town is required to invest in this project.
I am not against a project which could lower our taxes by adding to the Grand List. However, given the shameful way this town has been run for the past several years, we need to get all of the facts out on the table.
No tax abatements have been given.
The limit on public spending for off site road improvements is easy, it should be NONE. If this were a warehouse that was going to employ hundreds and bring no kids or be a service drain, then we should consider competing to get that development with public subsidies.
But, this is not. And it has plenty of residential where none is currently allowed. That is bonus enough. Bring your project to our town. Do it right and blend in enough comm/retail/service so it is a winner for the town...But if the economics are such that you cannot afford the off site improvements, then that is your risk, not ours.
To anonymous,
You comments don't make any sense. What exactly are you trying to say?
In my opinion, we still don't know how much the town will have to invest in this project and I do not believe it will add a NET 25% to our Grand List. Show me the proof that this develpopment will add millions to our revenue base.
1.The zone change to allow residential is a big carrot for the developer to recieve.
2.This is a financial bonus for the developer,because, the residential sale portion is the real financial engine for the project.
3.This financial incentive(saleable residential units) should create enough value for the developer to be able to pay for all the off site improvements AT NO COST TO THE TOWN.
4. The commercial/retail/service/medical components are a win for the town and therefore, if approved correctly with development safeguards such as ratio's of reidental sq. ft/ to other sq.ft., this will be a winner for both town and developer.
I'm still waiting for an answer...has this brownfield been cleaned up? Has the state DEP signed off on the 50 areas of "potential concern" mentioned above? There shouldn't be a zone change until the public can be assured that this site no longer contains contaminants. This post is titled "How polluted is it?" and so far, with all the arguing on whether this will bring tax money to North Haven or cost the town money, no one has answered these questions. So...how polluted is it?
You can stamp your feet all you want but the answer is as follows: Ther are different levels of clean up required...to higher and lower standards depending on use of the site. (i.e. a residential use with public water supply needs to be remediated to a greater degree than an industrial site.)
The timing of the remediation is determined by the existing level of contamination and the development of the property.
It is probably on going now as far as any ground water contanmination but any soil removal, especially if under the building or parking lot will not take place until redevelopment.
If you think the state has the resources to initiate and investigate all the industrial sites you are sadly mistaken. It is the private sector, owners and lenders...new capital...which drives the investigation and ultimate clean up..until there is new capital worried about their investment, these sites generaly sit quietly.
Another interesting thought will be if Janet McCarty votes to fire Palmeri in risk of a law suit agaist the town. If she doesn't vote to fire him, she breaks her promise of firing him. And she did promise that, I attended several of her speeches.
I have no problem giving her time to settle in town hall. But let's, as voting democrats, not forget that she wanted an open government and make things more accesible to it's citizens. So why is it so wrong to question her? She's been in office for almost 100 days and has served as a selectwoman for te better half of a decade. Unless there's something in it for you, we should always question our leaders.
We should always question our leaders -- although almost no one ever questioned Mr. Kopetz, and you couldn't ask him questions to be answered on the TV shows he didn't do (but McCarty is), or at Town Meetings, or during the parts of Board of Selectmen meetings that were televised (until the very end, after the public comments started going up on You Tube), or via email, etc.
If you want open government, you've got it. But it hasn't been 100 days, just a month, since McCarty took office.
Robert, Kopetz was constantly challenged throughout his administration. Not only by democrats but also his own party questioned him. His tax record was awful and I know for a fact that in 2004 the RTC debated whether or not to have him run again. I just want to know from you personally that if there was a Republican that was willing to work with the democrats in policy and active discussion, would you support him or her?
Until the very end, Kopetz was not personally challenged the way McCarty was personally challenged and continues to be personally challenged. Only a couple of people even asked for his resignation, despite the fact that he was completely responsible for Ierardi's and Palmeri's actions (and I don't just mean what they were charged with), and solely responsible for not bidding out contracts.
I have no problems with Republicans. In the town I lived in before I moved here, I helped get a Republican elected mayor in a Democratic machine-dominated town. My views have nothing to do with party names, only with the way parties abuse their power.
I did have a problem with the Republican machine that ran this town as a closed shop, did not fully bid out contracts unless it had to, and intimidated both employees and citizens.
You act as if I were a Democrat. You say, "if there was a Republican that was willing to work with the democrats in policy and active discussion, would you support him or her?"
I don't know a single Republican officeholder who would even have a decent conversation with me, an Independent, not to mention with a Democrat.
For example, officials from all over the state, and the country, contact me for advice on government ethics issues. But no one in this town (but McCarty) would speak with me about changes in the ethics code. Just because I oppose them? That's schoolyard stuff.
Republican officials voted again and again to prevent citizens asking them questions at Town Meetings (when there was a good turnout, they finally lost). How can such people work in policy and active discussion, not only with Democrats, but with anyone?
Where were the Republicans when it came time for a responsible transition. Not available. These are not people who play well together.
All the discussion there is by Republican officials seems to be vicious and in the newspapers (and, in a couple of instances (assuming they're not here as Anonymouses) here). And when they have to deal with responses, the officials disappear. Poof!
All I've ever asked for is good, open government, including respect for citizens, which includes Democrats and, even moreso, Independents. There are certainly Republicans who can show people respect, and Republicans who have supported getting rid of the Republican machine, but I'm not sure about those who participated in the closed, machine government we've had here for many years.
What I think they should do is very clear from my postings here. The way to a new start with cooperation and mutual respect is clear. But no one can do anything about it but the people who did the harm to our town's government and community.
If you want a town where Republican and Democratic officials work well together, go to Republican officials and suggest that they do what I have asked, so that we can move ahead. I certainly can't talk with them.
Post a Comment