Joint Appendix Vol I — Kelo v. New London
Supreme Court brief2005
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
In The
vv
SUSETTE KELO, THELMA BRELESKY, PASQUALE
CRISTOFARO, WILHELMINA AND CHARLES DERY, JAMES
AND LAURA GURETSKY, PATAYA CONSTRUCTION
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and WILLIAM VON WINKLE,
Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF NEW LONDON, and NEW |
LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondents.
On Writ Of Certiorari To The
Supreme Court Of Connecticut
JOINT APPENDIX
Volume I, Pages 1 to 212
Horton, SHIELDS & Knox, P-C. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
WeEsLeY W. Horton* WILLIAM H. MELLOR
DANIEL J. KRISCH ' Scott G. BULLOcK*
90 Gillett Street DaNa BERLINER
Hartford, CT 06105 1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
(860) 522-8338 Suite 200
(860) 728-0401 (fax) Washington, DC 20006
(202) 955-1300
WALLER, SMITH & PALMER, PC.
Bowen B. Conan, (202) 955-1329 (fax)
52 Eugene O'Neill Drive SAWYER Law Firm, LLC
New London, CT 06320 Scott W. SAWYER
(860) 442-0367 The Jill S. Sawyer Building
(860) 447-9915 (fax) 251 Williams Street
Conway & LONDREGAN New London, CT 06320
(860) 442-8131
THOMAS J. LONDREGAN (860) 442-4131 (fax)
JEFFREY T LONDREGAN
38 Huntington Street Counsel for Petitioners
New London, CT 06320
(860) 447-3171
(860) 444-6103 (fax)
Counsel for Respondents
*Counsel of Record
Petition For Certiorari Filed July 19, 2004
Certiorari Granted September 28, 2004
COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO (800) 225-6904
OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
JOINT APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume I
Relevant Docket Entries from the Courts below................. 1
EXHIBITS FROM TRIAL HELD IN THE
SUPERIOR COURT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
NEW LONDON IN JULY AND AUGUST, 2001
MAPS
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit TT — Fort Trumbull MDP Area —
TD AAT 3
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit VV — Fort Trumbull MDP Com-
posite Lanid Use Plan Map 3..................::ccccsseseeeseseeeeeenes 4
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit YY — Fort Trumbull Develop-
ment Site Plan dated October 10, 2000 ..................:.00000. 5
OTHER EXHIBITS
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B —- Representative Statement of
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit I - New London Development
Corporation (NLDC) Board’s Record of Vote and
Resolution dated October 16, 2000 .............225 ence, cee co]
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit II — Letter to George Milne frein
Claire Gaudiani dated December 15, 1997................... 18
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit PP1 - Email to George Milne
from James Serbia dated October 21, 1998.................. 21
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit PP2 - Letter to Dr. Claire
Gaudiani from George Milne, Jr. dated March 8,
il
JOINT APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Defendant NLDC’s Exhibit 12 - New London City
Counsel Resolution of January 18, 2000, author-
izing the use of eminent domain .................:cccc0cccceeeeeeee 26
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit HHH - Memorandum from
Developer Marty Jones of Corcoran Jennison to
Joseph E. Corcoran, Gary Jennison, Scott
Dumont, Harry Nash and Eliza Edelsberg dated
SammaTY 1B, BOOB .cccrccsccocssessesteemmmseniiiiaaaan 30
Excerpts from Defendant NLDC’s Exhibit 38 - Fort
Trumbull Municipal Development Plan (MDP) Revised
Administrative Draft, August 1999
* Section 1: Introduction (pgs. 1-1 through 1-11
GHEY) -coceccscscoecsnsessnsannsiennnmpmtaasaae 83
* Section 3: Existing Site Conditions (pgs. 3-19
Caveughs 3-06 anlliy) ..ccccccosssesssensneistieimusasaeee 96
* Section 5: Proposed Improvements.......................- 108
* Section 9: Administrative Plan Summary............. 188
* Appendix A: Selection of and Rationale for the
Preferred Alternative — Fort Trumbull MDP
fT 190
* Proposed Land Uses Map 5.1..............c.ecccceeceeeeeees 212
Volumes II and III
Defendant NLDC’s Exhibit 34 - Draft Environ-
mental Impact Evaluation — dated November 10,
BGGD .....ccscessenssosscennsnssessnneme 213
JOINT APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
The following documents have been omitted ii. the
printing of this Joint Appendix. They may be found in the
Appendix to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the
following pages:
Opinion of the Superior Court of Connecticut,
Judicial District of New London, At New London,
Decided March 13, 2002 ...............ccccccceceeeeeeeenenees App. 191
Opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court, De-
chddad Bharal ©, BODE. .......0.<00reseeeccssesesccccessscceccssscscee App. 1
Order of Connecticut Supreme Court Granting
Motion for Stay of Execution Pending Decision by
the United States Supreme Court, Decided April
GG cecnecesessencncscennsssenscszecessesecsnsssssnsesssscasensvess App. 425
Order of the Connecticut Supreme Court Denying
Motion for Reconsideration, Decided April 20,
1
RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES
Connecticut Supreme Court
CASE NUMBER SC 16742
Docket Text
Complaint
Answer of Defendants City of New London
and New London Redevelopment Agency
Answer of New London Development
Corporation
Memorandum of Decision
Plaintiffs’ Appeal
Cross-Appeal of Defendant New London
Development Corporation
Cross-Appeal of Defendants City of New
London and New London Redevelopment
Agency
Transfer Letter
Brief of Plaintiffs
Statement of the Issues of Plaintiffs
Brief of City of New London
Statement of the Issues of City of New
London
Brief of New London Development Corpo-
ration
Statement of the Issues of New London
Development Corporation
Reply Brief of Plaintiffs
2
9/20/02 Reply Brief of New London Development
Corporation
9/23/02 Reply Brief of City of New London
* - -
3/11/04 Supreme Court Decision by the Court
3/11/04 Supreme Court Decision by the Court
* - *
3/29/04 Motion for Reconsideration
3/29/04 Motion for Stay of Execution Pending
Decision by United States Supreme Court
4/20/04 Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
4/20/04 Order Granting Motion for Stay Pending
Decision by United States Supreme Court
Figure 2
As oe Bieler”
|
"sar
wT.
& pore
temereted
by les & be Brou,
chats Commutas DEP.
PEMA ont LS Nowy
su aa sc ky z,
Sey
Sass
eoangs édet
8
s
-
<=
SK
SEAN Ne
Fert Trumbull MDP Ares - New London, Connecticut
Shaws Cove 8 Columbia Cove
5 “5
p
Y
i
7
,
ween ee
<<< =
“a=
DRAFT i“ Water Dependent Use
Site Plan :
Fort Trumbull Development Plan
October 19, 2000 |
wean Companies | oe | ee PROPOSED HOTEL MEETING
‘Associates, Architects Sar" () prorosep nore. surronr PROPOSED HOTEL CIRCULATION
= ==
vil CC) prorossp nore. prass
6
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT B
NO. RED CV 00- SUPERIOR COURT
CITY OF NEW LONDON JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
V. NEW LONDON AT
ROSE CIAVAGLIA, NEW LONDON
WILHEMINA J. DERY
aka WILHEMINA DERY
and CHARLES DERY NOVEMBER 6, 2000
STATEMENT OF COMPENSATION
The CITY OF NEW LONDON, acting by and through
the NEW LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
the Condemner, represents and states:
1. The Condemner is a municipal corporation located
in the County of New London and State of Connecticut.
2. The Condemner is acting herein by the NEW
LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, its duly
designated development agency exercising the powers set
forth in Chapter 132 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
3. On October 16, 2000, the New London Develop-
ment Corporation duly voted to acquire the hereinafter
described property, and found that the convenience and
necessity of the Condemner requires the same, for the
purpose and effectuating the Condemner’s development
project plan.
4. The property to be taken pursuant to this State-
ment of Compensation is located in the City and County of
New London and State of Connecticut, consists of four
buildings or residences on one parcel of land known as 28
East Street, 79 Walbach Street, 81-83 Walbach Street and
7
87 Walbach Street and is more particularly bounded and
described in Schedule “A” attached hereto.
5. The names of all persons having a record interest
in the property are
ROSE CIAVAGLIA, WILHELMINA J. DERY
aka WILHELMINA DERY and CHARLES DERY
87 Walbach Street
New London, Connecticut
6. The Condemner has determined that the amount
of the compensation to be paid to the persons entitled
thereto for such property is $506,000.00, and this sum is
being deposited with the Clerk of the Superior Court for
the Judicial District of New London at New London in
accordance with the provisions of Section 8-130 of the
Connecticut General Statutes.
CITY OF NEW LONDON, acting by
the NEW LONDON DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
By /s/ Edward B. O’Connell
Edward B. O’Connell, of
Waller, Smith & Palmer, P.C.
Its Attorneys
SCHEDULE A
A certain piece or parcel of land, with the buildings
and improvements thereon, located in the City and County
of New London and State of Connecticut, more particu-
larly described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Walbach
and East Streets and running thence southerly
anc along the westerly side of East Street one
ay eS cincen (138 feet, more or less, to land
therl ide of Walbach Street; thence easterly
o> ant ans the southerly side of Walbach
Street one hundred eight and twenty-five hun-
dredths (108.25) feet to the point and place of be-
ginning.
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT I
New LONDON
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
RECORD OF VOTE
At its Board meeting on October 16, 2000, the NLDC
ae Le Cees cates, agke Ce as
attached:
Resolution 001016-1
Resolution 001016-2
Resolution 001016-3
The board voted in one new member, and will continue to
vote on new members at upcoming meetings. The new
member is Judge Antoinete Dupont.
Resolution 001016-1
WHEREAS, the New London City Council has designated
the New London Development Corporation, a nonprofit
development corporation, as its development agency
pursuant to the Connecticut General Statutes, and
WHEREAS, the New London Development Corporation
has prepared a project plan for The Fort Trumbull Mu-
nicipal Development Plan Area pursuant to Section 8-189
of the Connecticut General Statutes, and
WHEREAS, the project plan for The Fort Trumbull Mu-
nicipal Development Plan Area has been duly approved
and adopted pursuant to Section 8-191 of the Connecticut
Genera! Statutes, and
10
WHEREAS, it is necessary to acquire certain properties
located in the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan
Area of New London in order to carry out and administer
said project plan, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8-193 of the Connecticut
General Statutes the New London Development Corpora-
tion has the approval of the New London City Council to
acquire by eminent domain properties within the Fort
Trumbull Municipal Development Plan Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the New
London Development Corporation, in the name of the City
of New London, acquire certain properties located in the
Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan Area of New
London through the exercise of the power of eminent
domain as granted to it under Chapter 132 of the Con-
particularly described as follows:
ADDRESS Map Bock Lot Owner
78 Smith Street 21 106 #£%1 Thelma Brelesky
72 Smith Street 21 106 2 CarolynA. Luzi
41 Goshen Street 21 106 8 Pataya Const. Ltd
Partship
49 Goshen Street 21 106 9 Pataya Const. Ltd
Partship
54 Goshen Street 22 107 24 Albert P. Anton
42 Goshen Street 22 107 28 Isabelle M. Rogovin
36 Walbach St. 22 107 30 Isabelle M. Rogovin
82 Trumbull Street 21 105 13 Foss & Bourke, Inc
8 East Street 21 105 11 Suzette T. Kelo
11
19-23 Smith Street 21 105 17 James R. & LauraA.
Guretsky
27 Smith Street 21 105 18 William von Winkle,
Trustee
31 Smith Street 21 105 19 William von Winkle,
Trustee
33-35 Smith Street 21 105 20 William von Winkle,
Trustee
216 Howard Street 22 107 32 William von Winkle,
189 Howard Street 22 101 20 Antoinette Farrell
195 Howard Street 22 101 21 Lillian M. Del-
Grosso, Trustee
53 Goshen Street 21 106 10 Pasquale & Mar-
gaerita Cristofaro
9 Walbach Street, 21 105 3 Rose Ciavaglia &
1-83 Walbach St., Wilhemina &
7 Walbach Street Charles Dery
28 East Street
11-13 Smith Street 21 105 14 Edward & Josephine
Johnson
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the New London
Development Corporation take such steps as are necessary
to effectuate such acquisition in the manner provided in
Sections 8-128 through 8-133 of the Connecticut General
Statutes.
CERTIFICATE
I, Garon Camassar, Secretary of the New London Devel-
opment Corporation, do hereby certify the above resolution
was adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the
12
New London Development Corporation held on October 16,
2000 and that the said resolution is contained in the
minutes of said meeting on file in the New London Devel-
opment Corporation office, 165 State Street, Suite 313,
New London, Connecticut, and that it has not been modi-
fied nor rescinded whatsoever.
Attest:
/s/ Garon Camassar 10/16/00
Garon Camassar, Secretary Date
New London Development Corporation
New LONDON
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
NLDC BOARD RESOLUTION 001016-2
Whereas, the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan
was approved on January 18, 2000 by the New London
Economic and Community Development, and
Whereas, the Corcoran Jennison Companies were se-
lected to develop a proposal for Municipal Development
Plan Parcels 1, 2, and 3 in accordance with the Municipal
Development Plan proposed land uses, and present their
proposed plans for the designated parcels, and
uses of the site was presented by Corcoran Jennison
Companies on October 10, 2000,
13
It is hereby resolved that the Board of Directors of the
New London Development Corporation approves and
concurs with the preliminary plan for the layout and uses
of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of the Fort Trumbull Municipal
Development Plan as set forth in the Corcoran Jennison
Plan dated October 10, 200°.
CERTIFICATE
I, Garon Camassar, Secretary of the New London Devel-
opment Corporation, do hereby certify the above resolution
was adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the
New London Development Corporation held on October 16,
2000 and that the said resolution is contained in the
minutes of said meeting on file in the New London Devel-
opment Corporation office, 165 State Street, Suite 313,
New London, Connecticut, and that it has not been modi-
fied nor rescinded whatsoever.
Attest:
Garon Camassar, Secretary Date
New London Development Corporation
NEw LONDON
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
NLDC BOARD RESOLUTION 00101€-3
Whereas, the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan
Map 3.8 (Proposed Streets) details proposed streets in the
Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan Area, and
14
Whereas, the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan
Map 5.1 (Proposed Land Uses) details the land uses
proposed for the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development
Plan area, including the land uses for Parcels 1, 2, and 3
in accordance with that plan, and
Whereas, a preliminary plan dated October 10, 2000 was
presented by Corcoran Jennison that details land uses
consistent with the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development
Plan in terms of use, intensity, and location; such plan
being received and approved by the Board of the New
London Development Corporation on October 16, 2000,
and
Whereas, the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan
states that “More specific traffic and street plans will be
developed based upon ... further refinement of develop-
ment plans of the MDP area,” and
Whereas, said refinements are consistent with and not
substantial modifications of the Municipal Development
Plan,
Now therefore, It is hereby resolved that the Board of
Directors of the New London Development Corporation
approve the attached Map 5.1A and 5.1B as supplemental
documents to Map 5. 1 and Map 3.8 which more particu-
larly set forth descriptions of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 and
proposed streets.
It is further resolved, that the following text changes be
made to retain consistency with the plan as modified by
the supplemental maps:
Page 5-1;
- Proposed Land Uses for Parcel 1: add reference to
“health club and fitness facility” to description of
hotel/conference center complex.
15
Page 5-2;
Parcel 2; change parcel size to 6 acres. Add reference to
“This parcel will also accommodate approxi-
mately 25 extended stay hotel units.” Delete refer-
ence to Coast Guard Museum.
Parcel 3; change parcel size to 11 acres. Delete refer-
ence to health club complex.
Pages 5-24, 5-28, 5-29, 5-32, and 5-33;
Change references describing the principal pedestrian
spine, Village Green access, and division between resi-
dential and office parcels from “Smith Street” to “East
Street.”
CERTIFICATE
I, Garon Camassar, Secretary of the New London Devel-
opment Corporation, do hereby certify the above resolution
was adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the
New London Development Corporation held on October 16,
2000 and that the said resolution is contained in the
minutes of said meeting on file in the New London Devel-
opment Corporation office, 165 State Street, Suite 313,
New London, Connecticut, and that it has not been modi-
fied nor rescinded whatsoever.
Attest:
Garon Camassar, Secretary Date
New London Development Corporation
~{F>2B ‘ Y j MUNICIPAL DEVE Lope
-. s mi, P | A A BG Pe EG Yj ?
MAP SIA
=
oC
Ny
Gr
YY /llllbaiyy)
Py Or, PARCEL |
4 ‘ - Zee , J “Wy
. YM Hy rY@ELE QY | Hore | Con -€hence
SWAY
<
Bb
ro
it.
x
9
. *
4"
ROUTE
THLETIC CLusg.
wae RESIDENTIAL
wg a
_
-_, a :
-@ .— “
— x
>
>*
al
~
.
-
\*
ent, ge
ed
° > :
. e’ a . {
‘a / . .
e. . % af
“ A e” 4
s \ *
a % , * et}
a »% 4 A -
: ~~
ib “—_ fi
i 3 sf /
Se.” 4 i
~ . ” ‘c.
» .
> af j
. 4 ‘ e f
2° 2 I /
> tee? a o 28 fl
4 ¢ oes , @
{
e ‘i \ le 4
‘a 1 «
' > =
. _—
’ - ¢ . .
i s 4
" Pa
| , ars
- ‘
—
91
MAP SAB
Site Plan
Fort Trumbull Development Plan
October 10, 2000
o8080
LEGEND
on aD we eer CC wwompnore: war
Ono Te Lo Be re ree
LI
18
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT I
New London Development Corporation
181 Broad Street, New London, CT 06320
December 15, 1997
George M. Milne, Jr.
President
Pfizer Central Research
Groton, CT 06340
Dear George:
The directors of the New London Development Corpo-
ration are pleased to make the commitments outlined
below to enable you to decide to construct a Pfizer Central
Research facility in New London. This commitment 1s
presented in conjunction with the State of Connecticut and
the City of New London.
We have been working with the renowned firm of
Wallace, Roberts and Todd to design a land plan to ensure
that the new Pfizer facility will be the centerpiece of a
concentrated reuse of the area surrounding the former
New London Mills (see Appendix A). In addition to your
facility the project includes the development of the state's
fourth biotechnology incubator, the refurbishment of
historic Fort Trumbull, the reuse of the vacant Naval
Underwater Warfare Center and the development of
mixed retail and residential space that will be fully inte-
grated into the surrounding neighborhoods of the City of
New London. In order to achieve these goals, it will be
necessary to relocate the Calamari Bros. scrap dealer,
upgrade utilities and infrastructure, and acquire a number
of surrounding properties.
19 20
Based on the commitments from the state (see Appen- 5. Biotechnology Incubator - The proximity to the
dix B) and city (see Appendix C), the New London Devel- Pfizer research facility creates a tremendous op-
opment Corporation will: portunity to create another asset - a new bio-
technology incubator facility. The mission of this
1. Calamari Bros. - Acquire and perform environ- organization will be to support the early phase
mental testing on this site which will serve as development of biotechnology firms until they
the entry way to the research facility. The status are successful enough to move to permanent lo-
of negotiations are summarized in Appendix D. cations elsewhere in Connecticut. The location in
Environmental testing would be needed on the the project area will be a significant positive at-
current site and would require funding. The tribute in recruiting startup ventures to this fa-
cleanup costs of any contaminants found on the cility. Site acquisition costs and methods are
site prior to its transfer to Pfizer will be identi- outlined with other properties in Appendix E.
fied as part of the testing program and funds Additional funding will be needed for construc-
made available subsequent to the conclusion of tion or renovation of buildings and relocation of
testing current tenants
2. Surrounding Properties — Residential and com- 6. Former Naval Underwater Warfare Center — The
mercial properties in the area including aban- portion of this site, excluding Fort Trumbull
doned buildings and vacant lots will be acquired State Park and land occupied by the United
for integration into the overall design plan. States Coast Guard Station New London will be
Every effort will be made to ensure the highest acquired from the Department of Defense as de-
and best use of all properties. Consideration will scribed in Appendix I
Thank you very much for your consideration of this
and other roads. Appendix E describes estimated proposal. We will work with you to refine this proposal to
costs and the manner in which options will be meet Pfizer's requirements. We will also work closely with
acquired and the purchases executed. you at the appropriate time to plan an announcement that
3. Fort Trumbull State Park - Some of the sites is befitting the magnitude of this project.
mentioned in paragraph “2” above will be utilized Cordially,
in the development of Fort Trumbull State Park. lal
Appendix F outlines the Connecticut Department SL Gontianl
of Environmental Protection's timetable and plan. Clair . udian
4. Utilities and Infrastructure Upgrades - Utilities CLG:deb
and infrastructure in the project area will re- 97-667-2
quire upgrades in order to guarantee utilities
consistent with the requirements of the new fa-
cilities. See Appendix G.
21
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT PP1
Serbia, James
From: Serbia, James
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 1:42 PM
To: Milne, George M
Subject: Ft. Trumbull MDP
Importance: High
Dr Milne (Questions shown in red and CAPS)
I have left for you 3 drawings depicting some the latest
concept plans that NLDC has put together. There seems to
be some confusion regarding the expectation that Pfizer
(you in particular) has regarding development of the
peninsula (Something I know you have heard before — bear
with me). This confusion has caused some friction between
NLDC and DECD/DEP.
NLDC indicates that an original conceptual
saguthur tay Wdieas Ghats 98 ED sete
key meetings — one involving you/state/city/NLDC and the
other being the CMC meeting (IS THIS YOUR RECOL-
LECTION?). NLDC indicates that this plan represents
“the commitment” to Pfizer. The State feels that “the
commitment” is more along the lines of what is outlined in
the letters from DECD to Pfizer.
I think what it boils down to is whether or not Pfizer is
flexible regarding the development plans — | believe the
answer is yes per all of our previous discussions on this —
as long as some key components are included:
- a residential component which would be attractive to
professionals
— a hotel/conference component
22
_ treatment plant upgrades/state park/ete and commercial
or retail development to make the area an attractive place
to visit/work.
DOES THIS SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?
The State, from a public policy perspective, has difficulty
in supporting residential areas located in a floodplain, and
in condemning/taking an existing residential area and
replacing it with a more upscale residential district. They
do indicate that they can accomodate an upscale residen-
tial component, but that they would have some difficulty if
this portion of the development became substantial.
Can you clarify the following:
1. WOULD APPROXIMATELY 70-80 HIGH END RESI-
DENTIAL UNITS FIT WITH YOUR EXPECTATION?
2. THE LARGEST HOTEL AREA THAT IS CUR-
RENTLY SHOWN ON ANY OF THE PLANS IS FOR 250
UNITS. THIS SEEMS LOW TO ME. HIGH, LOW, OR
OK?
3. YOU MENTIONED THAT I SHOULD KEEP AN EYE
OUT REGARDING PLANS FOR AN AMPHITHEATER.
THE ORIGINAL WRT PLAN SHOWED ONE, BUT IT
DOESNT APPEAR THAT THIS IS STILL IN THE
PLANS. IS IT SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE
OR IS IT SOMETHING WE WOULD PKEFER NOT BE
INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT?
Thanks for your help and patience.
Jim
23
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT PP2
Central Research Division
Pfizer Inc
Eastern Point Road
Groton, CT 06340
Tel 860 441 4844 Fax 860 441 6204
(LOGO)
Central Research
George M. Milne, Jr., Ph.D.
President
March 8, 1999
Dr. Claire Gaudiani
President, New London Development Corporation
Connecticut College
270 Mohegan Avenve
New London, CT 06320
Dear Claire:
On behalf of Pfizer Inc., | am pleased to affirm my support
of the New London Development Corporation's application
for an Economic Development Conveyance for the Naval
Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) property.
Pfizer Inc is a research-based global health care company
that discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets
innovative medicines for both humans and animals. This
will be the he- dquarters for Central Research, Pfizer's
R&D Division, based in Southeastern, Connecticut. We are
building a $270 million Global Development Facility
(GDF) in New London to open by October 1, 2000. This
facility will employ more than 2,000 Ph.D.s, M.D.s and
other scientists, researchers, and clinical specialists. Our
New London expansion requires the world class redevel-
opment planned for the adjacent 90 acres in the Fort
24
Trumbull Municipal Development plan including the 16
acres of the NUWC property.
The Fort Trumbull area is integral to our corporate facility
and to the plan for the revitalization of New London to a
world class standard. The Amended Reuse Plan will
provide a waterfront hotel with about 200 rooms, a confer-
ence center and physical fitness area, extended-stay
residential units and 80 units of housing. We will use the
proposed hotel and conference facility as an extension of
our facility committing to 100 of those rooms on a daily
basis for visiting international staff and other profession-
als. In addition we require conference space and are
exploring a “virtual” Pfizer University to keep our re-
searchers up to date on the most recent breakthroughs in
biotechnology. The extended stay housing will provide for
researchers who often stay for periods of up to 3-6 months.
Year round quality housing is also crucial to recruiting top
scientists. The waterfront residential neighborhood envi-
sioned provides a one-of-a-kind housing option desired by
many of our employees. As a result, the NUWC property is
and has been key to our investment in the area.
We are prepared to enter into agreements with the NLDC
and developers to build the type of facilities we require,
but this is not just about Pfizer. The plan developed by the
NLDC is intended to transform New London and is des-
tined, we believe, to become a model for high impact, high
value public/private partnerships. We have also requested
the NLDC to expedite the development as quickly as
possible to meet our schedule and the OpSail 2000 target
for the unveiling of the new, New London. The transfer of
NUWC and the completion of the developments proposed
in the Amended Reuse Plan are fundamental to the
25
success of these effor's and of our Global Development
Facility in New London.
We greatly appreciate the assistance of the Department of
the Navy in making the Fort Trumbull and NUWC rede-
velopment a national example of which we may all be
proud.
Sincerely,
/s/ George M. Milne, Jr., Ph.D.
ce: Governor John G. Rowland, State of Connecticut
Timothy West, Mayor City of New London
26
DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT 12
MINUTES OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF NEW LONDON
1/18/00 — 6
7.8 Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan
Upon motion of Councilor Burdick, seconded by
Councilor Curtin, it was voted 6-1: To approve resolution
number 011800-3 concerning the New London City Coun-
cil approving the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development
Plan and making certain findings. The Clerk reads the
resolution by title only, all Councilors having copies, and
the subject resolution is adopted by Roll Call Vote. Those
voting in favor: Burdick, Pero, West, Curtin, Nossek,
Hewett. Those voting against: Beachy.
RESOLUTION NUMBER 011800-3
Certified Resolution
By the NEW LONDON CITY COUNCIL approving the
Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan and making
certain findings.
WHEREAS, it is desirable and in the public interest that
the New London Development Corporation prepare a
Development Plan for a Municipal Development Project
for purposes of contributing to the economic welfare of the
municipality and the state pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 130, Chapter 132 and Chapter 588(1) of the
Connecticut General Statutes as amended; and
WHEREAS, the New London Development Corpora-
tion prepared a Development plan for the project known
27
as bs Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan;
an
WHEREAS, the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development
plan was referred to the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion of the City of New London and the regional
planning agency known as the Southeastern Connecti-
cut Council of Governments Regional Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, thereafter the New London Redevelop-
ment Agency held a public hearing on the Fort Trumbull
Municipal Development Plan on January 13, 2000, pursu-
ant to the provisions of local law, state statutes, Chapter
130 of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended, and
thereafter approved said Plan; and the New London
Development Corporation held a public hearing on the
Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan on January
13, 2000, pursuant to the provisions of local law, state
statues, Chapter 132 and Chapter 588(1) of the Connecti-
cut General Statutes, as amended, and thereafter, ap-
proved said plan;
NOW THEREFORE, the New London City Council
hereby resolves:
(1) That the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan
is hereby approved;
(2) That the land and buildings within the Fort Trumbull
Municipal Development Plan project area will be used
principally for industrial, business, housing and rec-
reational uses; that the land and buildings within the
boundaries of the Project Area will be used primarily
for economic base business purposes or business sup-
port services; and that the Plan is essential to the pur-
pose of redevelopment of the area;
28
(3) That the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan
is in accordance with the City of New London Plan of
Conservation and Development, and that it is in ac-
cordance with the Plan of Development for the South-
eastern Connecticut Council of Governments Regional
Planning Commission;
(4) That the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan
is not inimical to any statewide planning program ob-
jectives of the state or state agencies as coordinated by
the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management,
(5) That the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan
project will contribute to the economic welfare of the
City of New London and the State of Connecticut; and
(6) That to carry out and administer the project, public
action under Chapters 130, 132 and 588(1) of the Con-
necticut General Statutes as amended is required;
and, for the purposes of carrying out this project, that
the New London City Council approves and bestows
upon the New London Development Corporation all
rights and powers that are permitted to accrue to a
development agency or implementing agency under
Chapters 130, 132, and 588(1) of the Connecticut Gen-
eral Statutes as amended, including the power of emi-
nent domain with the project area in the name of the
City of New London per Chapter 130, Section 8-128,
and Chapter 132, Section 8-193.
(7) That all properties in the Fort Trumbull Municipal
Development Plan listed as “to be acquired” shall be
acquired prior to December 31, 2002, unless this date
is extended by the City Council.
(8) That the Chief Operating Officer of the New London
Development Corporation is hereby authorized to
submit the resolution of approval of the Fort Trumbull
Municipal Development Plan as approved by the New
London City Council to the Connecticut Department
29
of Economic and Community Devel
an y elopment for ap-
Upon motion of Councilor Pero, seconded by Councilor
Curtin, it was unanimously voted: To recess the meeting at
12 midnight.
Attest: /s/ Michael J. Tranchida
Michael Tranchida, Assistant City Clerk
30
PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT HHH
MEMO
CORCORAN JENNISON
COMPANY, INC.
DATE: JANUARY 12, 2001
TO: JOSEPH E. CORCORAN
GARY JENNISON
SCOTT DUMONT
HARRY NASH
ELIZA EDELSBERG
FROM: MARTY JONES
COMMERCIAL OFFICE STUDY
ON NEW LONDON
&
Here is the commercial office study prepared by Jay
Hooper on New London. We need a document for NLDC to
show we are working on this. Please give me your com-
ments. We plan to seek brokers in February to keep the
community aware the deal is moving forward.
Harry is working on a detailed analysis of Building 2
systems which will be added to update the cost side of the
proforma.
CORCORAN JENNISON COMPANIES, INC.
MARKETING PLAN
FOR
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SPACE
Fort Trumbull Development
New London, CT
Corcoran Jennison Companies, Inc.
150 Mount Vernon Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02125
31
Table of Contents
1. Project Description
2. Market Study Summary
3. Commercial Development Program
4
Financial Feasibility Study of Commercial Develop-
ment
5. Conclusions of Financial and Market Study
6. Target Market for Commercial Space
7. Marketing Strategy
8. Marketing Execution Plan
9. Project and Marketing Schedule
10. Marketing Budget
11. Addenda
* Sample Draft of Broker Request for Proposals
* New London Office Absorption History
(Miner & Silverstein Appraisal Company)
* Comparable Office Lease Data
Project Description
Background
The New London Development Corporation (NLDC), in
association with the Connecticut Department of Economic
and Community Development (DECD), has undertaken a
municipal planning project targeting an area adjacent to
the Thames River in New London, Connecticut. Known as
the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan (MDP),
the MDP area encompasses approximately 90 acres
immediately south of downtown New Lond: n and adjacent
to historic Fort Trumbull, which has been developed into a
32
state park. The principal catalyst for development in this
area is the construction of Pfizer Inc.'s 790,000-square-foot
Global Development Facility immediately south of the
MDP area. This facility is the headquarters for Pfizer's
worldwide research operations.
The NLDC selected Corcoran Jennison Companies as the
developer of a 30-acre waterfront parcel adjacent to Fort
Trumbull. The majority of the parcel consists of the U.S.
Navy's closed Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC).
The balance is made up of an aging working class
Project Description
Corcoran Jennison Companies has proposed a mixed-use
development, to include a four-star hotel, housing, and
commercial space, for the 30-acre parcel. The attached site
plan, labeled the Fort Trumbull Development Plan, depicts
the latest proposed development plan for the Fort Trum-
bull site. New public roadways and infrastructure will be
built to support the development. Total development costs
are projected to be approximately $100 million.
The hotel will be situated on the northernmost section of
the site. The re. sential development will be located on the
southeastern portion of the site, adjacent to the existing
Coast Guard rescue station facility and north of Fort
Trumbull. The commercial development will be located on
the southwestern portion of the site; an existing Italian
Dramatic Club located here will be kept and incorporated
walk” a waterfront park along the shoreline. It will con-
nect to the Fort Trumbull State Park, and provide
33
opportunit®.» for the general public to walk, bike and
picnic alo» * se water.
Hotel/Conference Center
The proposed hotel development is a key component to the
overall transformation of the Fort Trumbull area. An
extension of Nameaug Street, to be built as a tree-lined
boulevard, will be the gateway to the hotel, leading guests
from Walbach Street to the hotel. The planned hotel will
be built in two phases and will consist of 225 rooms, a
12,000 square foot of conference/meeting facility, and a
restaurant when completed. Construction will commence
on the first phase of 100 rooms as soon as possible, which
is anticipated to be August 2001. The hotel will be de-
signed with considerable green space around it, as well as
lots of glass to take advantage of sweeping views of the
Thames River, Long Island Sound, and downtown New
London.
Residential
The proposed residential development consists of a three-
story, 24-unit extended stay inn with furnished apart-
ments, a six-story, 48-unit apartment building; and 40
two- and three-story townhouses arranged in three tradi-
tional urban clusters near the cove. The residential devel-
opment will be used to focus activity toward the water.
The Riverwalk, which will be a dedicated public pedes-
trian and bicycle path that runs along the water's edge
and connects the Fort Trumbull development with Fort
Trumbull State Park and the Pfizer development, will be a
valuable amenity for the residential development.
Commercial
At present, approximately 300,000 square feet of commer-
cial space is envisioned for the site. This will be comprised
of an existing commercial building containing approxi-
mately 91,000 gross square feet, identified as Building 2
by the U'S. Navy, and two proposed buildings of 100,000
square feet each. The MDP called for the inclusion of office
er bioscience-related commercial space. While the new
buildings could be developed for either use depending
upon market conditions, the existing Building 2 is best
Building 2 is a four-story, steel frame, brick and glass
structure completed in 1991 as sonar research and devel-
opment space for the Navy. It is in reasonably good condi-
tion and can be easily renovated to Class A office space for
the New London market. The new buildings will be sited
between Building 2 a d Walbach Street and will be devel-
oped as market conuitions warrant.
Figure 1.1-2
Project Location Map
+
OFF.
tv of New London FEMA ad US Navy (aerated for piawurg
cere. 4
'Alore & MacSmcr --
m. ifumbul] MDP Area - New London, Connecticut
“aft Environmental impact Evaluation - November 1998
- ea HA ic Sows ocike
as DS overages 2-cioped 5
Site Plan
Fort Trumbull Development Plan
Corcoran Jennison Companies
William Rawn Associates, Architects
10 Tremont Street
Bos'on MA
02108
October 10, 2000
Q0U000
LEGENO
PROPOSED MOTEL nets —
PROPOSED MOTEL SUPPORT ——s
PROPOSED MOTE! (O88 Cc)
PROPOSED OTF. OES leumant
PROPOSED MOTEL FiTHESS
LE
38
Market Study Summary
OFFICE MARKET
The New London commercial real estate market is con-
tinuing its recovery from the last recession of the early
1990s. While rental rate and occupancy trends have been
generally positive over the past few years, market values
are still well below replacement cost and new construction
is generally not feasible. As a result, little new construc-
tion has taken place over the last decade in the New
London area. The following discussion provides a sum-
mary of the New London commercial/office market. The
chart on the following page presents a snapshot of the
New London office market as of October 2000.
Supply
New London contains approximately 815,000 square feet
of Class A and B office space, with approximately 545,000
square feet considered Class A and approximately 270,000
considered Class B. Most of New London’s Class A space
was built in the 1980s. Roughly one-half of the Class A
space is located in Shaw’s Cove Business Park, which
currently consists of six buildings containing approxi-
mately 275,000 square feet. Shaw’s Cove is located be-
tween downtown New London and the Fort Trumbull
development. The vast majority of the Class B space is
located in downtown New London.
New construction activity in the market has been minimal
and generally limited to end-user/owner-occupant facili-
ties, such as the new space under construction for Pfizer.
There are two proposed developments of Class A space
that are commonly mentioned in the marketplace, one in
39
New London and one in nearby Groton. These develop-
ments are as follows:
Shaw’s Cove 7 & 8, New London
Propesed 60,000 to 70,000 s/f in 2 buildings
Developer — Julian Enterprises
No pre-leasing activity to date
Asking $20.00 Gross
Considering ground floor retail due to greater
demand
U.S. Prop >rties, Inc. —- marketing/leasing agent
Mystic Executive Park, Groton
Proposed 104,000 s/f
4 Stories (26,000 s/f floorplates)
Located at Exit 88 off Rt. 95 adjacent to Mar-
riott Hotel under construction
¢ Developer —- Wolman’s/Waterford Hotel Group
¢ No pre-leasing activity to date
* Asking $23.00 Gross (includes basic tenant
improvements)
CB Richard Ellis — marketing/leasing agent
40
NEW LONDON OFFICE MARKET SURVEY
October 2000
Source: U.S. Properties, Inc.
Available
Property _ Address Built Size (S/F) S/F Vacancy Rate Comments
ClassA 1 Shaw’s Cove One 1984 12,492 - 0.0%
1 Shaw’s Cove Two 1986 31,228 790 2.5% $20.00 Gross
1 Shaw’s Cove Three 1988 70,286 8,300 11.8% $20.00 Gross
1 Shaw’s Cove Four 1988 32,731 - 0.0% Medical Building
1 Shaw’s Cove Five 1989 37,114 2,155 5.8% $20.00 Gross
1 Shaw’s Cove Six 1990 89,000 2,841 3.2% $20.00 Gross
2 Columbus Corner 470 Bank Street 1989 21,632 - 0.0%
3 Mariner Square 125 Eugene O’Neill Dr. 1982 84,000 1,000 * 1.2% $20.00Gross 26,000 s/f for sublease
4 Citizens Bank 63 Eugene O'Neill Dr. 37,414 1,400 3.7% $14.00NNN
5 194 Howard Street 1984 47,000 - 0.0%
6 Union Plaza 1 & 2 1968 52,480 4,000 7.6%
7 400 Bayonet Street 1987 30,617 4,800 15.7% $19.00 + Elec.
Subtotal 545,994 25,286 4.6%
ClassB 8 A & T Technical 238-258 Bank Street 58,518 21,000 35.9% $12.00 NNN
9 Columbus Park Howard Street 1988 25,000 1,300 5.2% $13.50 Gross
10 Harris Place 165 State Street 1885 66,354 13,985 21.1% $14.00 + Elec.
Manwaring Building 225 State Street 25,848 25,848 100.0% $14.00 + Elec.
Exchange Building 190 Governor Winthrop 1935 41,000 26,950 65.7% $11.00 + Elec.
Dewart Building State Street 1914 43,896 43,896 100.0% N/A Temporarily off market
19 Jay Street 9,300 9,300 100.0% $14.00 NNN
Subtotal 269,916 142,279 52.7%
Class A & B Totals 815,910 167,565 20.5%
* . Excludes sublease space
41
Another proposed development that could impact the New
London market is the planned development of the former
Norwich State Hospital, located north of New London in
Norwich, CT. A master plan was recently unveiled for
turning the 470-acre site into a 3 million square foot office
park. No prospective tenants have been announced,
although discussions reportedly have occurred in the past
with Pfizer. Spaulding & Slye Colliers is marketing this
site.
While New London has limited land available for new
commercial construction, some additional parcels will be
made available in the Fort Trumbull MDP area for devel-
opment subsequent to the development of the Fort Trum-
bull site. Additionally, the surrounding region has
abundant land available for commercial development
should future market conditions warrant it.
Based on conversations with people connected with the
proposed office developments, replacement cost for new
office development is estimated to be between $120 and
$150 per square foot, depending upon construction, type of
Demand
As can be seen in the preceding chart, although the overall
market exhibits a 20.5% vacancy rate, the Class A market
is quite healthy, with only 4.6% of the Class A space not
leased. If the 26,000 square feet available for sublease in
Mariner Square were included, then the Class A vacancy
rate would rise to 9.4%, which is still not an unhealthy
level for the market.
42
The Class B market, on the other hand, is clearly strug-
gling with over half of the space presently unoccupied.
Brokers, however, report that much of the Class B space is
functionally obsolete and has inadequate and/or inaccessi-
ble parking, which exacerbates the vacancy level.
A report published by Miner & Silverstein Appraisal
Company (see Addenda) indicates that there has been
positive demand for Class A & B office space over the past
four years. Between October 1996 and October 1999,
approximately 185,000 square feet were absorbed in New
London. As of November 1999, Miner & Silverstein had
forecast additional absorption of approximately 25,000
square feet through mid-2000; based on market informa-
tion provided by U.S. Properties, actual absorption
through October 2000 appears to have exceeded this
projection.
Brokers indicate that typical tenants in the market re-
quire between 3,000 and 7,500 square feet of space. While
there are some requirements between 10,000 and 20,000
square feet, reportedly there are relatively few above
20,000 square feet. Given the relative size of the New
London market, this would appear reasonable.
Typical office tenants in the New London market include
the “Main Street” mix of lawyers, accountants, and medi-
cal practitioners, as well as other service-oriented compa-
nies, community organizations, and government agencies.
Some of the larger users in New London are Pfizer, Gen-
eral Dynamics, CSC (Computer Science Corp.), and Or-
tronics. Ortronics, which reportedly recently tripled in size
to 36,000 square feet, is in the telecommunications and
structured cable industry.
43
It should be noted that over the past few years, Pfizer has
represented one of the largest sources of demand in the
southeastern Connecticut region, buying or leasing large
blocks of space outside of its Groton campus and its New
London campus that is under construction. Reportedly,
Pfizer will remain in the vast majority of this space as it
occupies its new Global Development Facility being built
in New London.
According to local brokers and business people, New
London has experienced limited organic growth, aside
from Pfizer, in recent years. In addition, the region has
experienced very limited growth as a result of companies
relocating to the area to be proximate to Pfizer or other
companies. Nonetheless, one source of future demand for
commercial space may be the result of companies doing
business with Pfizer that desire proximity to the new
Global Development Facility. Brokers have noted a few
inquiries from companies representative of Pfizer-related
demand, but no significant demand has been evidenced
over the past several years.
Rental Pricing
Recent leases for Class A office space in New London show
rents ranging between $18.00 and $21.00 per square foot,
on a gross basis with the tenant only paying for the
additional cost of janitorial cleaning within the leased
premises. A summary of comparable lease data over the
past three years has been included in the Addenda for
reference purposes. Lease terms are typically between 5
and 10 years, with smaller tenants sometimes wanting 1-
to 3-year terms and larger tenants sometimes executing
15-year terms.
44
Tenant improvement allowances vary based on recent
deals. With the market tightening, some deals have been
done with no or minimal (painting and carpet cleaning)
tenant improvements. On the other hand, some deals in
Shaw’s Cove Business Park have had tenant improvement
allowances around $15.00 to $17.00 per square foot.
Operating Expenses
Brokers indicate that operating expenses, including real
estate taxes and utilities, for office buildings in New
London generally vary between $6.00 and $7.00 ~per
square foot. Of this amount, real estate taxes general!»
range between $1.00 and $2.00 per square foot. Typical
real estate taxes for buildings in Shaw’s Cove are between
$1.70 and $2.00 per square foot. Utilities usually comprise
between $1.50 and $2.00 per square foot, with the balance
reflecting common area and other operating expenses.
Sale Prices
Recent sales of office buildings in New London have
ranged between roughly $40 and $70 per square foot. The
two most recent sales of larger Class A buildings sold for
prices ranging between approximately $57 and $67 per
square foot. The only office buildings curren‘*ly being
marketed for sale are Class B properties with asking
prices ranging between $26 and $63 per square foot.
BIOTECH/BIOSCIENCE MARKET
The biotech/bioscience market is in its infancy in Con-
necticut. Aside from Pfizer, a biotech/bioscience market
does not really exist in the New London area. Connecticut
45
is promoting a bioscience cluster concept, with New
Haven, Hartford, and New London being the three loca-
tions targeted for developing the cluster concept. Although
New Haven is making some progress in attracting biosci-
ence companies, New London and Hartford have not had
any meaningful success to date.
New Haven has two major developments either underway
or proposed. One is Science Park, an 80-acre master
planned site that will include renovation and new con-
struction of office, laboratory, and research and develop-
ment space. Lyme Properties has recently been selected to
take over development of the project, which will be in
excess of 1 million square feet. The other development is
the Hamden Bioscience Campus, a proposed 1 million
square foot park for biotech/bioscience companies.
The general impression in the market is that, at this time,
it is difficult for New London to compete with New Haven
for biotech/bioscience users. New London has a competi-
tive disadvantage in that it lacks a major university that
grants post-graduate degrees and a major research hospi-
tal, as well as significant venture capital money to support
emerging companies. SECTER, a southeastern Connecti-
cut business recruitment organization, indicates that they
have been unable to generate any interest for bioscience in
the New London area for the past few years.
With development costs for bioscience space generally in a
broad range between $250 and $350 per square foot,
depending on the tenant improvements required, it is not
economically feasible to develop this space at this time
without an end user in hand that will pay the rent neces-
sary to support the cost. Ultimately, corporate or govern-
ment sponsorship will be required to create a feasible
46
environment for development of biotech/bioscience space
in New London. Connecticut Innovations, a_ state-
sponsored agency, has a $40 million Bioscience Facilities
Fund to support development of biotech, wet laboratory
space. To date, reportedly $20 million have been commit-
ted, almost entirely for companies in the New Haven area.
Funds are mainly for tenant improvement loans and
residual balance guarantees for lenders, and have yet to be
used to fund speculative real estate development.
Commercial Development Program
The commercial development program for the Fort Trum-
bull development will consist of at least two phases, and
possibly more depending upon the amount and type of
demand that is generated for the 200,000 square feet of
proposed commercial space. The first phase of commercial
development will involve the renovation and redevelop-
ment of the existing Navy Building 2 into a multi-tenant
Class A office building for the New London market. Future
phases will involve new construction of either Class A
office space or biotech/bioscience space, as demand war-
rants. The present plan for the proposed commercial space
includes the development of two 100,000 square foot
buildings along Walbach Street, south of the existing
Building 2.
Phase 1 ~ Office
Building 2 was built in 1991 and consists of a four-story,
steel-frame brick and glass office building containing
91,000 gross square feet. Preliminary analysis indicates
an approximate net rentable area of 86,000 square feet.
The building was constructed for single-tenant occupancy
47
and will require renovation to accommodate multi-tenant
occupancy as appropriate for the New London office
market. A first-floor lobby will need to be added, as well as
common area on each floor depending upon the space
requirements of future tenants. Also, the entrance to the
building is currently on the east side and most likely will
need to be relocated to orient it to the street grid planned
for the Fort Trumbull development. In designing the space
for multi-tenant occupancy, it should be kept in mind that
loss factors for common area, as generally accepted and
paid for by tenants, typically do not exceed 15%.
Building systems will need to be evaluated to determine
their appropriateness for reuse. It is known that a heating
system will need to be added because Building 2 was
previously heated by a system supporting several other
Navy buildings. Also, analysis will need to be completed to
determine whether the existing elevator and rest rooms
are adequate for multi-tenant office use in the current
market, or whether additions are required.
arking will be provided around the building, with excess
ae for the on future provided on the adjacent land
that will support the future commercial development. It is
anticipated that parking will be provided at market-
oriented levels, approximately 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square
feet of rentable area.
Future Phases - Office and/or Bioscience
The program for the future phases is uncertain and will
depend upon the type and quantity of demand that is
generated through marketing efforts. It is currently
envisioned that there will be two 100,000 square foot
buildings, most probably multi-story buildings. Given the
48
uncertainty regarding the demand/feasibility of bio-
tech/bioscience space, as well as the fact that any addi-
tional office development, in all likelihood, will be
subsequent to completion of Building 2, any design should
be kept flexible to accommodate various types of demand.
If biotech/bioscience space is programmed, the typical
product type involves single or multi-story space with floor
heights between 18 and 20 feet, wet lab improvements
(sinks, cabinets, and hoods), animal areas, filtration
systems, a small amount of office area, high HVAC capac-
ity, and heavy floor load capacity.
Consideration should be given to initially programming a
good quality “flex”-type building that could be expanded in
phases as demand warrants. This building would most
likely be one story and would have the look and feel of an
office building. However, it would have high floor heights
(20 +/- feet) to accommodate a variety of uses, such as
office, research and development, laboratory, and assem-
bly. Depending upon the interest generated through
broker marketing efforts, a small initial phase of 15,000 to
20,000 square feet could be built to test the market. This
strategy would allow for less upfront investment than pure
biotech/bioscience space, enhancing the potential feasibil-
ity, and would help compensate for the uncertain demand
at this time. _
49
Navy Bidg. 2.
50
Financial Feasibility Study
Of
Commercial Development
In analyzing the feasibility of the commercial development
space at Fort Trumbull, we have focused on the renovation
of Building 2. Considering market conditions, as well as
anticipated development costs and net operating income
levels, new construction of office and/or biotech/bioscience
space is not feasible at this time.
On the following pages, three scenarios are presented for
the renovation of Building 2. Each scenario involves a
different level of cost for the rehabilitation. A summary of
the major assumptions for each scenario is as follows:
Minor Moderate Major
Rehab Rehab Rehab
Total Development Cost $5,094,339 $6,737,530 $8,664,291
Per S/F $59.24 $78.34 $100.75
Hard Costs (Per S/F) $38.22 $51.95 $70.63
Soft Costs (Per S/F) $18.06 $22.48 $25.08
Construction Period 4months 6months 6 months
Lease-up Period 20months 18months 18 months
Market Rent $16.00 $20.00 $20.00
Equity Required $652,310 $105,581 $2,032,342
Unleveraged
Return on Development
Cost 13.9% 16.1% 12.0%
IRR (3-year Hold) 20.7% 30.3% 12.0%
Leveraged
Return on Equity 33.8% 318.7% 16.6%
IRR (3-year Hold) 46.1% 95.0% 10.2%
51
As illustrated, all three scenarios indicate the general
economic feasibility of redeveloping Building 2 given
current and anticipated future market conditions.
analysis presupposes that the remainder of the
Trumbull development proceeds as planned and
Building 2 is not an isolated development.
CORCORAN JENNISON COMPANIES
Confidential
FORT TRUMBALL
Building 2 Feasibility Analysis
Development Assumptions MINOR REHAB
Gross Area 91,000 s/f Market Rent $16.00 Per s/f
Rentable Area 86,000 s/f Operating Expenses $7.25 Per s/f (base year)
Capital Reserve $0.30 Per s/f
Initial Equity $500,000 Stabilized Vacancy 10.0%
Permanent Equity $652,310
Permanent Financing
Construction Period 4 Months Mortgage Interest Rate 9.25%
Lease-up Period 20 Months LTV Ratio 70%
Amortization 25 Years
Valuation at Sale Cap Rate — Financing 11.5% -
Cap Rate 12.0% nN
Sale Costs 5.0%
Preliminary Development Cost Budget
Amount PerS/FF % Comments
Hard Costs
Building $ 1,820,000 $20.00 On Gross Area
Site $ 450,000
Tenant Improvements $ 860,000 $10.00 On Rentable Area
Contingency $ 156,500 5.0%
Subtotal $ 3,286,500 $38.22
Soft Costs
Design/Engineering $ 180,000
Permits/Insurance $ 49,298 1.5%
Legal/Professional $ 75,000
General, Admin. & Overhead $ 100,000
Taxes/Fees $ 20,000
Financing Costs $ 72,000 2.0% $3,600,000 Loan Estimate for Calculation
Marketing/Leasing $ 430,000 $5.00
Concessions/Free Rent 3 -
Construction Interest $ 462,500 $2,500,000 Average Balance for 24 Months
Miscellaneous/Contingency $ 164,325 _— 5.0%
Subtotal $ 1,553,123 $18.06 47.3%
Development Fee $ 254,717 5.0%
Total Development Cost $ 5,094,339 $59.28
Development Period NOI $ 856,203
Net Development Cost $ 4,238,136 $49.28
Capital Sources
Permanent Financing $ 3,585,826 70.4%
Equity $ 652,310 12.8% nate
Development Period NOI $ 856,203 16.8%
Total Development Cost $ 5,094,339 $59.24 100.0%
FORT TRUMBULL
Building 2
Pro Forma — Commercial Development Feasibility
Development Costs
Development Period NOI
Net Development Cost
Gross Potential Rent
Allowance for Vacancies
Effective Gross Rent
Operating Expenses
Year3 =#Comments
1,376,000 Level Rent for First 5 Years of Lease
(623,500) Pass Through Increases Over Base Year
MINOR REHAB
Sanhilionti
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2
$ (254,717) $ (3,820,755) $ (1,018,868)
5% 75% 20%
$ 181,303 $ 674,900
$ (254,717) $ (3,639,451) $ (343,968) $
$
s (137,600)
1,238,400
%
$ (25,800)
. 589,100
13.9%
$ 267,250 $ 267,250
$ 4,868,478
$ (254,717) $ (3,372,201) $ (76,718) $ 5,455,578
20.7%
Sanbilionts
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
$ (254,717) $ (245,283)
$ (152,310)
$ 589,100
$ (368,500)
1.60
$ 220,600
33.8%
$ 1,319,065
$ (254,717) $ (245,283) $ (152,310) $ 1,539,665
46.1%
FORT TRUMBULL
Building 2
Supporting Calculations MINOR REHAB
Stabilized Value Estimate
Amount Per S/F
Stabilized NOI $ 589,100 $ 6.85
Cap Rate - mo 11.5%
Value Estimate $ 5,122,609 $ 59.57
Permanent Financing
Estimated Value for Financing $ 5,122,609
LTV Ratio 70%
Permanent Loan $ 3,585,826 $ 41.70
Interest Rate 9.25%
Amortization 25
Annual Debt Service $ 368,500
Debt Coverage Ratio 1.60
E Cash Flow f P t Fi ,
Permanent Loan $ 3,585,826
Net Development Costs $ 4,238,136
Cash Flow from Financing $ (652,310)
- Initial Equity $ 500,000
Cash Out (In) from Financing $ (152,310)
Building
Opening ~~
5 6
7,600
4,500
3,760
8,260 - 7,600
Year 2 — Month
10 1l 12 1 2 3 4
7,600
7,750
22,750
4,500
4,750
22,750- 7,600 4,500 - -
12,600
8,260 8,260 16,750 15,750 15,750 38,600 38,500 46,000 50,500 50,500 50,500 63,000
73.3%
96% 90% 103%
Per s/f
Per s/f
Per a/f
FORT TRUMBALL
Building 2
Occupancy/Absorption Projections MINOR REHAB
Rentable Year 1 —- Month
Floor Tenant Square Lease
Feet Term 1 2 3 4
1 1 7,600 7
2 7,500 6 a
3 7,750 7.
2 4 22,750 10
3 5 4,500 6
6 4,500 6
7 4,500 7
8 4,800 7
9 4,750 6
- 10 10,000 10
11 - 7
12 4,000 6
13 3,750 5
Totals $80,000 - = - -
Occupancy Rate 00% 00% 00% 00%
Average Occupancy Year 1 27.1% 8 Months
Average Occupancy Year 2 70.0% 12 Months
Average Occupancy During Lease'Up 87.0% 20 Months
Development Period NOI
[legible] Year 1
Market Price $16.00 $16.00
Operating Expenses (Stabilized) $7.25 $7.25
Expense Percentage in Lease-Up 60% 80%
Operating Expense (Lease-Up) $4.36 $6.80
Net Market Price $11.05
Net Market Price - Monthly $0.97 $0. 6
Average S/F Occupied 23,344 66,167
Number Months of Occupancy 8 12
Development Period NOI $181,303 $874,900
Total Development Period NOI $856,203
10.3% 103% 448% 448% 53.6% 58.7% 58.7% 80.7%
63,000 63,000
12
7 8 9 10 11
4,500
4,500
10,000
4,000
4,500 - 10,000 ‘ ‘ 8.600
67,500 67,500 77,500 77,500 77,500 80,000
78.5% 78.5% 90.1% 90.1% 90.1% 100.0%
FORT TRUMBALL
Building 2 Feasibility Analysis
Development Assumptions MODERATE REHAB
Gross Area 91,000 s/f Market Rent $20.00 Per s/f
Rentable Area 86,000 s/f Operating Expenses $7.25 Per s/f (base year)
Capital Reserve $0.30 Per s/f
Initial Equity $500,000 Stabilized Vacancy 10.0%
Permanent Equity $105,581
Permanent Financing
Construction Period 6 Months Mortgage Interest Rate 9.25%
Lease-up Period 18 Months LTV Ratio 70%
Amortization — 25 Years
Valuation at Sal Cap Rate — Financing 11.5%
Cap Rate 12.0%
Sale Costs 5.0%
Preliminary Development Cost Budget
Amount PerS/F % Comments
Hard Costs
Building $ 2,730,000 $30.00 On Gross Area
Site $ 450,000
Tenant Improvements $ 1,075,000 $12.50 On Rentable Area
Contingency $ 212,750 5.0%
Subtotal $ 4,467,750 $51.95
Soft Costs
Design/Engineering $ 250,000
Permits/Insurance $ 67,016 1.5%
Legal/Professional $ 75,000
General, Admin. & Overhead _$ 100,000
Taxes/Fees $ 20,000
Financing Costs $ 120,000 2.0% $6,000,000 Loan Estimate for Calculation
Marketing/Leasing $ 430,000 $5.00
Concessions/Free Rent $ -
Construction Interest $ 647,500 $3,500,000 Average Balance for 24 Months
Miscellaneous/Contingency $ 223,388 5.0%
Subtotal $ 192,904 $22.48 43.3%
Development Fee $ 336,877 5.0%
Total Development Cost $ 6,737,530 $78.34
Development Period NOI $ 1,161,601
Net Development Cost $ 5,575,929 $64.84
Capital Sources :
Permanent Financing $ 5,470,348 81.2%
Equity $ 105,581 1.6%
Development Period NOI $ 1,161,601 17.2%
Total Development Cost $ 6,737,530 $78.34 100.0%
57
FORT TRUMBULL
Building 2
Year3 #§ Comments
1,720,000 Level Rent for First 5 Years of Lease
(623,500) Pass Through Increases Over Base Year
Pro Forma —- Commercial Development Feasibility MODERATE REHAB
- Stabilization
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2
Development Costs = $ (336,877) $ (5,053,148) $ (1,347,506)
5% 75% 20%
Development Period NOI $ 222034 $ 939,567
Net Development Cost $ (336,877) $ (4,831,113) $ (407,939) $ -
Gross Potential Rent $
Allowance for Vacancies $ (172,000)
Effective Gross Rent 1,548,000
Operating Expenses $
Capital Reserve $ (25,800)
Net Operating Income $ 898,700
Return on Development Cost 16.1%
Add Back Constr. Int. & Financing $ 383,750 $ 383,750
Net Sale Proceeds $ 7,424,043
Unleveraged Development Cash Flow $ (336,877) $ (4,447,363) $ (24,189) $ 8,322,743
Internal Rate of Return 30.3%
Leveraged Analysis
Stabilizati
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Initial Equity Investment $ (336,877) $ (163,123)
Cash Out (In) — Perm. Financing $ (394,419)
Net Operating Income $ 898,700
Permanent Debt Service $ (562,165)
Debt Coverage Ratio 1.60
Cash Flow after Debt Service $ 336,535
Return on Equity 318.7%
Net Sale Proceeds after Debt $ 2,012,296
Net Equity Cash Flows $ (336,877) $ (163,123) $ 394419 $ 2,348,832
Equity IRR 95.0%
FORT TRUMBULL
Building 2
Supporting Calculations MODERATE REHAB
Stabilized Value Estimate
Amount Per S/F
Stabilized NOI $ 898,700 $ 10.45
Cap Rate 11.5%
Value Estimate $ 614,783 $ 90.87
Permanent Financing
Estimated Value for Financing $ 7,814,783
LTV Ratio 70%
Permanent Loan $ 5,470,348 $ 63.61
Interest Rate 9.25%
Amortization 25
Annual Debt Service $ 562,165
Debt Coverage Ratio 1.60
Excess Cash Flow from Permanent Financing
Permanent Loan 5,470,348
Net Development Costs 5,575,929
$
$
Cash Flow from Financing $ (105,581)
$
$
Initial Equity 500,000
Cash Out (In) from Financing (394,419)
FORT TRUMBALL
Building 2
Occupancy/Absorption Projections MODERATE REHAB
Buildi
Rentable Year 1 - Month Opening
Floor Tenant Square Lease
~ Feet Term 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 7600 7 7,500
2 7500 6
3 7,750 7
2 4 22,750 10
3 5 4,500 6
6 4500 6
7 4500 7
x 4800 7 4,500
9 4,750 6 .
4 10 10,000 10
11 - 7
12 4,000 6
13 3,750 5 3,750
Totals $80,000 - - 15,750
Cumulative - - - - - - 15,750
Occupancy Rate 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% 00% 10.3%
Average Occupancy Year | 33.0% 6 Months
Average Occupancy Year 2 70.0% 12 Months
Average Occupancy During LeaseUp 62.3% 18 Months
Development Period NOI
(legible) Year 1 Year 2
Market Price $20.00 $20.00 Per s/f
Operating Expenses (Stabilized) $7.25 $725 Peref
Expense Percentage in Lease-Up 60% 80%
Operating Expense (Lease-Up) $4.35 $8.80 Peraf
Net Market Price $15.55 $14.20 Per s/f
Net Market "nce —- Monthly $1.30 $1.18 Per s/f
Average S/F Occupied 20,375 66,167
Number Months of Occupancy 8 12
Development Penod NO! $222,034 $830,607
Total Development Pernod NOI $1,161,601
Year 2 - Month
8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 10 11 12
7,600 7.750
— 4,500
4,500
4,500
4,750
10,000
4,000
- - 22,750 = 7,600 4,500 : ° 12,600 - - 4,500 - 10,000 - - 8,600
15,750 15,750 38,500 38,500 46,000 50,500 50,500 50,500 63,000 63,000 63,000 67,500 67,500 77,500 77,500 77,500 80,000
10.3% 103% 448% 448% 53.6% 58.7% 58.7% 80.7% 733% 73.3% 733% 785% 785% 90.1% 90.1% 90.1% 100.0%
FORT TRUMBALL
Building 2 Feasibility Analysis
Development Assumptions MAJOR REHAB
Gross Area 91,000 sff Market Rent $20.00 Per s/f
Rentable Area 86,000 = s/f Operating Expenses $7.25 Per s/f (base year)
Capital Reserve $0.30 Per s/f
Initial Equity $500,000 Stabilized Vacancy 10.0%
Permanent Equity $2,032,342
P Fi :
Construction Period 6 Months Mortgage Interest Rate 9.25%
Lease-up Period 18 Months LTV Ratio 70%
Amortization 25 Years
Valuation at Sale Cap Rate — Financing 11.5%
Cap Rate 12.0%
Sale Costs 5.0%
Preliminary Development Cost Budget
Amount PerS/F % Comments
Hard Costs
Building $ 3,185,000 $35.00 On Gross Area
Site $ 450,000
Tenant Improvements $ 2,150,000 $25.00 On Rentable Area
Contingency $ 289,250 5.0%
Subtotal $ 6,074,250 $70.63
Soft Costs -
Design/Engineering $ 250,000
Permits/Insurance 3 91,114 1.5%
Legal/Professional $ 75,000
General, Admin. & Overhead $ 100,000
Taxes/Fees $ 20,000
Financing Costs $ 110,000 2.0% $5,500,000 Loan Estimate for Calculation
Marketing/Leasing $ 430,000 $5.00
Concessions/Free Rent 4% -
Construction Interest $ 777,000 $4,200,000 Average Balance for 24 Months
Miscellaneous/Contingency $ 303,713 5.0%
Subtotal $ 2,156,826 $25.08 35.5%
Development Fee $ 433,215 5.0%
Total Development Cost $ 8,664,291 $100.75
Development Period NOI $ 1,161,601
Net Development Cost $ 7,502,690 $87.24
Capital Sources
Permanent Financing $ 5,470,348 63.1%
Equity $ 2,032,342 23.5%
Development Period NOI $ 1,161,601 13.4%
Total Development Cost
$ 8,664,291 $100.75 100.0%
61
FORT TRUMBULL
Building 2
Pro Forma — Commercial Development Feasibility MAJOR REHAB
Stabilizati
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Comments
Development Costs $ (433,215) $ (6,498,218) $ (1,732,858)
5% 75% 20%
Development Period NOI $ 222034 $ 939,567
Net Development Cost $ (433,215) $ (6,276,184) $ (793,291) $ ra
Gross Potential Rent s 1,720,000 Level Rent for First 5 Years of Lease
Allowance for Vacancies | $ (172,000)
Effective Gross Rent 1,548,000
Operating Expenses s (623,500) Pass Through Increases Over Base Year
Capital Reserve $ (25,800)
Net Operating Income $ 898,700
Return on Development Cost 12.0%
Add Back Constr. Int. & Financing $ 443,500 $ 443,500
Net Sale Proceeds $ 7,424,043
Unleveraged Development Cash Flow $ (433,215) $ (5,832,684) $ (349,791) $ 8,322,743
Internal Kate of Return 12.0%
Leveraged Analysis
Pe Stabilizati
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Initial Equity Investment $ (433,215) $ (66,785)
Cash Out (In) — Perm. Financing $ (1,532,342)
Net Operating Income - $ 898,700
Permanent Debt Service $ (562,165)
Debt Coverage Ratio 1.60
1. Flow after Debt Service $ 336,535
Return on Equity 16.6%
Net Sale Proceeds after Debt $ 2,012,296
Net Equity Cash Flows $ (433,215) $ (66,785) $ (152,342) $ 2,348,832
Equity IRR - 10.2%
Note: Short analysis period distorts IR%. IRR will increase with longer holding period because ROE > IRR.
FORT TRUMBULL
Building 2
Supporting Calculations
Stabilized Value Estimat
Stabilized NOI
Cap Rate
Value Estimate
Permanent Financing
Estimated Value for Financing
LTV Ratio
Permanent Loan
Interest Rate
Amortization
Annual Debt Service
Debt Coverage Ratio
Net Development Costs
Cash Flow from Financing
Initial Equity
Cash Out (In) from Financing
MAJOR REHAB
Amount Per S/F
$ 898,700 $ 10.45
11.5%
$ 7,814,783 $ 90.87
$ 7,814,783
70%
$ 5,470,348 $ 63.61
9.25%
25
$ 562,165
1.60
SREALIC UES
5,470,348
7,502,690
(2,032,342)
500,000
(1,532,342)
o9
FORT TRUMBALL
Building 2
Occupancy/Absorption Projections MAJOR REHAB
Rentable Year 1 - Month
Floor Tenant Square Lease
Feet Term 1 2 3 4
1 1 7,600 7
2 7,500 6
3 7,750 7°
2 4 22,750 10
3 5 4,500 6
6 4,500 6 :
7 4500 7
- 4,800 7
9 4,750 6
4 10 10,000 10
11 - 7
12 4,000 6
13 3,750 5
ies . : ‘ .
Occupancy Rate 00% 00% 00% 00%
Average Occupancy Year 1 33.3% 6 Months
Average Occupancy Year 2 78.9% 12 Months
Average Occupancy During Lease'Up 62.3% 18 Months
Development Period NOI
(Iegibie| Vows "2
Market Price $20.00 $20.00
Operating Expenses (Stabilized) $7.25 $7.25
Expense Percentage in Lease-Up 60% 80%
Operating Expense (Lease-Up) $4.36 $6.80
Net Market Price $15.05 $14.20
Net Market Price - Monthly $1.30 $1.18
Average S/F Occupied 26,378 66,167
Number Months of Occupancy 6 12
Development Period NOI $222,034 $838,587
Total Development Period NOI $1,141,801
Building
Opening
5 » 7
7,500
4,500
3,750
‘ ° 18,750
, : 15,750
00% 00% 183%
Per s/f
Per aff
Per s/f
Per s/f
Per aff
. 9 10 11 12
7,500
22,750
. - 22,750 - 7,500
15,750 16,750
4,500
4,500
4,750
12,500
38,500 38,500 46,000 50,500 50,500 50,500 63,000
18.3% 183% 440% 440% 836% s587q 58.7% 58.7% 73.3%
i
63,000 63,000 67,500 67,500 77,500 77,500 77,500
90.1% 90.1% 90.1% 100.0%
73.3% 73.3%
10,000
4,500 - 10,000
78.5% 78.5%
10
11
4,000
8,500
80,000
64
—
Conclusions of Financial and Market Study
Based on the market and feasibility analyses presented,
an opportunity exists to renovate the existing Building 2
at Fort Trumbull into Class A office space for the New
London market. While new office construction is not
feasible at this time, as evidenced by the inability of
Shaw’s Cove 7 & 8 and Mystic Executive Park to get off
the ground, the lower cost basis required to renovate
Building 2, coupled with relatively tight market conditions
for Class A space, create a feasible environment for rede-
veloping Building 2 at Fort Trumbull.
Except for the sublease space at Mariner Square, there is
currently only one option available for a tenant requiring
more than 5,000 square feet of Class A space. Brokers
report that a few tenants, Kendall Corp. for example, have
had to leave New London because sufficient Class A space
was not available recently to accommodate their growth.
At this time, however, market conditions do not justify
construction of new commercial space at Fort Trumbull on
a speculative basis. Financing will not be available unless
there is significant pre-leasing activity, on the order of 65%
to 70%, but tenants in the marketplace are generally
reluctant to commit to space 18 to 24 months out, as is
required for new construction. The Major Rehab scenario
for Building 2 illustrates the general feasibility parame-
ters for new multi-story office construction. As office rents
for new construction would not be expected to appreciably
exceed-the economic terms specified under this scenario,
the maximum development cost for feasibility would be
approximately $100 per rentable square foot, which is
below the estimated development cost range of $120 to
$150 per square foot for new construction.
65
Consideration should be given though to the possibility of
developing a small “flex” building capable of being built
out for office or biotech/bioscience space, and capable of
being expanded to accommodate future demand. This flex
building should be of good quality construction with an
attractive facade, and should have a floor height of at least
18 feet to 20 feet to accommodate the tenant improvement
requirements of potential biotech/bioscience users that
might demand space as a result of Pfizer’s Global Devel-
opment Facility. Flex space would appear to be marginally
feasible in the current market. With hard costs estimated
to be approximately $75 to $80 per square foot based on
brokers in the market, total development costs could
conceivably be kept around $100 per square foot.
Target Market For Commercial Space
For the existing Building 2, which will be redeveloped into
Class A office space, the target market will include the
following:
* Existing New London companies seeking to
* Exsting New London companies seeking to
expand that are unable to be accommodated
due to the limited amount of available Class
A space
* Newly recruited companies from outside the
region |
For the future commercial development space, the pr'mary
target market is expected to be newly recruited companies
idencing Pfizer-related demand, whether it is for general
office use or biotech/bioscience use. This demand will most
likely come from out-of-region companies that contract
with Pfizer and value proximity to Pfizer's Global Devel-
opment Facility.
Marketing Strategy
The key objectives of the marketing strategy are:
* To successfully position the commercial de-
velopment space in the market
° To fully lease Building 2 as quickly as possi-
ble
e To complete renovation and begin occupancy
of Building 2 the opening date of the hotel
® ‘To execute leases for Building 2 on terms
that meet or exceed pro forma
* ‘To further develop and refine the target mar-
ket for the future commercial development
67
infrastructure work for the whole Fort Trumbull develop-
ment, which is presently slated for August 2002. Hence,
assuming the current schedule is maintained, marketing
efforts should commence in April 2001.
In engaging a brokerage firm, approximately two months
should be budgeted to solicit proposals from targeted
brokerage firms, review the proposals, interview the firms,
and select the best firm or firms. Thus, the brokerage
firms identified herein (see Marketing Execution Plan)
should be contacted in early February 2001 to solicit
proposals for brokerage services.
Once a brokerage firm is selected, a more detailed market-
ing strategy should be developed and the firm should~
marketing materials, including conceptual schemes,
should be prepared for the future commercial development
space in the event that sufficient excess demand is gener-
ated that cannot be accommodated in Building 2, and/or
an end user is identified for a build-to-suit development.
This information should also be disseminated to the
various state and local resources identified herein (see
Marketing Execution Plan).
In addition to hiring a brokerage firm, consideration
should be given to establishing a web site for the entire
Fort Trumbull development. This would need to be coordi-
nated with the various marketing/brokerage firms for the
different development components, and could conceivably
be paid for by these firms as part of their assumed market-
ing and advertising responsibilities. For Building 2, a
virtual tour, renderings, images of water views from the
upper floors, and other marketing information could be
placed on the site, thus providing prospective tenants with
instant access to information to help them evaluate the
property.
Once construction has started for Building 2, an on-site
marketing center should be established as soon as possible
to allow prospective tenants the opportunity to see the
space as they might occupy it. The fourth floor would be
the ideal location in order to take advantage of the sweep-
ing views of the water.
Targeted leasing milestones for Building 2 would be as
follows:
° 50% pre-leased before commencement of
renovation
° 75% leased upon completion of renovation
* 100% leased 6 months after completion of
renovation
iti early in the marketing campaign, a draft
ae teas emmdiies should be prepared for future
tenants.
Depending upon the level of rehabilitation ultimately
selected by Corcoran Jennison Companies, the standard
tenant improvement package should generally not exceed
scenario. Several recent leases have been done with all
tenant improvements paid for by the tenant. However,
some leases have been done with improvement allowances
of up to approximately $17 per square foot. The amount of
tenant improvements provided is a negotiating point and
will depend upon market conditions at the time of lease
negotiation, if tenants require additional improvements
over the standard package, then the cost over and above
that amount should either be amortized over the lease
69
term (typically with credit tenants only), or paid for by the
tenant up front.
Marketing Execution Plan
Broker Selection
There are four local brokerage firms and one national
firm, CB Richard Ellis, which are active in the New
London market. There is another national firm, Cushman
& Wakefield, with a Hartford office that could potentially
service the New London market. In addition, a Boston-
based firm, Thompson Doyle Hennessey & Everest has
experience with both office and biotech/bioscience space —
they are currently marketing BioSquare, which is adjacent
to the Boston University Medical Center. These firms
should be contacted in January/February 2001 and asked
to submit Proposals to provide brokerage services for the
commercial space. A sample draft of a Request for Propos-
als (RFP) for brokerage services has been included in the
Addenda. The table below identifies these firms and the
appropriate contact information.
CONTACT PHONE #
1. U.S. Properties, Inc. Susan Howard 860-4370101
Three Shaw’s Cove, ~ Jim White
Suite 202
New London, CT 06320
2. New England Real Jim Bach 860-444-7800
Estate Group, Ltd. Steve Percy
12 Masonic Street Jane Walsh é
New London, CT 06320
3. Pequot Commercial John Jensen 860-447-9570
711 Broad Street Ext. Norm Peck
Waterford, CT 06385
70
4. Connecticut Commercial Robert Zabarsky 860-444-7704
Realty
229 Howard Street
New London, CT 06320
5. CB Richard Ellis
100 Pearl Street
Hartford, CT 06103
6. Cushman & Wakefield Thomas Collins 617-204-4100
Dan Barber 860-987-4781
25th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3599
7. Thompson Doyle
Hennessey & Everest
101 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
To be sensitive to community issues, it would be appropri-
ate to include all four local firms in the Broker RFP
process. The preliminary recommendation would be to
utilize a local brokerage firm to market Building 2, or a
joint venture, if possible, between a local firm and a
national or regional firm. The typical tenant anticipated to
occupy Building 2 would likely be a local company looking
to relocate or expand its offices.
The inclusion of ar national or regional firm may be
appropriate though as the Pfizer-induced demand antici-
pated for construction of the proposed 200,000 square feet
might include uses other than office - e.g., biotech or
bioscience — for which these firms have greater experience.
For broker incentive reasons, and because it might be
appropriate to begin initial marketing of the proposed
commercial space simultaneously with the Building 2, it
might be warranted to use one of the non-local firms solely
for the marketing of al] Fort Trumbull commercial space.
Cathy Thompson 617-330-6900
eS ea ee ae
71
It should be noted that U.S. Properties, Inc. is the agent
for most of the space in Shaw's Cove Business Park, and
while due consideration should be given to them, they may
have potential conflict of interest issues in representing
Corcoran Jennison Companies to lease the Fort Trumbull
commercial space.
State and Local Resources
There are several state and local resources that should be
made aware of and that could provide assistance in the
marketing of the Fort Trumbull commercial development
space. These resources are as follows:
Resource Contact Number
New London Office Ned Hammond 860-447-5203
of Development & Economic
Planning Development
Coordinator
Connecticut Kevin Crowley 860-270-8069
Department of Director, Business
Economic & Recruitment
Community
Development
SECTOR John Markowitz 860-701-6054
Connecticut Carolyn Kahn 860-563-5851
Innovations Managing Director, www.ctinnovations.
Bioscience com
Connecticut United Debra Pasquale 860-679-1550
for Research President www
Excellence (CURE) oe
Connecticut Susan Winkler 800-392-2122
Economic Resource www.cerc.com
Center (CERC)
72
In e? ‘ition, Pfizer's real estate representative should be
ma © .ware of the commercial development program in
case the company has a need, or in case a contractor doing
business with them might have a need for a local presence.
Project and Marketing Schedule
With respect to the renovation of Building 2. Corcoran
Jennison Companies’ goal is to complete construction and
have initial occupancy at the same time as the infrastruc-
ture and site work is completed for hotel and residential
space. The current Fort Trumbull development project
schedule calls for commencement of site and infrastruc-
ture work in August 2001, with completion scheduled for
August 2002.
Working back from this date, construction for Building 2
should commence no later than March 2002 to allow for an
estimated 6 months of rehab work. The broker marketing
and leasing campaign should start no later than April
2001 to allow for sufficient exposure in the marketplace to
execute leases for as much of the space as possible prior to
completion of construction. Initial requests for proposals
from brokerage firms should occur in late January or early
February 2001.
On the following page, a Project and Marketing Timeline
is presented which illustrates the key dates and mile-
stones for the Fort Trumbull development, as well as
Building 2 renovation.
73
Fort Trumbull Development
New London, CT
x
Pm lean) wan) am | ©) Me) nee |) ee ae Ta |
| ! Wares.
74
Marketing Budget
Brokerage fees will comprise the vast majority of the
marketing budget for the Fort Trumbull commercial
development space. Most marketing and advertising costs
are included in the brokerage fee and are the responsibil-
ity of the broker. Based on conversations with several
brokers in the market, brokerage fees have been estimated
at $5.00 per square foot of rentable office space, which is
equivalent to $430,000 based on an estimated 86,000
rentable square feet. The brokerage fee will vary depend-
ing upon the length of the lease that is executed for each
tenant. Typically, brokerage fees are paid 50% at lease
execution and 50% at tenant occupancy.
Conceivably, some miscellaneous marketing expenses
could be incurred that would not be paid for by the broker-
age firm. In addition, although it is not feasible to develop
the proposed additional 200,000 square feet of commercial
space at this time, it would be beneficial to develop some
preliminary marketing materials for circulation simulta-
neously with Building 2’s marketing campaign. Moreover,
a brokerage firm might not be willing to pay for marketing
materials for the future commercial development space at
this juncture.
A budget of $50,000 would seem reasonable to cover
miscellaneous expenses associated with Building 2 and the
other preliminary marketing materials. This would be
exclusive, however, of any cost associated with the devel-
opment of a Fort Trumbull web site, if that option is
pursued.
It is important to note the need for high quality marketing
materials and architectural services associated with
marketing. Image and identity are key components for a
75
successful marketing plan. Marketing materials should
include, but not be limited to:
* Abuilding photo and/or rendering
* An aerial photo after demolition of all im-
provements not being retained
* Asample floor plan for each floor
* Sample module layouts
Hopefully, preparation of some marketing materials can be
coordinated with the marketing of the hotel and residen-
tial portions of the Fort Trumbull development to possibly
enable efficiencies and cost savings.
DRAFT
CORCORAN JENNNISON COMPANIES REQUEST
FOR PROPOSALS
For
REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE / LEASING SERVICES
FORT TRUMBULL COMMERCIAL SPACE NEW
LONDON, CONNECTICUT
FEBRUARY 2001
Introduction
Corcoran Jennison Companies is seeking Proposals from
real estate brokerage companies to provide marketing and
leasing services for the commercial development space to
be included in its Fort Trumbull mixed-use development.
Corcoran Jennison Companies intends to select a broker-
age firm no later March 31, 2001 and to commence the
76
marketing of the commercial space as soon as possible
thereafter.
Corcoran Jennison Companies is a diversified real estate
company with five main operating companies — Develop-
ment, Property Management, Construction, Hospitality,
and Exposition Center Management Services. Since its
founding in 1971, Corcoran Jennison Companies has
successfully developed in excess of $1.8 Billion of real
estate, including apartments, hotels, nursing homes,
municipal facilities, exposition centers, schools, health
facilities, golf courses, restaurants, resort facilities, mari-
nas, and office centers. The company’s corporate offices are
located in Boston, Massachusetts.
Background
The New London Development Corporation (NLDC), in
association with the Connecticut Department of Economic
and Community Development (DECD), has = ey :
municipal planning project targeting an area adjacen
nn. ccettes, Maen es
the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan (MDP),
the MDP area encompasses approximately 90 acres
immediately south of downtown New London and adjacent
to historic Fort Trumbull, which will be developed into a
state park. The principal catalyst for development in this
area is the construction of Pfizer Inc.’s 790,000-square-foot
Global Development Facility immediately south of the
MDP area.
The NLDC selected Corcoran Jennison Companies as the
developer of a 30-acre waterfront parcel adjacent to Fort
Trumbull. The majority of the parcel consists of the U.S.
Navy’s closed Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC).
77
The balance is made up of a number of residential and
commercial properties between NUWC and the Amtrak
rail.
Fort Trumbull Project Description
Corcoran Jennison Companies has proposed a mixed-use
development, to include a four-star hotel, housing, and
commercial space, for the 30-acre parcel. The attached site
plan, labeled the Fort Trumbull Development Plan, depicts
the latest proposed development plan for the Fort Trum-
bull site. New roadways and infrastructure will be built to
support the development. Total development costs are
projected to be approximately $100 million.
The hotel will be situated on the northernmost section of
the site. The residential development will be located on the
southeastern portion of the site, adjacent to the existing
Coast Guard facility and north of Fort Trumbull. The
commercial development will be located on the southwest-
ern portion of the site; an existing !-alian Dramatic Club
located here will be kept and incorporated into the devel-
opment plan. Plans also include a paved, half-mile river-
walk, which will connect to the Fort Trumbull State Park,
and a village green that will be accessible to the public.
Commercial Development Program
At present, approximately 300,000 square feet of commer-
cial space is envisioned for the site. This will be comprised
Cen en of Suiiien austatet "
mately 91,000 gross square feet, identified as Building 2
by the U.S. Navy, and two proposed buildings of 100,000
square feet each. The MDP called for the inclusion of office
78
or bioscience-related commercial space. While the new
buildings could be developed for either use depending
upon market conditions, the existing Building 2 is best
utilized for office use given its current construction.
The commercial development program for the Fort Trum-
bull development will consist of at least two phases, and
possibly more depending upon the amount and type of
demand that is generated for the 200,000 square feet of
proposed commercial space. The first phase of commercial
development will involve the renovation and redevelop-
ment of the existing Navy Building 2 into a Class A office
building for the New Loadon market. Building 2 is a four-
story, steel frame, brick and glass structure completed in
1991 as sonar research and development space for the
Navy. It is in reasonably good condition and can be easily
renovated to Class A office space for the New London
market.
Because the building was constructed for single-tenant
occupancy, it will require renovation to accommodate
multi-tenant occupancy as appropriate for the New Lon-
don office market. A first-floor lobby will need to be added,
as well as common area on each floor depending upon the
space requirements of future tenants. Also, the entrance to
the building is currently on the east side and most likely
will need to be relocated to orient it to the street grid
planned for the Fort Trumbull development.
Building systems are being evaluated to determine their
appropriateness for reuse. It is known that a heating
system will need to be added because Building 2 was
previously heated by a system supporting several other
Navy buildings. In addition, analysis will need to be
completed to determine whether the existing elevator and
79
rest rooms are adequate for multi-tenant office use in the
current market, or whether additions are required. Park-
ing will be provided around the building, with excess
parking for the near future provided on the adjacent land
that will support the future commercial development.
Future phases will involve new construction of either
Class A office space or biotech/bioscience space, as demand
warrants. The present plan for the proposed commercial
space includes the development of two 100,000 square foot
buildings along Walbach Street, south of the existing
Building 2. The new buildings will be developed as market
conditions warrant.
Submittals
Interested parties should submit a Proposal to provide
marketing/leasing services for the commercial develop-
ment space at Fort Trumbull. Respondents should outline
their general approach to providing marketing/leasing
services and should demonstrate capacity and expertise to
develop and implement a marketing program that will
minimize lease-up periods, maximize rents, and enhance
project values.
In the Proposal, respondents are encouraged to propose
and/or provide recommendations relative to the proposed
commercial space at Fort Trumbull, both the existing
Building 2 and the planned 200,000 square feet, with
respect to:
Marketing Strategy
Project Identity
Marketing Timeline
Type and F of Advertisina/Marketi
Target Market for Tenants
* State and Local Resources for Attracting Ten-
ants
¢ Pricing — Rent, Lease Term, Tenant Improve-
ments
¢ Credit Quality of Tenants
* Specifications for Tenant Improvements
Projected Absorption/Occupancy Milestones
In addition, respondents should provide:
¢ A company overview/business history (de-
tively involved in the project, including iden-
tification of relevant professional licenses
* References and contact information (at least
two for each key personnel)
* Sample marketing materials, including bro-
chures, advertisements, etc. ;
* Asample lease proposal for a prospective ten-
ant :
e Examples of comparable firm experience as
owner's agent for commercial space
Respondents are also encouraged to provide information
on current market conditions for commercial space in the
New London market area, including an overview of supply
and demand trends, comparable lease and sale informa-
tion, competitive projects planned and/or under construc-
tion, etc.
proposed
Respondents should include in their submittals a
fee structure for the services to be provided. Respondents
should be specific as to what marketing materials and
81
advertising expenses are included as part of the services
provided.
Insurance
Respondents should include in their Proposal a brief
description of the firm’s general liability insurance cover-
age, including limits and deductibles.
Selection Schedule
Request for Proposals available February 1, 2001
Pre-submission Meetings & Tours ween February 5 -
(To be scheduled individually) 6, 2001
Proposals Due ebruary 28, 2001
5:00 p.m.)
Corcoran Jennison Companies een March 1 — 15,
Review/Inquiry 1
Selection of Brokerage Company o later than March
1, 2001
Commencement of Marketing/ April 1, 2001
Leasing Campaign _ i
Evaluation Criteria
Corcoran Jennison Companies shall consider the following
criteria in evaluating Proposals (not listed in any specific
order of importance):
Responsiveness to Request for Proposals
Company/Broker Experience
~ Time and Place of Submission
Respondents must submit five (5) copies of their Proposal
to Corcoran Jennison Companies. Proposals must be
received by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 28, 2001.
Proposals should be addressed to:
Marty Jones
President
Corcoran Jennison Companies
Bayside Office Center
150 Mount Vernon Street
Boston, MA 02125
Corcoran Jennison Companies reserves the right to modify
or withdraw this Request for Proposals at any time and to
reject any and all Proposals.
83
DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT 38
FORT TRUMBULL
MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
New London, Connecticut
August 1999
Revised Administrative Draft
Prepared on behalf of:
The City of New London
by:
New London Development Corporation
New London, Connecticut
Sponsoring Agency:
State of Connecticut
Department of Economic and Community Development
Implementing Agency:
New London Development Corporation
New London, Connecticut
Administrative Contributors:
The Downes Group — Program Management
Milone & MacBroom, Inc. — Plan Coordination
Technical Contributors:
Diversified Technology Consultants, Inc. -
Civil Engineering
Harrall-Michalowski Associates, Inc. -
Neighborhood Relocation and Land Use Planning
HRP Associates, Inc. - Hazardous Waste and
Contamination Assessment
Milone & MacBroom, Inc. - Environmental Impact
Evaluation
RKG Associates, Inc. - Economic Analysis
Wallace Roberts and Todd — Land Use Planning
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.4
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
84
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENITRODUCTION ..ccccccsccsscssscccccccsscesssscscssccssrscesores 1-1
MDP Proceee .......ccccccessseescscsssevessssssssesesssesesseseneoees 1-1
Project Background .............:c:ssseeeeerereerernerennenes 1-2
Summary of Major EIE Issues .............:::00ee 1-8
RTT occcxececsenrsecssnessecscncetessosensenssconecssoansconscesson 2-1
Topography .........ccscesseseesssersensensensrereensersanenennennes 2-1
Legal Description of Project Boundary ................. 2-1
Description of Interior Parcels .............:.0:0:000+ 2-5
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ............:cccceeeee 3-1
Existing Land Uses ............:.::sssssseseereennrennenenrennens 3-1
Existing ZOming..........::cscssesseseeeeesennesecenseersneernenees 3-2
Existing Public Utilities, Services, and
Roadway Network...........::::sssseseeeeeneneesnnnnsnnnenes 3-4
WIP necccccecccvcccccocccccccccccscecccscccscocsosnooscesosenssssseosones 3-4
Sanitary Sewer .........::cccccssessesesesesseeenensnensesnensneenens 3-5
Baaren BOWES 000000cccccececcosersssevccccsccsssescsssssevcsscsscoseees 3-8
Gas, Electric, Telephone, and Cable ................+ 3-11
Streets and Sidewalks ............::cccceeseeeeeeereneeeenes 3-12
Test Borings and Soil Analysis ..............000:00:00++ 3-16
Environmental Conditions ..............:ccceereeeee 3-17
Environmental Evaluation................:0000eeeree 3-17
Environmental Impact Evaluation (under
SEPATALE COVET).......0-..csceseeserserneesererereneteneneneenenens 3-24
4.0
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.3.3
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.4.3
5.4.4
5.4.5
5.4.6
5.4.7
5.4.8
5.5
85
MARKETABILITY STUDY..............cccccsceseeseseeseeee 4-1
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS..............ccccccc0c0000. 5-1
EE eT TS 5-1
OI ih anttacenleacticnaittceeerte 5-4
Proposed Zoning Designation Changes................. 5-4
Applicability of Proposed Zoning Amend-
BB ccecsccsssanncscesesseceensensssnnscsnassesssnccsnsssessnstecsnstanes 5-6
Proposed Zoning Amendments for the MDP
__—_ ESE nem IOS NESE EN SIU oT 5-6
Proposed Land Use Controls ...............cccccccccec0e0es 5-23
Overall Framework for Development.................. 5-23
Design Control Mechanisms and Processes ....... 5-24
IS Sa 5-25
Proposed Public Utilities, Services, and
Roadway Improvements ...................ccceeceeeeeeeeees 5-34
STITT Asonisisnnieebieichideseseuenenetninninstadinbianmnibieebiedanteeninadeiti 5-34
IIIT iaccnneiensetneniidnethiiiehtabatdeeisibiatiameataieal 5-37
EE a a eT ETP 5-39
Gas, Electric, Telephone, and Cable.................... 5-45
Streets and Sidewalks ................:ccccccsssceccsseesseeees 5-46
Sareea TnTUIIE iieiielinericteiabadeniaienaiihidadetapehiteameniatcceinaietiedl 5-57
nS 5-58
Estimated Cost of Site/Infrastructure Im-
TIED ccnsncenscscessescenensssusnsennsmnistiensummnsscensensnts 5-58
ES See RT 5-60
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
8.0
9.0
10.0
10.1
10.2
11.0
12.0
13.0
13.1
13.2
86
ACQUISITION/DISPOSITION OF PARCELS ......6-1
Description of Parcels to be Acquired...............+++». 6-1
Description of Parcelization for Disposal ............. 6-4
Description of Appraisals and Title Searches
Comdneted ....0cccccccscscscsscscesessescesssccssccsscesssonssooseseooes 6-6
RELOCATION PLAN .......::scssssvsssssserreeeresseeresesees 7-1
Families and Individualls...............:::eeeeeeeeeees 7-1
Businesses and Non-profit Agencies .................-++ 7-2
Availability of Relocation Housing ..................0+ 7-2
Availability of Relocation Facilities...................+ 7-3
FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY.............:::c:0ee00e 8-1
ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN SUMMARY................ 9-1
JOBS AND HOUSING. ..........::cccceceeeeeeeeeeeneeneenenes 10-1
Jobs Anticipated to be Created.............:00:0s0+ 10-1
Housing Units Available................0:00cseseseereenen 10-1
PEDOIIEDOG .....0cccccccccccccccccecesecsesevescssosssssssssorsosnsees 11-1
PROJECT PLAN PROVISIONS TO RE-
MAIN IN EFFECT. ..........:c0cccscserseessreseerensereesnens 12-1
MINORITY PARTICIPATION .............:0c0e0eeeeeees 13-1
Minority Participation Statement ..................+ 13-1
Commitment, Performance Standard, and
Government Requirements. ............:::cseeeeeeeees 13-1
87
13.3 Area of Minority Participation ..................ccc00000. 13-2
SET” PIII ioeniiiintaniiadlianstnintssiiaciceci 13-8
re RI iccictinericnibiiiec ia 13-8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Requirements by Zoning Classification
Table 3-2 Sanitary Sewer Mains for the Fort Trumbull
MDP Area
Table 3-3 Existing Street Conditions
Table 3-4 Summary of Test Boring Results
Table 3-5 Recommended Phase II ESA
Table 3-6 Potential CTA Regulated Sites
Table 5-1 Smith Street Option 2 - Proposed Pressure for
Maintaining 3,000 gpm Fire Flow
Table 5-2 East Street and Trumbull Street Intersection —
Proposed Pressure for Maintaining 3,000 gpm
Fire Flow
Table 5-3 Summary of Proposed Street Characteristics
Table 5-4 Probable Costs for Infrastructure and Special
Construction
Table 6-1 NLDC Owned Properties (May 1999)
Table 7-1 Households to be Displaced
Table 7-2 Non-Residential Displacement
Table 10-1 Summary of Jobs Anticipated to be Created
88
LIST OF 8 1/2 x 11 FIGURES
Figure 1 Location Map - City of New London
Figure 2 Fort Trumbull MDP Area
Figure 3 Composite Land Use Plan
Figure 4 Evacuation Route Map
Figure 5 Existing Flood Plain Areas
Figure 6 Proposed Flood Plain Areas
Figure 7 Pedestrian Route Map
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Relevant Correspondence and CEPA Record
of Decision
Appendix B_ Soil Boring Logs
Appendix C Marketability Study
Appendix D List of Properties to be Acquired
Appendix E_ Relocation Plan
Appendix F New London City Council Resolutions
ndixG Executive Summary — Request for Flood
— Management Certification Exemption
LIST OF APPENDED MAPS
Map 2.1 Topographic Map
Map 2.2 Project Boundary Map (Maps 2.2.1 through 2.2.4)
Map 3.1 Existing Land Use Map
Map 3.2 Existing Zoning Map
Map 3.3 Existing & Proposed Water System
Map 3.4 Existing & Proposed Sanitary Sewer System
89
Map 3.5 Existing & Proposed Storm System
Map 3.6 Existing and Proposed Gas System
Map 3.7 Existing & Proposed Electric and Telephone
Map 3.8 Proposed Streets
Map 3.9 Test Boring Locations
Map 5.1 Proposed Land Uses
Map 5.2 Proposed Zoning Map
Map 6.1 Acquisition Map
Map 6.2 Disposition Map
10 INTRODUCTION
1.1 MDP Process
The New London Development Corporation (NLDC),
in association with the Connecticut Department of
Economic and Community Development (DECD), is
undertaking a municipal development planning proj-
ect adjacent to the Thames River in New London,
Connecticut. NLDC is a nonprofit, private economic
development organization originally formed in 1978.
The corporation was established with the authority to
raise and borrow funds, manage projects, acquire and
sell properties, and engage in any activity related to
the progress and general welfare of the community.
This Municipal Development Plan (MDP) has been
prepared under Chapters 130, 132, and/or 588(1) of
the Connecticut General Statutes. The New London
City Council gave authority to NLDC to prepare the
MDP for the Fort Trumbull area in a resolution
passed in May of 1998. The resolution also estab-
lished the boundaries of the planning area.
Prior to initiating the municipal development plan-
ning process, an Environmental Assessment (BA) and
90
an Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) were
completed in accordance with the Connecticut Envi-
ronmental Policy Act (CEPA), established in Sections
22a-1 through 22a-lh of the Connecticut General
Statutes and Sections 22a-1 through 22a-1a-12 of the
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.
In June of 1998, the Connecticut Department of Eco-
nomic and Community Development issued an Envi-
ronmental Assessment for the Fort Trumbull MDP
area which concluded that the project could poten-
tially have a significant effect on the environment.
Several major areas of concern were identified in the
EA, including the possible acquisition of residential
properties and relocation of residents, adequacy of the
existing water supply; congestion and traffic safety is-
sues; historic importance and archaeological signifi-
cance of the project area; flooding, and stormwater
t. As a result of DECD’s finding, an Envi-
ronmental Impact Evaluation was undertaken.
The EIE process began in late June 1998. Numerous
consultations were engaged to assist in specific phases
of the work. Preliminary findings were discussed at
numerous neighborhood meetings. Input and review
comments were solicited from the community and in-
terested public on the Draft EIE. Input was also solic-
ited from local, state and federal agencies.
Following completion of a 45 day public comment pe-
riod of the Draft EIE, the Connecticut Department of
Economic and Community Development forwarded to
the Office of Policy and Management the Final EIE
and Record of Decision (dated March 1999), consisting
of all public notice documentation, comments received
from all interested parties, the agency decision rela-
tive to proceeding with the proposed action, and a dis-
cussion of the intentions for initiation of actions for
1.2
91
minimizing impacts, for determination of the ade-
quacy of the evaluation.
The CEPA process concluded with the review of the
Final EIE and Record of Decision by OPM and their
April 20, 1999 determination that regulatory re-
quirements were satisfied, with several conditions.
Appendix A contains a copy of selected relevant corre-
spondence and documentation from the Record of De-
cision and the April 20, 1999 OPM approval letter.
The Final EIE and Record of Decision is the basis for
the implementation of the project. The subject Mu-
nicipal Development Plan has been developed to be
consistent with the findings of the CEPA process.
A mandatory public hearing will be held prior to local
adoption of the MDP by the City of New London. Pro-
cedures for the adoption of the MDP are set forth in
Section 32-224(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes.
This process must include a finding by the OPM that
the plan is not inimical to the overall goals and objec-
tives of the state. Upon obtaining such a finding, the
plan would then be legally adopted by the city and
approved by DECD.
Project Background
The City of New London is a waterfront community
along the tidal estuary of the Thames River and Long
Island Sound in southeastern Connecticut. Figure 1 is
a location map of the City of New London. New London
is only 5.79 square miles in size, making it geographi-
cally the second smallest municipality in the State of
Connecticut. Nearly 54% of the total land area of New
London is exempt from local property taxes.
The Fort Trumbull MDP area is approximately 90
acres in size and includes residential and commercial
areas comprised of approximately 115 parcels. The
area includes the 32-acre U.S. Navy's closed
Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC), the regional
Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), and the ad-
jaeent Fort Trumbull area as shown in Figure 2.
The driving force behind this project is the City of
New London's desire to revitalize its economy by fo-
proposed Pfizer, Inc. Global Development Facility
a te teated tmenattany to Gan eth of Go SP
boundary. In an effort to induce private investment
into the Fort Trumbull area, considerable funding has
been committed to this redevelopment project by vari-
ous offices of the State of Connecticut and the City of
New London.
In order to the redevelopment of the Fort Trum-
se rege ny sty Fee in ae tind me
after numerous public meetings and consultation with
Federal, State, regional and local organizations, identi-
fied four major goals for the redevelopment of the site.
These goals are presented below:
e To create a world-class development that will
complement the undertakings of Pfizer, Inc. and
set a standard for development in New London;
e ‘To create an economic asset for the City of New
London that will create jobs, generate tax reve-
ue, and result in spin-off economic activity,
e To maximize public access to the waterfront and,
in doing so, encourage uses which are water de-
pendent or which will be enhanced by water ac-
cess and views; and
e To develop a project which will help build momen-
tum for the revitalization of downtown New Lon-
don and the balance of the city to the benefit of
the City’s residents and visitors
— Ge — City of New London
—_I
Figure 1
Location Map - City of New London
Fort Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut 4
Draft Environmental Impact Evaluation - November 1998 ——
‘ort Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut
Figure 2
95
The Environmental Impact Evaluation evaluated
six land use alternatives with an array of land uses.
While there is some overlap and common elements
in the six land use alternatives, each has a distinct
theme as noted below:
Alternative No. 1 — No Action
Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/Tourism
Alternative No. 3 — Residential/Commercial
Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus
Alternative No. 5 — Mixed Use 1
Alternative No. 6 — Mixed Use 2
The analysis contained in the Draft EIE evaluated
the impact of the various components associated with
the six land use plans. It was recognized that the ul-
timate preferred land use plan could borrow land use
components from any or all of the plans. As stated in
the Draft EIE: “The alternative plans represent gen-
eral land use areas and density of development. They
are not intended to be exact geographic limits or con-
figurations. A preferred alternative has not been se-
lected and it is anticipated that the ultimate selected
preferred plan may be a hybrid of several alterna-
tives.”
Following the 45 day review and comment period of
the Draft Environmental Impact Evaluation for the
Fort Trumbull MDP area, review of public and state
agency comments, and consideration of the adminis-
trative record, technical data and other relevant in-
formation, the Record of Decision was developed and
a preferred composite land use plan was selected as
presented in Figure 3. The four goals identified for
this project which highlight economic development
through the creation of jobs, tax revenues, and spin-off
1.3
96
economic activity, played a major role in the ultimate
selection of the preferred composite land use plan. A
conditional approval was subsequently issued on
April 20, 1999 by the Office of Policy and Manage-
ment (See Appendix A).
Balancing the competing needs and impacts of this
project led to the ultimate selection of a modified
mixed use alternative. A compromise of economic de-
velopment with environmental impacts resulted in an
alternative which takes advantage of the economic
potential of business development, coupled with the
positive aspects of a mixed use community develop-
ment. The result is a positive outcome with fewer
negative impacts.
* * *
Summary of Major EIE Issues
The following discussion briefly summarizes the ma-
jor issues raised during the Draft EIE review process.
Regional W. Pollution C | Facili | the Ac-
tive Amtrak Rail Line - The western Fort Area sup-
ports a sewage treatment plant and the active
Amtrak railroad. The adjacency of these land uses to
the planned land uses in the MDP area posed a chal-
lenge with respect to compatibility and aesthetic is-
sues. Placement of less sensitive land uses in
combination with planned improvements to the
WPCF have been incorporated into the MDP to lessen
the impacts of these utilities.
Proposed Fort Trumbull State Park - A 16-acre State
Park will be located at the inactive NUWC site along
the Thames River. The MDP has been prepared in an
effort to complement and be compatible with the pro-
posed park.
97
Traffic - The MDP and other planned projects in the
vicinity of the Fort Trumbull area will result in addi-
tional traffic. Mitigation measures have been pro-
posed to offset these impacts.
Cultural Resources - Several studies have revealed
that areas of low, medium, and high archaeological
sensitivity exist within the MDP area, both within
and outside of the NUWC site. An overview of the
recommendations of the Connecticut Historical Com-
mission and related studies can be found in the Final
Environmental Impact Evaluation and associated Re-
cord of Decision dated March 1999 (EIE/ROD), in sec-
tion 2.7.3, entitled “Cultural Resources in the MDP
Area.”
All necessary mitigation will be reviewed by the Con-
necticut Historical Commission and State Historic
Preservation Office, and performed to their standards
in areas that will be disturbed due to the implemen-
tation of the MDP.
Studies to date include “Cultural Resources Survey:
Naval Undersea Warfare Center,” prepared by TAMS
Consultants, Inc. for the Northern Division Naval Fa-
cilities Engineering Command Department of the
Navy, April, 1998 and “Archaeological Assessment
Survey: The Fort Trumbull MDP Area,” prepared by
Associates, LLC, September, 1998 for NLDC.
The results of these surveys have been reviewed, and
the proposed course of action incorporates their rec-
ommendations. Both of these surveys are cited in the
composite land use plan recommended in February
1999 “Selection of and Rationale for the Preferred Al-
ternative — Fort Trumbull MDP Area,” which noted
areas of low, medium, and high archaeological and
cultural sensitivity. Certain areas within the MDP
will require mitigation work to be completed before
these areas are disturbed. This work has already been
98
initiated with the concurrence of the Connecticut His-
torical Commission and State Historic Preservation
Office.
Floodplain Issues - As shown in Figure 5, much of the
Fort Trumbull MDP area is located in the flood haz-
ard zone. An exemption from current DEP floodplain
policy is required in order to pursue the proposed de-
velopment within a portion of the MDP area that is
currently classified as floodplain. The MDP plan in-
volves the addition of fill to elevate portions of devel-
opment areas in Parcels 1 and 2 that are currently
classified as floodplain, and raise the land in those
areas above the 100-year flood plain.
A Floodplain Management Certification exemption is
being requested through the Department of Environ-
mental Protection concurrent with the MDP approval
process. A copy of the exemption package is included
under separate cover to the MDP (see Appendix G for
the Executive Summary). The exemption is merited
due to the following unique existing conditions at the
site:
* Existing flood plain elevations in the hotel and
residential development sites are high, within one
to three feet of the predicted 100-year flood eleva-
tion. A relatively small amount of fill is required to
remove these hotel and residential development
sites from the flood plain. The hotel site will re-
quire approximately 1,700 cubic yards of fill, and
the residential site will require approximately
7,700 cubic yards of fill. The cost of fill to raise site
to the 100-year base flood elevation of 10.0 feet
NGVD will be borne by the private developer. Fig-
ure 6 shows the future proposed floodplain.
° Floodplain area is attached to large area of higher
ground. Therefore the proposed grade changes will
not create “islands” during flooding events.
99
The floodplain area in its current state is com-
pletely eal with asphalt and buildings which
must be demolished. It is likely that site and soil
remediation alone will increase elevations on por-
tions of the property, placing them above the 100-
year floodplain.
The completed project will reduce the impervious
coverage of the site to approximately one-half of
the current coverage.
The NUWC site, which comprises a large portion
of the waterfront land in the MDP area, is a for-
mer military base. The existing buildings are not
flood proofed and it is economically infeasible to
upgrade them to FEMA standards for re-use.
j i iable
The project goal is to promote economically via
development that restores this land to the tax
base of the City of New London.
The proposed project has no impact on flood stor-
age a enna issues because this area of the
Thames River is tidally influenced and not subject
to riverine flooding.
A flood evacuation route will be provided on
streets that are at elevation 7.1 feet NGVD or
higher, as shown in Figure 4. This meets the
FEMA flood level standard for a 10-year storm,
and is 0.7 feet higher than the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers 10-year flood level of 6.4 feet NGVD.
ing the 100-year design storm, the evacuation
oy be ra ee to vehicles for only one
hour and 35 minutes, and will be impassable to
emergency vehicles for only 50 minutes out of the
12 hour cycle.
Proposed hotel and residential development will
comply with the provisions of the National Flood
Insurance Program. Finished grades in those
100
development sites will be at or above 10.0 feet
NGVD. The lowest floor of residential structures
(including the hotel) will be built at or above 13.4
feet; one foot higher than the 500-year flood level
of 12.4 feet NGVD (see Figure 4).
Revisions to FEMA flood maps will be completed prior to
the occupancy of any structures within the parcel areas.
Emergency Evacuation - An evacuation plan outline
has been created, and is included in Section 5.5. Also
refer to Figure 4.
| ~ The proposed
development of the Fort Trumbull peninsula is in-
tended and committed to providing maximum water
access and water dependent uses. The project plan in-
cludes a network of public access walkways along the
entire waterfront. For boating and water access, the
plan includes an improved and enhanced Fort Trum-
bull marina on Bentley Creek, which will be incorpo-
rated into a future marina training center, as well as
a site for a future marina (including piers for larger
vessels) along the Columbia Cove waterfront. Addi-
tionally, Parcel 6 includes a waterfront development
site on Shaw’s Cove, shorefront that is currently oc-
cupied by a non-water dependent use.
An additional marina site, which will be set aside for
mixed use (including commercial fishing vessels), is
intended for the waterfront portion of Parcel 1 be-
tween the Columbia Cove Marina and the Shaws
Cove Railroad bridge.
Commercial fishing and lobstering vessels are cur-
rently homeported in the MDP area. Some of these
vessels will be accommodated at Fort Trumbull Ma-
rina. Should any other of the fishing related busi-
nesses currently operating in the MDP area need to
relocate outside of the MDP area, the Relocation Plan
(included herein as Appendix E) anticipates providing
101
financial and other relocation assistance in accor-
dance with Chapter 135 of the Connecticut General
Statutes. This information is highlighted in section
7.4, entitled “Availability of Relocation Facilities.
The MDP is committed to no overall diminishment of
water dependent uses. This includes no displacement
of water dependent uses without relocation support as
indicated above, involving either integration with the
development program or finding of an alternative
suitable site.
Conclusions
The areawide Phase I environmental site assessment
has been completed for the MDP area. Based on con-
ditions encountered, it is believed that environmental
contamination of soils and groundwater exists within
the project area. The likely contaminant/waste types
expected to be encountered during the investigation
and remediation of the properties within the MDP
area generally include:
* Petroleum ucts (gasoline, heating oil, waste
oils, wed oils) associated with a gasoline
station, several auto and marine repair facilities,
several currei.* and former underground oil tanks
and a former wi terminal.
* Commercial/industrial solvents in a7
cleaning, autobody and painting) associated wi
auto and marine repair facilities, former dry
cleaning operations, wood furniture refinishers
and autobody/painting operations.
* Metal-containing wastes associated with former
foundry operations and a junkyard
* Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) associated with
a former junkyard, a railroad maintenance facility
and a former barrel storage facility.
102
Further inv «ry ations will be required to confirm and de-
fine suspected contamination sources, possibly including:
¢ soil gas analysis to screen for areas of contamina-
tion in soils and groundwater;
* a ground penetrating radar survey (GPR) on cer-
tain sites where unidentified USTs are suspected;
* collection of surface soil or waste samples to de-
termine if surficial soils are contaminated from
operations spillage or disposal;
* installation of borings and sampling of subsurface
soils to determine if USTs have leaked and to de-
termine sources and extent of groundwater con-
* sampling of waste and debris piles, abandoned
¢ asbestos surveys;
° survey buildings for lead paint using x-ray fluo-
rescence; and
* sampling of stained or potentially contaminated
building surfaces.
Phase II Environmental Site Assessments will be
performed at the 15 locations in the project area
indicated in Table 3-5. These 15 specific areas include
multiple land parcels where the current or former use
of the property spans two or more defined municipal
tax lot designations. Also, although included in the
MDP area Phase I review, the following properties are
currently being addressed under different state or
federal programs in terms of environmental investi-
gation and remediation: The former Naval Undersea
Warfare Center (NUWC) and the two parcels adjacent
to the south half of the Calamari Brothers
Yard. Additionally, the two parcels within the MD?
which are occupied by the Regional Water Pollution
103
Control Facility (sewage treatment plant) are to be
unaffected by the MDP redevelopment and therefore
no additional work is anticipated.
Table 3-5
Recommended Phase II ESA
Site (Properties)
Address
iner & Alexander
umber (67)
50 Howard Street
ormer Spinatos Body
(80, 81)
Hamilton
ormer Pequot Foundry
64)
162 Howard Street
Ron's Autobody (31)
72 Smith Street
ormer Pequot Foundry
78)
190 Howard Street
Former Junkyard (91-94) ,.97 Howard Street
ormer Carole Cleaners
= Howard Street
163 Howard Street
Hamilton
S| 3) 8} Fa) Sin
175 Howard Street
and
oe
urer (114)
wo! alsi>
trak Yard (109)
Walbach Street
(properties) = lot numbers from EIE/ROR Fig. 2.15-1
- ;
104
The remaining properties in the MDP -
sidered low risk residential, commented er er one
oped properties.
Based on the results of the pending Phase II investi-
gations, it is anticipated that most of the properties
will require one or more of the following:
* Degree and extent of contamination definiti
(Phase III); a
* Preparation of remedial action plans (RAP) based
on the type, distribution and severity of contami-
nation and the intended reuse of the property; and
_* Remediation of the property pursuant to the RAP
Some of the properties within the MDP area ma
y be
regulated under the Connecticut Transfer Act (CTA)
C.G.S. 22a-134a through 134e and therefore subject
to CTA guidelines as well as applicable state and fed-
properties identified as definite or potential CTA
regulated sites are indicated in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6
Potential CTA Regulated Sites
Site | Address Reasoning
ormer Junkyard]i97 Howard Former junkyard
Amtrak Yard {30 Walbach Street jonal Rail
Maintenance Facility,
possible
ormer Broach 21 Pequot Avenue Stripper Ca. 1
present, definite
enews 72 Smith Street —
105
For those properties which are determined to be es-
tablishments in terms of the CTA, the following addi-
tional actions will be necessary upon property
transfer:
* Filing of a Form I, Il, Ill or IV with CT-DEP
(Form | is for establishments where no release has
occurred; Form II where all releases have been
remediated and the DEP Commissioner or a Li-
censed Environmental Professional (LEP) has
verified completion; Form III where a release has
occurred but investigation/remediation is still be-
ing performed, and Form IV where all remedial
actions have been performed but post-remedial
monitoring has yet to be completed.
¢ Filing an Environmental Condition Assessment
Form (ECAF) concurrent with any Form III or
Form IV filing. The ECAF will be reviewed by
DEP who will either retain the lead for investiga-
tion and remediation or allow assignment to a Li-
censed Environmental Professional (LEP) to bring
the property into and verify compliance with the
Remediation Standard Regulation (RSR) RCSA
22a-133k-1 through 133k-3.
Although several of the other high risk sites have
some potential for site contamination, they do not
meet the CTA regulatory thresholds for hazardous
waste generation or specific activity, during the requi-
Based on the age of most of the buildings in the MDP
area, they can be expected to possibly contain both
asbestos materials and lead based paint products, as
confirmed by initial walkthroughs of accessed proper-
ties.
Prior to the demolition of any commercial, industrial
or public buildings or buildings containing five or
106
more residential units, they must-be inspected for as-
bestos-containing material and any such materials
must be removed. The National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants - Subpart M also re-
quires that the Federal EPA be notified 10 working
days prior to demolition. For further information, con-
tact the EPA at (617) 918-1650.
The disposal of material containing asbestos requires
the approval of the Waste Engineering and Enforce-
ment Division pursuant to section 22a-209-8(I) of the
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Proper
disposal technique requires that the material be
bagged and labeled and placed in an approved secure
landfill. For further information and to obtain the ap-
plication for approval, contact the division at (860)
424-3366.
The disposal of demolition waste should be handled in
accordance with applicable solid waste statutes and
regulations. Clean fill is defined in section 22a-209-1
of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies
(RCSA) and includes only natural soil, rock, brick, ce-
ramics, concrete and asphalt paving fragments. Clean
fill can be used on site or at appropriate off-site loca-
tions. Clean fill does not include uncured asphalt,
demolition waste containing other than brick or rub-
ble, contaminated demolition wastes (e.g. contami-
nated with oil or lead paint), tree stumps, or any kind
of contaminated soils. Land clearing debris and waste
other than clean fill resulting from demolition activi-
ties is considered bulky waste, also defined in section
22a-209-1 of the RCSA. Bulky waste 1s classified as
special waste and must be disposed of at a permitted
landfill or other solid waste processing facility pursu-
ant to section 22a-208c of the Connecticut General
Statutes and section 22a-209-2 of the RCSA. For fur-
ther information concerning disposal of demolition
107
debris, contact the solid waste staff of the Waste En-
gineering & Enforcement Division at (860) 424-3366.
Residue generated by the removal of lead paint is
considered to be hazardous waste if it meets the char-
acteristics contained at 40 CFR 261. This must be de-
mation and to obtain the guidance document, contact
the Waste Engineering and Enforcement Division at
(860) 424-3372.
The removal of underground storage tanks should fol-
low the procedures outlined in the code of the Na-
tional Fire Protection Association (NFPA 30, Appendix
the underlying native . A listing of poten c
taminants that should be analyzed and suggested
Tank Program at (860) 424-3374.
5.0
5.1
108
If soil and/or groundwater contamination is discov-
ered during the implementation of the project, the
Permitting, Enforcement and Remediation Division
should be notified in writing. The site will then be
placed on the division’s database and further assess-
ment will be made to determine the appropriate
course of action. In order to achieve proper remedia-
tion, the extent of contamination shonld be clearly de-
fined, a cleanup plan developed, and measures
implemented that will clean up the site in accordance
with applicable criteria in the Connecticut Remedia-
tion Standard Regulations adopted pursuant to sec-
tion 22a-133k et seq. of the CGS. For further
information, contact the Permitting, Enforcement and
Remediation Division at (860) 424-3705.
3.5.2 Environmental Impact Evaluation
The Final Fort Trumbull MDP Area Environmental
Impact Evaluation (EIE) and associated Record of De-
cision provided under separate cover, is incorporated
herein by reference.
* * *
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Proposed Land Uses
The proposed land uses for parcels within the MDP
area are graphically illustrated in appended Map 5.1.
The following discussion summarizes opportunities
for use of the parcels within the area. The proposed
composite land use alternative has been estimated to
generate between $680,000 and $1,250,000 in addi-
tional property taxes annually.
109
Parcel 1 - Village/Hotel Parcel (10.5 acres)
This parcel will accommodate a combination of uses to
create a small urban village. The largest and most
prominent feature will be a high-quality conference
hotel with between 200 and 250 rooms, meeting
space, banquet facilities, restaurants, and boutique
retail. This complex will face the Thames River and
front on the village green. .
Convenient parking with approximately 375 spaces
will be provided in an adjacent lot and garages, in-
cluding a parking deck below the hotel structure (at
or above 10.0 feet NGVD).
On the waterfront, across the Riverwalk from the ho-
tel, will be a marina that will cater to transient boat-
ers who want shore access to the sites and activities
of the Fort Trumbull area and, particularly, the vil-
lage center. In season, the marina will offer a variety
of facilities to area residents, hotel occupants, and the
general public, such as boat rentals, boating lessons,
and fishing, thereby adding interest, entertainment,
and water-edge activities in front of the hotel and
near the Village Green.
An additional mixed use marina site will be available
on the waterfront north of the hotel. This marina site
is intended to provide additional mooring facilities for
commercial fishing vessels. There will be a continuous
public walkway along the water’s edge of the entire
parcel.
Parcel 2 - Residential Parcel (10.3 acres)
The residential parcel will provide for a community
of approximately 80 new residential units. The par-
cel is located north of Walbach Street between Smith
Street and the proposed Fort Trumbull State Park.
110
The proposed residences will offer a variety of loca-
tions and orientations, including riverfront, river
view, park view, and adjacency to the village center.
The buildings will be organized to create an urban
neighborhood with units that will be immediately ad-
jacent to or near amenities including the river, village
shopping and services, and the state park.
The community will be located adjacent to mostly
passive uses within the peninsula. Vehicular access
will be provided from Smith Street and a network of
internal residential streets. The community will ad-
join the village to the north, where residents will have
easy access to services and conveniences. There will
be community and recreational facilities within the
development to serve residents. Among them will be a
pool complex, sport courts, and a community meeting/
club room. Each unit will have parking for residents
and guests. A continuous public access walkway will
pass through the community along the river’s edge
linking it to the State Park, the village center, and
points beyond.
A site at the southern end of Parcel 2 adjacent to the
State Park has been reserved for the development of
the National Coast Guard Museum, which will move
to this site from the Coast Guard Academy.
Parcel 3 - Office/R&D/Health Club (7.0 acres)
Located between the proposed residential community
on Parcel 2 and the railroad right-of-way, this parcel
will be used for high-technology office space. It will
also include a two story health club complex with
pool. This complex will be available to hotel guests,
residence owners, and members of the business and
residential communities of the city.
111
The parcel will support a minimum of 90,000 square
feet of office space, plus necessary parking. The option
exists to build either two or three story buildings.
Some parking could be included on parking decks be-
low the structures to reduce the amount of ground
space devoted to impervious cover. The remaining
surface parking can be located within the interior of
the parcel behind the buildings and largely buffered
from view.
The location of this development parcel will be close
to the improved intersection of Walbach and
Nameaug Streets, allowing traffic to have direct ac-
cess to the development rather than crossing through
other uses proposed for the redevelopment area.
Landscape enhancements at the intersection and
along the length of a new Nameaug Street will help
create a distinctive and attractive actess corridor to
the village center. This location for R&D/office space
will provide workers convenient access to support
services in the village center. It is also in close prox-
imity to other office and R&D development in the vi-
cinity, including the Pfizer Global Development
Facility.
Parcel 4- Park Support/Marina Parcels (2.4/1.7
acres)
Parcels 4A and 4B will provide land and water reno-
vation of the small marina and development of a
unique state-of-the os nomen be we ——
ing buildings will he or sup training fa-
cilities. The existing marina will be reconfigured and
rebuilt to provide between 40 and 50 permanent slips.
The riverwalk will be continued from the state park
these development parcels and beyond to the
head of Bentley Creek. Pedestrian access through the
wastewater treatment facility will be negotiated with
112
the City to provide a continuous walkway system. A
portion of Parcel 4A will be redeveloped for uses that
support the state park, such as parking, or for uses
such as retail that will serve park visitors and mem-
bers of the community.
Parcel 5 - Office/R&D Parcel (2.4/1.9/5.3 acres)
Parcels 5A, 5B, and 5C will provide space for modern,
technology-oriented offive/R&D buildings, as well as
associated surface parking. The three parcels will ac-
commodate four buildings for a total of approximately
140,000 square feet of building space. The existing
building on Parcel 5A, which was recently renovated
for office use, will be retained. Some of the parking
previously approved for this building in a location
west of Howard Street will be retained as well. Parcel
5B will be redeveloped for a two-story building with
surface parking. Parcel 5C will be developed for two,
two-story buildings and some convenience retail use
near the intersection of Howard and Shaw Streets.
Howard Street, which separates Parcel 5C from Par-
cels 5A and 5B, will be slightly realigned and im-
proved with new sidewalks, curb-cuts, street lighting,
landscaping, and signage to provide convenient and
safe vehicular access to the development parcels. Im-
provements to Howard Street and the railroad under-
passes will establish a new image and gateway to the
entire redevelopment area and will reinforce the
City’s prior redevelopment efforts along Howard
Street south of Bank Street.
Parcel 6 - Waterfront Commercial Parcel (2.3 acres)
Parcel 6 will be used for a mix of water-dependent
commercial uses. Access for vehicles will be from
113
upgraded Howard Street and Hamilton Street and for
boats from Shaw’s Cove. The parcel will accommodate
three buildings for a total of between 20,000 and
25,000 square feet, in addition to the required park-
ing.
Parcel 7 - R&D/Office Parcel (0.72 acre)
, ; —
This parcel is located southwest of the intersection 0
Pequot Avenue and Trumbull Street. This area will be
reconfigured for better vehicular and pedestrian cir-
culation and improved access under the rail line. The
parcel is small and will be used for office/R&D devel-
opment.
Proposed Zoning
5.2.1 Proposed Zoning Designation Changes
Appended Map 5.2 presents the proposed zoning clas-
or for parcels within the MDP area. All of the
MDP area east of the Amtrak Railroad right-of-way to
the water’s edge will be zoned WC-I with special pro-
visions. Please refer to Map 3.2 and Section 3.2 which
presents a summary of existing zoning designations.
The following revisions to the zoning classifications
for the MDP parcels will be recommended to the City
of New London Planning and Zoning Commission:
¢ Parcel 1 currently has three zoning classifications
comprised of a narrow strip of WD zoned land run-
ning parallel to the railroad right-of-way, a small
portion of C-1 zoned land along the old Hamilton
Street right-of-way, and a sizeable waterfront par-
cel zoned WC-I. Future zoning of Parcel 1 shall be
WC-I.
114
* Parcel 2 shall retain its current zoning classifica-
tion of WC-I.
* Parcel 3 is currently zoned C-1. This shall change
to a WC-I zoning classification.
* Parcel 4A is currently zoned C-1 land. This shall
change to a WC-I zoning classification. Parcel 4B
shall retain its current zoning classification of
WC-I.
¢ Parcels 5A, 5B and 5C shall retain their current
zoning classification of C-1.
¢ Parcel 6 shall retain its WD classification.
¢ Parcel 7 shall retain its WC-I classification.
¢ The area of the regional Water Pollution Control
Facility is currently zoned C-1 north of Trumbull
Street and WC-I. It should be noted that zoning
regulations do not necessarily apply to municipal
property owned or leased by the City of New Lon-
don for public purpose, in accordance with Chap-
ter 124, Section 8-2 of the Connecticut General
Statutes. However, site plan approval review by
the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be re-
quired for any further development on that parcel,
as set forth in Article VIII, Section 800 of the Zon-
ing Regulations.
¢ Fort Trumbull State Park shall retain its current
zoning classification of WC-I.
5.2.2 Applicability of Proposed Zoning Amend-
ments
The City of New London Zoning regulations are pro-
posed to be amended as specifically provided in this
Municipal Development Plan. Where controls differ
115
between the Zoning Regulations and the Municipal
Development Plan, the more stringent shall govern.
als shall follow a two-step process. In step one,
py ow land development plan and design will be
prepared and agreed upon by DECD and the desig-
nated development agency (i.e. New London Devel-
opment Corporation) and the selected developer.
Design guidelines and review procedures as estab-
lished by the development agency shall be followed.
Any deviation from the MDP and the associated de-
sign guidelines must be accepted by DECD and the
development agency. In step two, the developer shall
seek and obtain approvals from the New London
Planning and Zoning Commission in accordance with
zoning provisions and site plan review requirements.
5.2.3 Proposed Zoning Amendments for the MDP
Area
ndments set forth below shall be applicable only
~ zoning districts located within the MDP area
as defined by the adopted Municipal Development
Plan. The applicable zoning districts are C-1, WC-l,
and WD. Outside the MDP area, all requirements of
these districts as set forth in the City’s Zoning Regu-
lations and Code shall apply. Amendments for the
MDP area for C-1 and WC-I are as stated below. The
full regulation is eg Text which is recom-
for deletion is shown as “strike-through:”
see additions are shown in “bolded italic 8.
No amendments are proposed for the WD district
within the MDP.
116
Amendment to C-1 district regulations:
510.1 Purpose of District. To provide for a wide
range of commercial endtimitedindustriattiuses along
major arterials; to accommodate uses that benefit
from large numbers of motorists, and business that
are not intensive central business area type activities.
New residential development is discouraged except in
certain instances.
510.2 Permitted Uses. Uses Permitted shall disallow
any use not listed below. Uses permitted shall be lim-
ited to those listed below and shall be subject to issu-
ance of a Special Permit by the Planning and Zoning
Commission in accordance with the requirements of
Article VIII, Section 810 of these zoning regulations.
Uses not specifically permitted shall be prohibited.
1) Retail stores and service businesses.
2) Business and professional offices and banks.
3) Restaurants.
4) Buildings and mixed uses subject to the following
requirements.
a) All lot and bulk requirements for each use
are satisfied.
b) Separate entrances and exits shall be pro-
vided for residential and non-residential por-
tions of the building.
5) Research and development uses, provided that
any manufacturing shall be limited to prototypes
and products testing.
rm_aeeordance with the requrrements_of Artrete VHE,
Section-810-0f thi ono
ee
118
122
124
510.3 Accessory Uses
1) Off-street parking and loading f
ane ng for uses permitted
2) Buildings for housing pets; children’s playhouses.
3) Garden houses; greenhouse
4) Signs subject to the requirements of Arti
Section 615. : ae
—5) Swimming pool, tennis courts, and related rec-
reation facilities
125
6) Amusement Device.
7) Fully enclosed storage.
8) Dumpster in rear yard only.
9) Accessory uses customary or incidental to a per-
mitted use.
510.4 Lot and Bulk Requirements
1) Minimum lot area 5,000 square feet.
2) Minimum yards and setbacks.
a) front — 10 feet, except new residential devel-
opment must have 25 feet (see Article VI,
Section 605.G.4)
b) side — six feet; new residential development
must have 10 foot side yards.
c) rear — 10 feet except new residential devel-
opment must have 20 foot rear yard.
3) Maximum height — 40 55 feet, except the maxi-
mum height may be increased by special permit,
provided that parking is created under, within, or
on top of the structure, or the commission finds
that the parking requirements are substantially
exceeded in some other manner of off-street
parking.
4) Maximum lot coverage of principal and accessory
building — 80 percent, except new residential de-
velopment which may occupy 50 percent of the
site.
510.5 Off-Street Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading spaces shall be pro-
vided for each lot within this district in accordance
126
with the provisions of Article VI, Section 614 of these
regulations.
Amendment to WC-I district regulations:
550.1 Purpose of the Waterfront Commercial-
Industrial District. Encourage water dependent and
water related industrial and major commercial use
and where appropriate and feasible, public access,
along appropriate portions of the Thames River wa-
terfront consistent with the objectives of the Con-
necticut Coastal Management Act, and the New
London Municipal Coastal Program and Plan of Con-
servation and Development (see Purposes of Section
540).
540.1 Purpose of District. The purpose of the
Waterfront Development District is to encourage
a mixture of land uses, with emphasis on water-
front access and water dependent and related
uses. The City of New London contains a number
of valuable waterfront areas along the Thames
River, which have potential for waterfront devel-
opment of different types. In accordance with the
City’s planning objectives outlined in the Coastal
Area Management Plan (CAM) and in the Plan of
Development, portions of the waterfront are to be
devoted to non-industrial uses and other portions
to industrial and port uses. The Waterfront De-
velopment District is designed to achieve the most
appropriate use of land and structures in the pre-
dominantly marine business non-industrial por-
tions of these waterfront areas and consistent
with the design guidelines included here and in
the Municipal Coastal Program adopted by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
127
New residential development contributing to the crea-
tion of an active water-related mixed-use district shall
be encouraged, as envisioned in the Waterfront Urban
Village concept that is to guide the overall develop-
ment of the Fort Trumbull MDP area.
550.2 Permitted uses. The following water depend-
ent and water related uses are permitted by right:
1) Public and private parks and playgrounds.
2) Yacht clubs and marinas, including uses acces-
sory to them such as swimming pools, tennis
courts, racquetball facilities.
3) Boat docks, slips, piers and wharves for fishing,
yachts and pleasure boats or for ~ for hire
carrying passengers on excursions, pleasure, or
fishing trips or for vessels engaged in fishery or
shell fishery.
4) Boat and marine engine sales and display.
5) Yacht broker, marine insurance broker.
6) Rental of boats.
7) Retail sale or rental of boating, fishing, diving,
bathing supplies and rental.
8) Base operations for fishing and lobstering busi-
ness and the commercial bulk processing of fish
and shellfish including as accessory use of such
business a store or market for the sale of fish,
shellfish, and other related food products.
9) Ferry boat piers and terminals.
10) Water related museums and/or educational facili-
ties. (Amended 10/20/94)
550.3 Uses Permitted subject to the issuance of a
Special Permit by the Planning and Zoning, Commis-
sion in accordance with the provisions of Article VIII,
128
Section 810 of these regulations. These specially per-
mitted uses are intended to be allowed in conjunction
with the permitted uses cited under Section 550.2 to
the greatest extent feasible.
1) Restaurants.
2) Business and professional offices. -
3) Hotels, motels and conference facilities.
4) Retail Stores.
5) Amusement Centers.
6) Commercial recreation, such as, but not limited
to, tennis clubs, skating rinks, billiard parlors,
miniature golf courses, bowling alleys, health
clubs and uses normally accessory thereto (lock-
ers, restaurants, retail sale of goods associated
with the particular activity).
7) Buildings with mixed uses subject to the follow-
ing requirements:
(a) All lot and bulk requirements for each use
are satisfied, unless otherwise modified by
the Commission as permitted herein.
(09/01/98)
8) Port facilities for bulk shipping and storage fa-
cilities, indoor and outdoor.
9) Manufacturing, fabrication, processing and as-
sembly of goods and products.
10) Railroad yards, storage, service and repair.
11) A yard of building, storing, repairing, selling or
servicing boats which may include the following
as an accessory use: office for the sale of marine
equipment or products, dockside facilities for
dispensing fuel, restroom and laundry facilities
to serve overnight patrons. Adequate lanes must
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
129
be provided to allow access and egress through-
out the yard for fire trucks.
Parking facilities and structures. (Amended
6/4/85) (09/01/98)
Museums and/or educational facilities.
Drinking Establishments/Cafes. (Amended 8/07/97)
Laboratories as defined in Section 210 of this or-
dinance, including but not limited to pharmaceu-
tical research and development facilities, and as
part of an overall development plan, accessory
uses such as employee fitness centers, cafeterias,
helipads and other permitted accessory uses.
(09/01/98)
Multi family and single family attached
residential uses up to a maximum density as
provided for below.
550.4 Accessory Uses
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Off-street parking and loading.
Signs subject to the requirements of Article VI,
Section 615
Enclosed storage.
Suitably screened dumpster(s).
Suitably screened public utility installations.
Accessory uses customary or incidental to a per-
mitted use.
Uses which provide general public access to the
waterfront. Access may be provided by any ap-
proved means including, but not limited to,
easements, boardwalks, decks or other similar
means. Such public access shall be identified on
the site plan and shall be provided in the form of
130
a permanent easement acceptable to the City’s
Director of Law. Easements along the shoreline
shall be at least 15 feet wide from the nearest
public street to the water and at least 12 feet
wide along the identified portion of the site
shoreline. (Amended to 09/01/98)
8) Child daycare center, subject to the requirements
of Section 420.3.6 herein. (09/01/98)
550.5 Lot and Bulk Requirements.
L) Minimum lot area - For single-family attached
residential, 2,500 square feet; for multi-family
131
residential 1,000 square feet for each dwelling
unit or rooming unit 10,000 square feet for all
other uses.
2) Minimum lot width - 25 feet for single-family at-
tached residential. 100 feet for all other uses.
3) Minimum lot frontage - 25 feet for single-family
attached residential. 75 feet for all other uses.
Where the Commission deems it desirable and
feasible, it may approve a site plan for a use
which does not have frontage on a public street,
provided that the lot meets all other requirements
and access is assured by covenants or other in-
strument acceptable to the Planning and Zoning
4) Minimum setbacks. Front Yard - 10 feet, except in
no case shall new construction at the foundation
line be less than 20 feet from the Thames River at
mean high water level elevation.
5) Maximum lot coverage of principal and accessory
buildings - 80 percent, except new residential de-
velopment which may occupy 50 percent of the
site.
6) Maximum building height - 55 feet, except (1) the
maximum height may be increased by special
permit, provided that parking is created under,
within, or on top of the structure, or the commis-
sion finds that the parking requirements are sub-
stantially exceeded in some other manner of off-
street parking, or except (2) as provided in Article
V, Section 550.8. 1.
550.6 Off-Street Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading spaces shall be pro-
vided for each lot within this district in accordance
132
with the provisions of Article VI, Section 614 of these
regulations, unless otherwise approved by the Com-
mission pursuant to Section 550.8 herein. (09/01/98)
550.7 Design Review Guidelines
The following design guidelines shall apply to all de-
velopment within the WC-I district.
1)
2)
Related Objectives and Requirements. In review-
ing a proposed development within the WC-I
zone, the Commission shall consider the follow-
ing:
1. Site Plan objectives in Section 800B;
2. Coastal Site Plan requirements in Section
840F;
3. Municipal Coastal Program goals and objec-
tives;
4. if applicable, Special Permit objectives in
Section 810B (09/01/98).
Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA)
Development shall be consistent with the appli-
cable resources and use policies, and related
goals and objectives of the CCMA. In reviewing a
development proposal, in addition to other re-
quirements of this Section, the Commission shall
consider the following:
1. The quality and extent of views from the ad-
jacent public streets through the property to
the water.
2. The design and relationship of development
to the waterfront as viewed from the water.
3. The design and function of any easements
or other access provided to and along the
3)
4)
1)
133
shoreline, including new bulkheading or
docking facilities.
4. The environmental impact on the ecosystem
and the habitat of Long Island Sound.
5. The eligibility of proposed development to
utilize any of the development incentives set
forth in Section 550.8 below. (Amended
10/20/94) (09/01/98)
High ity Urban Design Features Develop-
po ety op Aen to provide high quality design
features, consistent with the development’s pur-
pose and setting. Landscape, site and building
lighting, surface treatments, pedestrian features,
walkways, signs and other similar features
should all be of the highest quality of materials,
installed in accordance with applicable standards
and procedures and properly maintained or re-
placed in kind as necessary. (09/01/98)
Water Quality and Resource Protection All devel-
opment shall strive to protect and enhance sensi-
tive natural features = =, Applicants
shall integrate natural features resources
into the development plan where — and
ppropriate, and may employ a variety of meas-
Gres to achieve this objective, including but not
groundwater, best management practices im-
prove the quality of storm water discharge to
Long Island Sound and tidal wetlands; and res-
toration of degraded wildlife habitats. (09/01/98)
550.8 Permitted Modifications to Bulk and Other Re-
quirements
General In order to achieve the goals and objec-
tives of the Municipal Coastal Program, Plan of
2)
134
Conservation and Development and WC-I Zone,
the Commission may provide a greater degree of
flexibility in project design through approval of
modifications of the zoning requirements de-
scribed herein. In approving such modifications,
the Commission shall consider the requirements
of Section 550.7, as well as the review criteria
described below. Approval of modifications is
strictly limited to the requirements and provi-
sions of this section, and shall be accomplished
through approval of a special permit by the
Commission. (09/01/98)
Permissible Modifications and Applicable Review
Criteria The Commission may modify the follow-
ing in approving a development within the WC-I
zone, subject to the criteria for evaluating each
proposed modifications. These criteria are in ad-
dition to those provided for in Section 840
Coastal Site Plans, Section 800 Site Plans and
Section 810 Special Permits. The approval of any
modifications shall also be consistent with any
and all requirements of Section 800, 810 and 840
as applicable. (09/01/98)
A. Permissible Modifications in all WC-I De-
velopments
(1) Minimum Lot Frontage (ref Section
550.5.3) Where the Commission deems
it desirable and feasible, it may approve
a site plan for a use which does not
have frontage on a public street, pro-
vided that the lot meets all other re-
quirements and access is assured by
covenants or other instrument accept-
able to the Planning & Zoning Commis-
sion. (09/01/98)
135
(2) Minimum Side Yard Setback (ref Sec-
tion 550.5-4) The Commission may
permit a reduction in the side yard to
“0” if in its judgment such a reduction
will help to achieve the purposes of the
district. If a sideyard is provided how-
ever, it must be at least 10 feet.
(09/01/98)
(3) Maximum Building Height (ref. Section
550.5.6) The maximum height may be
increased, provided that parking is cre-
ated under, within, or on top of the
structure, or the Commission finds that
parking requirements are substantially
exceeded in some other manner of off-
street parking. (Amended 12/5/88.)
(Amended 10/20/94.) (09/01/98)
Permissible Height Modifications for Devel-
opment on Lots Under 15 Acres (ref Section
550.5.6) The Planning & Zoning Commission
has determined that the loss of public views
of the Thames River and Long Island Sound
contribute: significantly to the destruction of
the character of the City as a waterfront
community. As a means to protect and en-
hance the existing and potential, views of
the water, the City has created the following
incentives to encourage development that
works to achieve this policy. In reviewing
the special permit applications under this
section, the Commission shall take! into
consideration the impact of the proposed ac-
tivity on visual access to the water. This
consideration shall be made with the objec-
tive that waterfront property shall be devel-
oped in a manner to maximize visual access
136
to and from the water. (Amended 10/24/94.)
(09/01/98)
(1) For every reduction of 5 percent in lot
coverage below the maximum 50 per-
cent, an additional 10 feet of building;
height may be permitted up to a maxi-
mum of 90 feet; or (09/01/98)
(2) Maximum building height may be in-
creased by 10 feet for every 10 feet the
building as set back from one of the! re-
quired setback lines, up to a maximum
of 90 feet of building height (09/01/98)
Additional Permissible Modifications for
Development on Lots of 15 Acres or More.
The Commission recognizes the need to pro-
vide design and procedural flexibility for
complex, large scale developments which
may include a mix of uses, or which may be
developed in phases over a period of years.
Therefore, developments on lots of 15 acres
or more may apply for, and the Commission
may approve, modifications to the following
provisions:
(1) Lot Coverage (ref. Section 550.5.5) The
Commission may increase maximum lot
coverage from 50% to no more than 65%
if the additional coverage is devoted ex-
clusively to one or more parking struc-
tures_(09/01/98)
(2) Maximum Building Height (ref. Sec-
tion 550.5.6) The Planning & Zoning
Commission has determined that the
loss of public views of the Thames
River and Long Island Sound contrib-
ute significantly to the destruction of
137
the character of the City as a water-
front community. As a means to protect
and enhance the existing and potential
views of the water, the City has created
the following incentives to encourage
development that works to achieve this
policy. In reviewing the special permit
applications under this section, the
Commission shall take into considera-
tion the impact of the proposed activity
on visual access to the water. This con-
sideration shall be made with the objec-
tive that waterfront property shall be
developed in a manner to maximize
visual access to and from the water.
(Amended 10/20/94.) (09/01/98)
a. The Commission may increase
building height to a maximum of
no more than 150 feet if it finds
that such height is appropriate af-
ter considering the following:
(09/01/98)
1. Physical constraints of the
site, including soils, topogra-
phy, parcel size and shape,
neighboring buildings and
land uses and other limita-
tions; and (09/01/98)
design, grading, landscaping
and similar features. (09/01/98)
(3) Multiple Principal Buildings On One
Lot (ref Section 605H) The Commission
may modify the requirements of Section
(4)
(5)
138
605H in order to permit a unified ar-
rangement of buildings on one parcel.
In reviewing requests for modifications
of these provisions, the Commission
shall consider provisions for internal
vehicular and pedestrian circulation,
building designs, heights and separa-
tion distances, site and building cwner-
ship and control, parking location and
design, emergency access and the loca-
tion and nature of abutting uses.
(09/01/98)
L
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.