Joint Appendix Vol II — Kelo v. New London
Supreme Court brief2005
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
te
' —
} Supreme Court ES
| rrieD
No. 04-108
oo 2004
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
SUSETTE KELO, THELMA BRELESKY, PASQUALE
CRISTOFARO, WILHELMINA AND CHARLES DERY, JAMES
AND LAURA GURETSKY, PATAYA CONSTRUCTION
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and WILLIAM VON WINKLE,
Vv
Petitioners,
CITY OF NEW LONDON, and NEW
LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
@®
Respondents.
-
On Writ Of Certiorari To The
Supreme Court Of Connecticut
,
JOINT APPENDIX
Volume II, Pages 213 to 487
Horton, SHIELDS & KNox, P-C.
WesLey W. Horton*
DANIEL J. KRISCH
90 Gillett Street
Hartford, CT 06105
(860) 522-8338
(860) 728-0401 (fax)
WALLER, SMITH & PALMER, PC.
EDWARD B. O'CONNELL
52 Eugene O'Neill Drive
New London, CT 06320
(860) 442-0367
(860) 447-9915 | ax)
Conway & LONDREGAN
THOMAS J. LONDREGAN
JEFFREY T. LONDREGAN
38 Huntington Street
New London, CT 06320
(860) 447-3171
(860) 444-6103 (fax)
Counsel for Respondents
*Counsel of Record
4
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
WILLIAM H. MELLOR
Scott G. BULLOCK*
DANA BERLINER
1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 955-1300
(202) 955-1329 (fax)
SAWYER Law Firm, LLC
Scott W. SAWYER
The Jill S. Sawyer Building
251 Williams Street
New London, CT 06320
(860) 442-8131
(860) 442-4131 (fax)
Counsel for Petitioners
Petition For Certiorari Filed July 19, 2004
Certiorari Granted September 28, 2004
COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO (800) 225-6964
OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
JOINT APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume I
Relevant Docket Entries from the Courts below...........
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 —
- New London, Connecticut .................c.ccccccceeeceeeeeeeeeees
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit VV — Fort Trumbull MDP Com-
posite Land Use Plan Map 3.................cccccccssseeeeeeeeeees
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit YY - Fort Trumbull Develop-
ment Site Plan dated October 10, 2000 .....................
OTHER EXHIBITS
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B —- Representative Statement of
I ccscrcsneccenssstestesneennrnganmnnninaanne
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit I - New London Development
Corporation (NLDC) Board’s Record of Vote and
Resolution dated October 16, 2000 ..................ccccc0e00s
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit II — Letter to George Milne from
Claire Gaudiani dated December 15, 1997................
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit PP1 —- Email to George Milne
from James Serbia dated October 21, 1998................
Plaintiffs’ Exhibit PP2 -— Letter to Dr. Claire
Gaudiani from George Milne, Jr. dated March 8,
BIRD -ccceccecccosccneceesccsvvssssnnaneeseqnounenenssosssnsnnssonesssooonenente
ii
JOINT APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
Defendant NLDC’s Exhibit 12 - New London City
Counsel Resolution of January 18, 2000, author-
izing the use of eminent domain.........................00000008 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
ne 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
rt cesiesihiceienteininibebterentaciitigisidadbehiapaamiendenmemmanteteresseqseees 83
* Section 3: Existing Site Conditions (pgs. 3-19
iia cecrierimastasrcemmnnennnniemmtnccee 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
I sindacetnieiasiaestneatienehidaibienbiaiemimmenaadepesnecescnanesoteeuenes 190
¢ Proposed Land Uses Map 5.1................c:ccccseeeeeeees 212
Volumes II and III
Defendant NLDC’s Exhibit 34 - Draft Environ-
mental Impact Evaluation — dated November 10,
aaa eeuidesideethchannuieiaastnidgueidesstidpiasedntatemitmuentgnesendeousversnetes 213
iii
JOINT APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page
The following documents have been omitted in 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 ............ccccccccceeeceeeeeeeeeeees App. 191
Opinion of the Connecticut ago Court, De-
Cided March 9, 2004.........::::ccccccsesrsececssscsssrerssesesesers App. 1
Order of Connecticut Supreme Court Granting
Motion for Stay of Execution Pending Decision by
the United States Supreme Court, Decided April
i Wai ccessnsncescccsscsscesscssscsccsscscossscesssssnessecscoseseees App. 425
Order of the Connecticut Supreme Court Denying
Motion for Reconsideration, Decided April 20,
213
DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT 34
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION
FORT TRUMBULL
MDP AREA
New London, Connecticut
November 10, 1998
(Map Omitted In Printing)
Sponsoring Agency:
State of Connecticut
Department of Economic and Community
Development
Implementing Agency:
New London Development Corporation
New London, Connecticut
Primary Author:
Milone & MacBroom, Inc.
716 South Main Street
Cheshire, Connecticut 06410
Contributors:
The Downes Group — Program Management
Marguerite Wilbur - Program Management
Wallace Roberts and Todd — Land Use Planning
RKG Associates, Inc. - Economic Analysis/
Building Inventory
Bartram and Cochran MBIA — Economic Analysis
Harrall-Michalowski Associates, Inc. -
HRP Associates, Inc. - Hazardous Waste and
Contamination Assessment
Diversified Technology Consultants, Inc. -
214
NOTE TO REVIEWERS
November 10, 1998
Notice is hereby given by the State of Connecticut De-
partment of Economic and Community Development that,
pursuant to Section 22a-1(d) of the Connecticut Environ-
mental Policy Act, a Copy of the Draft Environmental
Impact Evaluation (DEIE) document for the Fort Trumbull
Municipal Development Plan (MDP) Area, New London,
Connecticut is available for review at the office of the New
London Development Corporation, 165 State Street, Suite
313, New London, Connecticut. Copies of the DEIE are
also available at the following locations:
New London City Clerk's Office
New London Public Library
New London Office of Development & Planning
New London Senior Center
Connecticut Department of Economic
and Community Development
This project will involve preparation and implementation
of a Municipal Development Plan under Section 130, 132,
and/or 588(1) of the Connecticut General Statutes. The
project area is located along the west bank of the Thames
River to the north of Greens Harbor and includes the U'S.
Navy's closed Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC),
the regional Water Pollution Control Facility, and the
adjacent Fort Trumbull area to the east of the Amtrak rail
line, and portions of Howard Street, Hamilton Street,
Shaw Street, and Harris Street to the west of the rail line.
The comment period for the DEIE will conclude on De-
cember 28, 1998. Written comments should be submitted
to:
215
Attention: Peter Simmons, PE.
Community Development Specialist
Connecticut Department of Economic
and Community Development
505 Hudson Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
The Draft EIE has been distributed to the following
agencies and organizations:
Federal Organizations/Individuals Number
of Copies
U.S. Navy 2
U.S. Coast Guard Academy ? 1
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1
State Organizations/Individuals == # Number
Department of Economic and Community
Council of Environmental Quality
Office of Policy and Management
Local Organizations/Individuals of Copies
New London City Clerk 1
New London Public Library 1
New London Senior Center 1
New London City Councilors 7
New London City Manager 1
New London Director Office of Development
and Planning 1
1
216
New London Fire Chief 1
New London Planning and Zoning Commission 10
New London Development Corporation 6°
NLDC Board of Directors |
Private Organizations/Individuals
Pfizer, Inc.
Downes Group
Wallace Roberts & Todd
Harrall-Michalowski & Associates
RKG Associates, Inc.
Diversified Technologies Consultants
HRP Associates, Inc.
Hirsch! & Silvestri
NLDC Corporate Council
EDAW Architects
Blu-Prints Unlimited
Copycats
eee eee te ee oO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
Ba ee erccececersensencsnnscnntecsneceseeteniiemnness
1.1.1 Project Background ....................0.0006
RE
1.1.3 Project Chronology ...................ccccccc000
RI FR cennccanntercssnenesetseteemnn
1.2.1 Overview of Regulation. ...................0
1.2.2 Determination of Environmental
LS — Prehecnt Cee oo eaccccscesccccsesccssnvesesoscnsssorssvssvososensees
of Copies
1.4
1.5
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.4
217
PpeeeOE AAAS RD wccrccccccccccccecescscccvsvesccescnssesosensessese 1-13
Relationship to Other Projects and Planning
BPRS cccccascensescevecesevvssessesesevenscevssnscsussccccsseeee 1-14
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
EE) guumureempssessecssees 2-1
2.1.1 Statewide Land Use Conservation
and Development.................::0c0cceeeeeeeees 2-1
2.1.2 Regional Land Use ...............cccccccceeeeeeees 2-6
2.1.3 Land Uses in the Project Vicinity ........... 2-7
2.1.4 Land Uses Within the MDP Boundary ...... 2-7
2.1.5 History of Development.......................: 2-10
SE ee 2-11
2.1.7 Coastal Zone Management.................... 2-14
chee RNG .ccccccccscccssccccccccccccvcccccsscvscevecsnensesees 2-18
2.2.1 Demographics .................ccccccccceeeeereeees 2-18
BBB BRAT crcecccccccccccscccscrcccsecccssecccseecee 2-21
2.23 Existing Tax Revenues.....................0+ 2-24
Neighborhood/Housing ..................0:c0seeeeseeeeeeeees 2-25
2.3.1 Citywide Housing................ccccccsseeees 2-25
2.3.2 Residential Analysis...................:000000 2-28
2.3.3 Building Inventory of the MDP Area ....... 2-33
2.3.4 Relocation Plan and Process ................. 2-36
2.3.5 Residential Households, Businesses,
and Non-Profit Agencies....................+++ 2-37
2.3.6 Anticipated Relocation Expenses.......... 2-39
Community Facilities and Services..................... 2-41
A cei 2-41
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
218
ee — ircctctetesimnne 2-42
2.4.3. Public Safety and Emergency Services....... 2-43
2.4.4 Parks and Recreation. .....................000 2-44
Aesthetic/Visual Resources.....................ccccc00e0e 2-46
2.5.1 Regional Landscape......................:0008 2-46
2.5.2 MDP Area Landscape....................:.00 2-47
Public Utilities and Services ......................cc00008 2-48
SD PR cccnteceenteretecesnnenes 2-48
ee ccccnneescetesscnentsceninennsens 2-54
SE «—- cenecceeteiiins 2-57
2.6.4 THloctrio nergy ...........00ccccccscsccccccsscceseees 2-57
BI - iicntecintcensicsntdsnenncsiiensersenennnnivennicteniés 2-58
NN 2-58
i iecmnnenstesicrcennesencsnscctenienseinseiepaiiens 2-58
IE nicctrenicisttntcietemnnininns 2-59
2.7.1 Statewide Cultural Resources Policies ......2-59
2.7.2 Cultural Resources at the NUWC Site...... 2-59
2.7.3 Cultural Resources in the MDP Area........ 2-64
I so nincniseniimemssttscnniommaien 2-73
2.8.1 Roadway Network ...............ccccccccceeeee 2-73
2.8.2 Existing Traffic Conditions ................... 2-75
2.8.3 Public Transportation ....................... 2-75
2.8.4 Existing Parking...........................:0000+ 2-75
Se trrrnseecctnteninn 2-76
2.8.6 Amtrak Operations..................ccccccceee 2-77
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
ee I ccenccttncnnninnnemnensnmemaniteinenn 2-78
2.9.1 Surface Water Resources.................... 2-78
A ESE 2-79
Ce 2-79
Flood Hazard Potential ...................:cccccccceeeeeeeeees 2-82
SS Ee 2-82
2.10.2 Astronomical Tide Levels....................... 2-82
2.10.3 Tidal Flood Levels ..................cccccseeeeeees 2-83
2.10.4 FEMA Regulatory Program .................. 2-84
2.10.5 Conservation and Development Poli-
cies Plan for Connecticut...................... 2-86
2.10.6 State and Federal Regulations and
eee 2-87
Biological Environment ...................cccccsceeeeeeeeees 2-89
2.11.1 Coastal Management Policies ............... 2-89
ET 2-89
2.11.3 Living Marine Resources....................... 2-91
BR Te cecnntecmnesnnscecsscncsnsersotessnccsnnensees 2-93
B.20.G Tebemd Weekes .n....ccccicccccccccceccececsecccses 2-93
SF Bi Eran 2-94
Tei ctcenncteectinrernterennconennmncditsiléanins 2-94
2.11.8 Species of Special Concern .................... 2-96
Physical Environment ...................:.::cccssseeeesseeees 2-97
TR ccrnccccsnsnsssenescscenssesssnessnemessnes 2-97
RE i iceesrtenstinnteiineennen 2-97
2.12.3 Surficial Geology...................cccccsccceeeseeees 2-97
2.12.4 Bedrock Geology .................cccccccseeeeeees 2-101
2.13
2.14
3.0
3.1
3.2
220
Ba ccrvtcnseemnivnerrnnisitintateinnaniiinenes 2-102
2.13.1 Federal Air Quality Regulations and
I cosscccncteneniasaninsnnedeiiaanbiataisantanean 2-102
2.13.2 Statewide Air Quality Policies and
ee cccccssnsennscisnnnateninnianmnanassess 2-103
2.13.3 Site Specific Air Quality Analysis....... 2-107
BD ccscccsinesseanmnensienmeertitananiiagnmeieennnin 2-108
2.14.1 Local Noise Policies and Regulations ...... 2-108
2.14.2 Noise Measurements in the Project
CE cccicunensnnnnienvtsigitamesionasnmisseniamnede 2-109
Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials.............. 2-112
2 eee 2-112
2.15.2 Hazardous Materials........................... 2-113
2.15.3 Applicable Environmental Regulations.... 2-113
2.15.4 Potential Environmental Contami-
nation in the Project Area ................... 2-118
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
ID cccresceremnsssittiscnnioticinnipemnestninnneass 3-1
Land Use Concept Alternatives..................cc000000+: 3-3
3:2.1 Overview of Alternatives and Fixed
Een 3-3
3.2.2 Programs Elements Common to Al-
ternatives 2 Through 6....................0000+ 3-12
3.2.3. Roadway Improvement Alternatives ....3-14
3.2.4 Alternative No. 1 — No Action................ 3-24
3.2.5 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/
eR icsscecenterctectennemamnnneneenn 3-25
3.2.6 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/
4.0
4.1
42
~~ 4.3
221
3.2.7 Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus...... 3-29
3.2.8 Alternative No. 5 — Mixed Use 1.............. 3-30
3.2.9 Alternative No. 6 — Mixed Use 2.............. 3-31
IMPACT EVALUATION
CE er ID ccccnecscrssennccnnnticcnmnasenseanceenssses 4-1
Land Use and Zoning Impacts ..........................+. 4-10
42.1 Consistency With Relevant Policies
ee 4-10
4.2.2 Alternative No. 1 — No Action............... 4-13
4.23 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/
I ccsnnsissccstusisintanasenceitiitaninintdalieatannent 4-14
4.2.4 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/
I icnainsescisiinapeicietianicciiimienainndel 4-14
4.2.5 Alternative No. 4— Business Campus...... 4-14
4.2.6 Alternative No. 5- Mixed Use 1............. 4-15
4.2.7 Alternative No. 6 —- Mixed Use 2............. 4-15
Socioeconomic Impacts ..................:cccccssssseseesseeees 4-16
GE a rercrrersettensteceen 4-16
4.3.2 Alternative No. 1 —- No Action............... 4-18
4.3.3 Alternative No. 2 -— Recreation/
i iscccccsetntcunicinivanintiemnietinnndbiiuasiies 4-19
4.3.4 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/
Eee 4-22
4.3.5 Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus...... 4-24
4.3.6 Alternative No. 5 — Mixed Use 1............. 4-26
4.3.7 Alternative No. 6 — Mixed Use 2 ............ 4-29
4.3.8 — GUREREEY ...-2220-00ecrcrescececerecenececrevesesocecees 4-32
4.4
4.5
4.6
222
Neighborhood/Housing Impacts ....................00++ 4-35
4.4.1 Atternative No. 1 — No Action............... 4-35
442 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/
SD ccccccrnvntscnmnnsecevsenesictssaiiaaibcamnianti 4-35
443 Alternative No. 3 —- Residential/
SI cccccrcncscsccscunencitamapviansensinnes 4-36
4.4.4 Alternative No. 4 -— Business Campus...... 4-39
4.4.5 Alternative No. 5- Mixed Use 1............. 4-39
4.46 Alternative No. 6 - Mixed Use 2............. 4-41
Community Facilities and Services Impacts....... 4-43
4.5.1 Common Elements .................:::ccccccceee 4-43
4.5.2 Alternative No. 1 — No Action............... 4-44
45.3 Alternative No. 2 —- Recreation/
I ccnastigsenntiictormbesesnnennidebmudiones 4-44
4.5.4 Alternative No. 3 —- Residential/
Ee 4-44
4.5.5 Alternative No. 4 —- Business Campus...... 4-46
4.5.6 Alternative No. 5- Mixed Use 1............. 4-46
4.5.7 Alternative No. 6 —- Mixed Use 2............. 4-47
Aesthetic/Visual Resource Impacts..................... 4-48
4.6.1 Alternative No. 1 —No Action................ 4-48
46.2 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/
I scscseneesenscsnasssersvinssssnsnnttinnnenmees 4-48
46.3 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/
I rccnenesrenssenenrsntananntsitiiiniae 4-49
4.6.4 Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus...... 4-49
4.6.5 Alternative No. 5-— Mixed Use 1............. 4-49
4.6.6 Alternative No. 6 — Mixed Use 2.............. 4-50
4.7
4.8
4.9
223
Public Utilities and Services Impacts................. 4-51
4.7.1 Common Elements ..................:c:ceceee 4-51
4.7.2 Alternative No. 1 — No Action............... 4-54
4.73 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/
fy IE an cesssssssemeesennitisidmmiaminen 4-56
4.7.4 — Alternative No. 3 — Residential/
ee 4-58
4.7.5 Alternative No. 4 —- Business Campus...... 4-59
4.7.6 Alternative No. 5- Mixed Use 1............. 4-61
4.7.7 Alternative No.6 — Mixed Use 2.............. 4-62
Cultural Resources Impacts ..................000++ coves 4-64
4.8.1 Alternative No. 1 — No Action............... 4-64
4.8.2 Alternative No. 2 —- Recreation/
ED ccnvctncrnsvsnstnnnenceiieieiinsi 4-65
48.3 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/
I cccccnnesicannssiitemninmamnsins 4-65
4.8.4 Alternative No. 4 —- Business Campus...... 4-65
4.8.5 ~ Alternative No. 5-— Mixed Use 1............. 4-65
4.8.6 Altemative No. 6- Mixed Use 2 ............. 4-66
Traffic and Parking Impacts...................c00.c000000 4-67
49.1 Traffic Generation ..................ccccccceeeees 4-67
4.9.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis ............. 4-71
49.3 Evaluation Methodology........................ 4-72
Water Resource Impacts.................ccccccsseeeeeeeeeees 4-77
Flood Hazard Impacts ....................ccccceeeeeeeeeeeenes 4-78
4.11.1 Common Elements ...................cccccceeeeees 4-78
4.11.2 Alternative No. 1 — No Action............... 4-79
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
224
4.11.3 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/
i ssticatid shesinaihicinmenneetenstanesastmene 4-79
4.11.4 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/
| ee 4-79
4.11.5 Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus...... 4-80
4.11.6 Alternative No. 5- Mixed Use 1............. 4-80
4.11.7 Alternative No. 6— Mixed Use 2............. 4-81
| MI i scscniiesicstuninitagsnesenenesesnecnennescece 4-81
Biological Environment Impacts.......................... 4-83
4.12.1 Alternative No. 1 - No Action............... 4-83
4.12.2 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/
TTT isis siicniddsieininatnatneddpsdedunsecconsseennss 4-85
4.12.3 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/
RT i sinnnnicenteisnshcnnecieesnaniicsssenece 4-87
4.12.4 Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus...... 4-88
4.12.5 Alternative No. 5— Mixed Use 1............. 4-88
4.12.6 Alternative No. 6— Mixed Use 2............. 4-89
Physical Environment Impacts....................000+ 4-90
Air Quality Impacts...................:cssccsssseecessseeceeeee 4-91
4.14.1 Short-Term Air Quality Impacts........... 4-91
4.14.2 Long-Term Air Quality Impacts............. 4-92
EEE ee 4-93
4.15.1 Short-Term Impacts ..................00c00000000 4-93
4.15.2 Long-Term Impacts ................:0cccccceeeeee 4-93
Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials Impacts....... 4-95
4.16.1 Alternative No. 1 — No Action ............... 4-96
4.16.2 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/
EE SN a 4-96
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
225
4.16.3
4.16.4
4.16.5 Alternative No. 5- Mixed Use 1...........
4.16.6 Alternative No. 6 —- Mixed Use 2...........
Crrmmullative Empact,s ...........000ccssecesccsssssscssssssseess
Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts.......
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment
tee
Certificates, Permits, Approvals .......................
4.20.1 Pertinent Regulations and Statutes ......
4.20.2 Tidal Wetlands and Structures,
4.20.3
4.20.4
4.20.5
4.20.6
Army Corps of Engineers Permits ......
401 Water Quality Certificate.............
Flood Management Compliance Cer-
Ee
4.20.7
a
4.20.8
4.20.9
4.20.10 Local Inland Wetland Permits ............
4.20.11 Coastal Consistency Site Plan Re-
Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus....
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
—
226
MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES
Land Use Mitigation Opportunities....................
Socioeconomic Mitigation Opportunities ............
Neighborhood/Housing Mitigation Opportu-
CED ccessccnetsatnatieninbiatetnientiannmasitetansetantmantiiiatbininn
a ID cccccenessrernsmeenseensinrsenenseneen
i rcrccniioncescescsnnenareasinimeciasns
Flood Hazard Mitigation Opportunities .............
Biological Environment Mitigation Opportu-
ED ccnszsenesnnsesnsevesnmemenesemsesetenemsnsniennemness
Physical Environment Mitigation Opportuni-
eR censsennsensersnensnenribesntennesemannanseninaenniasi
Air Quality Mitigation Opportunities .................
5.14.1 Short-Term Impact Mitigation
SE eee
5.14.2
227
5.15 Noise Mitigation Opportunities........................... 5-13
5.15.1 Short-Term Impact Mitigation
0 5-13
5.15.2 Long-Term Impact Mitigation Meas-
— 5-13
5.16 Solid Waste/Hazardous Materials Mitigation
Gupte D....0caccececscescscesscecesseesssnesenessssssssosanense 5-13
5.16.1 Investigation/Remediation Factors....... 5-13
5.16.2 Future Land Use Factors ...................... 5-14
6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Oe 6-1
6.2 Consultation and Coordination with Agen-
cies/Organizations .............. pobpuniannennnpsscsisammmmnmanel 6-1
| 6-2
OF ee 6-3
7.0 DOCUMENT PREPARERG..................:ccccccccsseeres 7-1
CG ccccnsceensenmemsiecsmemeen 8-1
TABLES
Table ES-1 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts...... ES-6
Table 2.2-1 New London Historic Population
(1900-1990) ntinapepesindmesnnmnnenteammmeteitet 2-19
Table 2.2-2 1998 Estimated New London Popula-
tion — Claritas. Inc... semmmemppusnannevanteqemuenn 2-19
Table 2.2-3 Demographic and Socioeconomic
Characteristics; City of New London
and Fort Trumbull Study Aree ............... 2-21
Table 2.2-4
Table 2.2-5
Table 2.2-6
Table 2.3-1
Table 2.3-2
Table 2.3-3
Table 2.3-4
Table 2.3-5
Table 2.3-6
Table 2.3-7
Table 2.3-8
Table 2.3-9
Table 2.4-1
228
Employment Trends by Place of Work
for the City of New London (Resi-
dents and Non-Residents) (1990-
PD cencensnsnnmmnmnennes
Composition of the New London
Housing Stock (1980-1990) ................0...
Age of New London Housing Stock.........
Estimated Increase in Housing Units
for New London and Selected Sur-
rounding Towns — 1980 to 1989..............
Comparative Census Statistics - New
London and Adjacent Communities........
Housing Units by Structure Type...........
Housing Units Authorized (New
Construction) 1990 to 1997.00.00...
Residential Sales Data (1993 to 1997)...
Table 2.6-1
Table 2.6-2
Table 2.6-3
Table 2.6-4
Table 2.6-5
Table 2.6-6
Table 2.6-7
Table 2.8-1
Table 2.10-1
Table 2.10-2
Table 2.10-3
Table 2.13-1
Table 2.13-2
Table 2.14-1
Table 2.14-2
Margin of Safety for Current and
Projected Consumption Based on Ex-
isting Supply Sources.......................0000 2-49
Various Scenarios for Increasing Safe
cecilia eitiien aedaidiaeantitiinlichasil 2-50
Water Service Mains for the Fort
Trumbull MDP Area.................ccccccccceeees 2-52
Hydrant Lecatieas...........20000:csecccsseeseseseess 2-53
Hydrant Flow Testing .....................0006 2-53
Sanitary Sewer Mains for the Fort
Trumbull MDP Area ................cccccccceeeeeees 2-55
Comparison of Traffic Volumes (1984
SESE Sc RAR as a 2-76
Army Corps of Engineers Predicted
Tidal Water Elevations............................ 2-83
Still Water Flood Levels (NGVD)............ 2-83
Explanation of Flood Zone Designa-
Sar icscianl a ennccsastaitaliapnansiatasinnereaneaiemtantainasatis 2-84
Summary of National Ambient Air
Quality Standards ..................ccccccceeeeeee 2-103
Estimated Carbon Monoxide Levels
in the Project Area..................cccceceeeere 2-107
City of New London Noise Restrictions ...... 2-108
Measured Nose Levels in the Project
GRD ccmnnninmnnnnenigetin 2-111
Table 3.2-1
Table 4.1-1
Table 4.1-2
Table 4.1-3
Table 4.1-4
Table 4.1-5
Table 4.1-6
Table 4.1-7
Table 4.3-1
Table 4.3-2
Table 4.3-3
Table 4.3-4
Table 4.3-5
Table 4.3-6
230
Access to Fort Trumbull MDP Area
Comparison of Access Options ................
Advantages and Disadvantages of
Alternative No. 1 — No Action. .................
Advantages and Disadvantages of
Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/Tourism.....
Advantages and Disadvantages of
Alternative No. 3 —- Residential/
Advantages and Disadvantages of
Alternative No. 4 - Business Campus ....
Advantages and Disadvantages of
Alternative No. 5 — Mixed Use 1.............
Advantages and Disadvantages of
Alternative No. 6 — Mixed Use 2.............
Fort Trumbull MDP Area Alterna-
tives Impact Summary ...................00000006
Square Footage Per Employee by
I nccccscepenesescenenscesnrennenntesssenseonnnesets
IIT ccnnccssssssvecnnassnstessscssncsnenenmenernees
Development Program - Alternative
2 — Recreation/Tourism ..................0000008
Estimated Range of Direct Employment
~ Alternative 2 — Recreation/Tourism..........
Estimated Range of Indirect Em-
ployment - Alternative 2 — Recreation/
TEIIITI coscnssnssnecsdseancuniantseusesssecemnanmtapesses
Estimated Construction Costs -
Table 4.3-7
Table 4.3-8
Table 4.3-9
Table 4.3-10
Table 4.3-11
Table 4.3-12
Table 4.3-13
Table 4.3-14
Table 4.3-15
Table 4.3-16
Table 4.3-17
Table 4.3-18
Table 4.3-19
231
Development Program - Alternative
3 — Residential/Commercial .................... :
Estimated Range of Direct Employ-
ment - Alternative 3 — Residential/
Estimated Range of Indirect Employ-
Estimated Construction Costs - Alter-
native 3 — Residential/Commercial.........
Development Program - Alternative
4 — Business Campus ..............:::0:0000000000
Estimated Range of Direct Employ-
ment — Alternative 4 - Business
Estimated Range of Indirect Em-
ployment - Alternative 4 — Business
QRRTIIIUID coccccscccccccccsccecscccsscesessouseeonescsosoress
Estimated Constructién Costs -
Alternative 4 — Business Campus...........
Development Program - Alternative
0)
Estimated Range of Direct Employ-
ment — Alternative 5 — Mixed Use 1 .......
Estimated Range of Indirect Em-
ployment — Alternative 5 — Mixed
TEED Bb ccconscncncssnsnsennesenecsussceesnestesanssenessacneess
Estimated Construction Costs -
Table 4.3-20
Table 4.3-21
Table 4.3-22
Table 4.3-23
Table 4.3-24
Table 4.3-25
Table 4.3-26
Table 4.4-1
Table 4.4-2
Table 4.4-3
Table 4.4-4
Table 4.5-1
Table 4.7-1
Table 4.7-2
232
Estimated Range of Direct Employ-
ment— Alternative 6 — Mixed Use 2........
Estimated Range of Indirect Em-
ployment - Alternative 6 - Mixed
i i cccisinsincinenionsdeinninanneetetimmpstaisdatainiabantasitenes
Estimated Construction Costs -
Alternative 6 — Mixed Use 2 ...................
Range of Employment Estimates by
Land Use Alternative .....................cc0008
Range of Indirect Job Creation by
Land Use Alternative .......................:s:+++
Summary of Construction Impacts by
Land Use Alternative .......................000008
Summary of Tax Revenues Generated
by Land Use Alternative ........................
Estimate of Displacement - Alterna-
tive 2 — Recreation/Tourism ....................
Estimate of Displacement - Alterna-
tive 3 — Residential/Commercial .............
Estimate of Displacement - Alterna-
tive 4 — Business Campus .......................
Estimate of Displacement - Alterna-
tive § — Mimed Use 1 ...............ccscccccesssseees
Demographics Concerning New
London’s School-Aged Population. ...........
Estimated Domestic Water Usage -
Alternative 1 — No Actiwn.........................
Table 4.7-3
Table 4.7-4
Table 4.7-5
Table 4.7-6
Table 4.7-7
Table 4.9-1
Table 4.9-2
Table 4.9-3
Table 4.9-4
Table 4.9-5
Table 4.9-6
Table 4.9-7
233
Estimated Domestic Water Usage -—
Alternative 2 — Recreation/Tourism........ 4-56
Estimated Domestic Water Usage -
Alternative 3 — Residential/Commercial .... 4-58
Estimated Domestic Water Usage -
Alternative 4 —- Business Campus........... 4-60
Estimated Domestic Water Usage -
Alternative S — Mixed Use 1................... 4-62
Estimated Domestic Water Usage -
Alternative 6 — Mixed Use 2 ................... 4-63
Summary of Projected Traffic Counts..... 4-68
Anticipated Site-Generated Traffic -
Alternative 4 —- Business Campus........... 4-69
Anticipated Site-Generated Traffic -
Alternative 6 — Mixed Use 2 ................. 4-70
Levels of Service for Signalized
I cnncnscctinrastnicenenatevinatansinins 4-73
Levels of Service for Unsignalized
I ecicittctntninnnsinteimns 4-73
Anticipated Levels of Service.................. 4-74
Anticipated Critical Volume/Capacity
Beil ccromanunsinsenentnsineniremanmnamemannns 4-75
Figure 1.1-1
Figure 1.1-2
Figure 1.1-3
Figure 1.1-4
Figure 1.1-5
Figure 2.1-1
Figure 2.1-2
Figure 2.1-3
Figure 2.2-1
Figure 2.3-1
Figure 2.7-1
Figure 2.7-2
Figure 2.7-3
Figure 2.7-4
Figure 2.10-1
Figure 2.12-1
Figure 2.12-2 Soil Types
234
FIGURES
Location Map — City of New London...
Project Location Map.......................++
Conservation and Development
Policies Plan Locational Map..............
1990 Census Tracts — New London,
Block and Lot Designations.................
Proposed Historic District at NUWC
| eae
Archaeological Assessment - NUWC....
Prehistoric Archeological Sensitivity ....
Historic Archeological Sensitivity ......
235
Figure 2.14-1 Noise Monitoring Locations .......... — 2-110
Figure 2.15-1 Preliminary Environmental Risk
BI ictuasondnstcedestmnnsnnsenticcsescensiniinisinnds 2-120
Figure 3.2-1 Alternative No. 1 — No Action. ................. 3-6
Figure 3.2-2 Alternative No. 2 —- Recreation/
i cnticnteniinnniansenessinniciiniiiadadinnniineiia 3-7
Figure 3.2-3 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/
i icccnsevicnsersecsinaininitipitaintissienni 3-8
Figure 3.2-4 Alternative No. 4 — Business Cam-
iD icanicttninnseieninnepremannanietinenin 3-9
Figure 3.2-5 Alternative No. 5 —Mixed Use 1............ 3-10
Figure 3.2-6 Alternative No. 6 — Mixed Use 2 .......... 3-11
Figure 3.2-7 Roadway Improvement Option A -
Modify Existing Bridges........................ 3-21
Figure 3.2-8 Roadway Improvement Option B -
New Access Road Over Tracks .............. 3-22
Figure 3.2-9 Roadway Improvement Option C -
Construct New Railroad Under-
I icccscieciercteneienninnieamneneine 3-23
APPENDICES
AppendixA Environmental Assessment
Appendix B Housing Availability
Appendix C Listing of Properties within the MDP Area
Appendix D Traffic Volume Data/Graphics a eae
Appendix E Summary of Findings of Environmental
Property Reviews
Appendix F Relevant Correspondence
236
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Army Corps of Engineers
Bartram and Cochran MBIA
Base Realignment and Closure
Connecticut Coastal Management Act
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
Connecticut Environmental Policy Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act
Connecticut General Statutes
Connecticut Historical Commission
Connecticut Housing Finance Authority
Connecticut Light & Power
Carbon Monoxide
Council of Governments
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
A-Weighted Decibel
Department of Economic and Community
Development
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Transportation
Department of Public Health
Department of Public Utility Control
Decent, Safe, and Sanitary
Diversified Technology Consultants
Environmental! Assessment
Environmental! Impact Evaluation
Environmental Protection Agency
Economics Research Associates
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA _ Federal Highway Administration
gpd gallons per day
HMA Harrall-Michalewski Associates, Inc.
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
ISO Insurance Services Organization
kV kilovolt
KVA kilovolt ampere
L, Day/Night Sound Level
L. Equivalent Sound Level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Reuse Authority
MDP Municipal Development Plan
yg/m’* microgram per cubic meter
MG million gallons
MGD million gallons per day
MMI Milone & MacBroom, Inc.
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NDDB_Natural Diversity Data Base
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NLDC New London Development Corporation
NO, Nitrogen Dioxide
NPDES _ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NUWC Naval Undersea Warfare Center
OLISP Office of Long Island Sound Programs
OPM Office of Policy and Management
Pb Lead
PM Particulate Matter
237
238
Project Oceanology
parts per billion
parts per million
Research and Development
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RKG Associates, Inc.
Remediation Standard Regulations
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Soil Conservation Service
South East Area Transit
Square Feet
State Historic Preservation Officer
Southern New England Telephone
Sulfur Dioxide
State Traffic Commission
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Urban Land Institute
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act
United States ,
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Housing amd
Urban Development
Underground Storage Tank
Water Pollution Control Facility
Wallace Roberts and Todd
Wilbur Smith and Associates
Water and Water Pollution Control Autmority
x-ray fluorescent
239
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Project Background
The New London Development Corporation (NLDC), in
association with the Connecticut Department of Economic
and Community Development (DECD), is undertaking a
planning project adjacent to the Thames River in New
London, Connecticut. Plans for the project area are being
prepared in accordance with a Municipal Development
Planning process under Section 130, 132, and/or 588(1) of
the Connecticut General Statutes. The planning process
may result in a recommendation to undertake redevelop-
ment of all or part of the planning area. Because state
funds are involved, this Environmental Impact Evaluation
(EIE) is being prepared under the Connecticut Environ-
mental Policy Act (CEPA) in conjunction with the Munici-
pal Development Plan (MDP). *
The population in New London has been declining since
1960 and has not been lower since the 1930's. The unem-
ployment rate in New London as of June 1998 was 7.6%,
as compared to the nearby urban mu.icipalities of Nor-
wich at 6.3% and Groton at 4.7%, and statewide unem-
ployment of 4.0%. The end of the “cold war” and reduction
in defense contracts has had a significant local economic
impact.
The project area is located in the southeast part of New
London, encompassing approximately 90 acres of primar-
ily residential and commercial areas. The project area
~~Yneludes the U.S. Navy's closed Naval Undersea Warfare
Center (NUWC) along the Thames River, the regional
Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), and the adjacent
Fort Trumbull area, including all or portions of Howard,
240
Hamilton, Shaw, Harris, Trumbull, Walbach, Nameaug,
Smith, Chelsea, Goshen, and East Streets, and Pequot
Avenue. For discussion purposes, the project area, which
is generally referred to as the Fort Trumbull area, has
been segmented into several smaller areas as shown on
Figure 1.1-4 and on the front cover of this document.
These are referenced as the Gateway Area, Fort Area,
NUWC, and Lower Pequot Avenue Area.
The Fort Trumbull area has been targeted for evaluation
under the municipal development planning process for
numerous reasons. The majority of structures in the area
are in relatively poor condition, exhibit a high amount of
functional obsolescence, and have limited market poten-
tial. Vacancy rates are notably high (82% vacancy of non-
residential buildings and 20% vacancy of residential
units). Tax revenues in the MDP area (+$325,000) are
quite low considering it comprises an area of approxi-
mately 90 acres.
An 800,000 square foot clinical research development
facility proposed by Pfizer, Inc. (to be located immediately
to the south and outside of the MDP area) dnd reuse of a
portion of the NUWC site for development of a state park
creates an opportunity for improvement of the Fort Trum-
bull area consistent with these planned projects. This also
presents opportunities to stimulate the local economy,
improve waterfront access along the Thames River, make
Planning Process
In June of 1998, the Connecticut Department of Economic
and Community Development issued an Environmental
241
Assessment (EA) for the Fort Trumbull] MDP area which
concluded that the project could potentially have a signifi-
cant 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; conges-
tion and traffic safety issues; historic importance and
archaeological significance of the project area; flooding;
and stormwater management. As a result of DECD’s
finding, the subject Environmental Impact Evaluation has
been 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 numer-
ous neighborhood meetings. Input and review comments
public on the Draft EIE. Input has also been solicited from
local, state and federal agencies.
Upon completion of a 45 day public comment period of the
DEIE (to be concluded on December 28, 1998), the Con-
necticut Department of Economic and Community Devel-
opment must forward the following information to the
Office of Policy and Management, for determination of the
adequacy of the evaluation:
(1) all public notice documentation;
(2) a brief summary of the public hearing, if one
is held;
(3) comments received from all interested par-
ties,
(4) the agency decision relative to proceeding
242
(5) a discussion of the intentions for initiation of
This constitutes the Record of Decision.
The CEPA process concludes with the review of the EIE
and Record of Decision by OPM and their determination of
whether or not regulatory requirements have been satis-
fied. The final EIE is the basis for the implementation of
the project. A municipal Development Plan is then created
consistent with the findings of the CEPA process. A
mandatory public hearing is held upon completion of the
MDP. Procedures 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 objectives of
the state. Upon obtaining such a finding, the plan would
then be legally adopted by the city and approved by
DECD.
Project Goals
The project goals for the Fort Trumbull area have been
defined as follows:
1. To create a world-class development that ~——
will complement the undertakings of Pfizer,
Inc. and set a standard for development in
New London.
2. To create an economic asset for the City of
New London that will create jobs, generate
tax revenue, and result in spin-off economic
activity.
3. To maximize public access to the waterfront
and, in doing so, encourage uses which are
243
water dependent or which will be enhanced
by water access and views.
4. To develop a project which will help build
momentum for the revitalization of down-
town New London and the balance of the
city to the benefit of the city’s residents and
visitors.
—
Alternatives Evaluated
A variety of potential uses have been evaluated for the
Fort Trumbull area. However, a preferred alternative has
not yet been selected. It is anticipated that the ultimate
selected preferred plan may be a hybrid of several of the
alternatives evaluated herein. Major project components
are highlighted below:
¢ Approximately 16 acres of the land currently occupied
by the U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center will be
transferred to the Department of Environmental! Pro-
tection to establish the Fort Trumbull State Park,
providing open space for passive and active recreation
as well as preservation of this historic site as a cul-
tural resource. One small parcel of the NUWC site
will remain in the possession of the U.S. Coast Guard
and a second will remain in the possession of the U.S.
Navy for their continued use. The remainder of the
property is anticipated to be improved and developed,
either through public sale or through another form of
conveyance.
¢ Upgrades to the existing regional Water Pollution
Control Facility are planned to reduce odors, improve
aesthetics, and improve the quality of treated waste-
water.
244
¢ Stormwater quality will be improved via the installa-
tion of an updated stormwater collection and treat-
ment system.
¢ Roadway and traffic improvements are planned to
accommodate increased projected traffic in the area
and to overcome existing deficiencies.
¢ The following land use alternatives are under consid-
eration:
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
Various project elements are common to all of the alterna-
tives except the no action alternative. They include the
redevelopment of the NUWC site as a state historic park,
a continuous riverfront walkway, water dependent uses at
Columbia Cove, Shaw’s Cove, and along Bentley Creek,
and research and development land use west of Pequot
Avenue.
A brief description of the six alternatives follows.
Alternative 1 - No Action - One of the requirements of
CEPA is to evaluate a no action alternative. In this par-
ticular instance, no action is somewhat unusual in that
other activities and plans would likely proceed even if
there were no MDP action.
Under the no action scenario, it is assumed that the Navy
would proceed with disposition of the NUWC property as
245
planned prior to the introduction of the MDP process, in
accordance with the approved Local Reuse Authority’s
(LRA) preferred plan. The LRA’s preferred plan indicated
disposition of the NUWC property through conveyance of
the southern portion to the Department of Environmental
Protection for future development of a state park, public
benefit conveyance of a portion of the property near
Columbia Cove for maritime uses, and public sale of the
Alternative 2 - Recreation/Tourism - This alternative
complements the proposed Fort Trumbull State Park,
concentrating recreational, educational, and cultural uses
east of the railroad in the Fort Area and at NUWC. Office
and retail uses are proposed west of the railroad in the
Gateway Area.
Alternative 3 - Residential/Commercial - This alter-
native highlights a residential component throughout the
MDP area, intermixed with the state park and open space
recreational areas, and minor amounts of office and retail
uses proposed in the Gateway Area.
Alternative 4 - Business Campus - This alternative
focuses the majority of land use in the form of office
campus and a supporting hotel/conference center, with
small amounts of retail and residential uses in the Gate-
way Area.
Alternatives 5 & 6 - Mixed Use 1 & 2 - These two mixed
use alternatives incorporate recreational, residential,
commercial office, retail, and hotel/conference uses in
different proportions and arrangements.
246
Potential Impacts
The following presents brief summaries of potential
impacts that would be anticipated as a result of implemen-
tation of this project.
Land Use and Zoning Impacts - The majority of the
Fort Trumbull MDP area has been designated in the
Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecti-
cut as an Urban Area Regional Center. Regional Centers
encompass land areas containing traditional core commer-
cial, industrial, transportation, specialized institutional
services, and facilities of intertown significance. State
policy seeks to concentrate economic development to the
extent possible in major urban centers, promoting infill
development and intensification where appropriate. It is
also intended to promote stability of urban communities
and to support staged, orderly growth of urban develop-
ment. Regional and local policies and plans are reflective
of the regional center designation. This is also reflected in
local zoning ordinances of the Fort Trumbull area.
Land use and zoning impacts vary among the six land use
alternatives. Alternatives 2 (Recreation/Tourism) and 3
(Residential/Commercial) do not generally meet the goals
and objectives of local, regional, and statewide land use
policies, whereas Alternatives 1 (No Action), 4 (Business
Campus), 5 (Mixed Use 1), and 6 (Mixed Use 2) do.
Socioeconomic Impacts - All six of the land use alterna-
tives would have a positive impact on job creation and
generation of tax revenues. These are summarized in
Table ES-1
247
Neighborhood/Housing Impacts - Varying degrees of
neighborhood relocation would be required to implement
Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 6. Extensive mitigative measures
have been proposed to offset these impacts. In the “no
action” alternative there would be no relocation, since all
of the land use changes would occur at the NUWC prop-
erty. In Alternatives 2 (Recreation/Tourism), 4 (Business
Campus), and 6 (Mixed Use 2), most or all of the existing
residents and businesses would be relocated. Alternatives
3 (Residential/Commercial) and 5 (Mixed Use 1), have the
potential to retain some, but not all, of the existing resi-
dents and businesses.
Aesthetic/Visual Resource Impacts - A\l of the Alterna-
tives would result in aesthetic and visual improvements.
Alternative 1 would only involve the NUWC property, and
therefore improvements would be less widespread. Imple-
mentation of Alternatives 2 through 6 would result in
aesthetic improvements to the Water Pollution Control
Facility, creation of a waterfront riverwalk, landscaping
improvements, and demolition of decrepit buildings.
248
TABLE ES-1
Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts
Land Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6
Use No Recreation/ Residential’ | Business Mixed Mixed
Category Action Tourism |(Commercial| Campus Use 1 Use 2
Direct Employment —Low 1,080 506 335 1,332 574 591
Direct Employment — High 1,779 1,019 710 2,289 1,099 1,124
Indirect Job Creation — Low 802 337 220 949 385 394
Indirect Job Creation — High 1,321 659 452 1,610 720 734
Construction Costs — Low $3,200,000} 28,231,500) 40,131,680| 56,752,040 | 43,713,320) 48,943,320
Construction Costs — High $12,000,000; 58,098,330} 64,249,500! 104,202,900 | 72,893,250} 79,402,750
Construction Wages — Low $1,440,000; 12,704,175| 18,059,256] 25,538,428 | 19,670,994| 22,024,494
Construction Wages — High $5,400,000! 26,144,249| 28,912,275! 46,891,305 | 32,801,963| 35,731,238
Construction Employment — 38 331 470 665 512 574
Low
Construction Employment — 141 681 753 1,222 854 931
High
Tax Revenues — Low $61,152 375,704 603,116 931,651 671,562 771,507
Tax Revenues — High $229,320 946,459 1,064,008 1,838,437| 1,229,190} 1,353,587
Source: Marshal! Valuation Service and RKG Associates, Inc.
249
Public Utilities and Services Impacts - Utility im-
provements would be necessary under all of the alterna-
tives. This work is anticipated to be conducted within
existing or future roadway right-of-ways and not impact
adjacent land uses. Under all land use alternatives, the
existing storm drainage system will need to be modified to
accommodate new roadway alignments and improvements
and to correct deficiencies in the existing system. The
storm drainage systems will incorporate stormwater
quality renovation elements and/or infiltration systems to
meet stormwater general permit requirements.
Energy Use and Conservation - There is no known data
readily available on historic energy use in the Fort Trum-
bull MDP area and guidelines have not been prepared for
future energy use. In general, it is anticipated that new
buildings will be more energy efficient than the older
existing buildings, and will need to conform to or exceed
current standards.
High electrical-demand uses are not proposed under any of
the identified land use alternatives. However, it is antici-
pated that individual users will take advantage of energy-
saving measures and available incentives. Additionally,
future development projects will be designed in accordance
with applicable state and local building codes with respect
to electrical components, lighting, and HVAC.
Cultural Resources Impacts - Potential impacts to
cultural resources would result under all of the land use
alternatives. However, extensive mitigation measures
have been proposed to offset these impacts. The Connecti-
cut Historic Commission has reviewed and agreed with the
proposed course of action.
250
Traffic and Parking Impacts - Al) of the land use
Alternatives will result in additional traffic in the Fort
Trumbull area. The “no action” alternative (Alternative 1)
results in the highest peak hour traffic. Under Alterna-
tives 2 through 6, mitigation measures have been proposed
to offset these impacts.
Water Resource Impacts - Minimal water resource
impacts are anticipated under any of the alternatives.
Improvement to stormwater management is expected in
any case.
Flood Hazard Impacts - Much of the Fort Trumbull
MDP area is located in the flood hazard zone. Redevelop-
ment of a portion or all of the area would present an
opportunity to floodproof buildings or construct new
buildings in accordance with FEMA and DEP standards.
An evacuation plan would be developed under Alternatives
2 through 6, as well as roadway modifications to improve
ingress and egress in the area.
Physical Environment Impacts - Minimal physical
impacts are anticipated under any of the alternatives.
Air Quality Impacts - As there will be additional traffic
generated as a result of implementation of any of the
identified alternatives (including the no action alterna-
tive), localized air quality impacts will also result. How-
ever, these are expected to be minimal and will not be
regionally significant. It should be noted that the “no
action” alternative (i.e. no MDP action) would result in the
highest peak hour traffic, with no associated roadway
improvement mitigation.
Noise Impacts - There will be increases in off-site traffic
levels, particularly along Howard Street and Bank Street
261
as a result of the planned ‘fizer facility as well as pro-
posed uses within the Fort Trumbull MDP area. It is
anticipated that increased traffic will create noise that will
be consistent with an urban transportation hub. However,
the geometric and lane improvements at intersections will
minimize changes in noise from motor vehicles. Electrifi-
cation of the Amtrak rail line is expected to lessen rail
operation related noise.
Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials Impacts - The
need for and extent of site remediation will be governed by
the relevant statutes and regulations affecting such
activities. Implementation of any of the alternatives would _
result in the clean-up of contaminated soil, waste contain-
ers, and aging material storage tanks.
Cumulative Impacts
Positive cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of
implementation of this project with respect to economic
growth through job and tax revenue creation, parks and
recreational facilities, public access, wetland restoration,
aesthetics, site remediation, improved stormwater man-
agement, and additional flood protection. Negative im-
pacts are expected with respect to traffic, air quality,
noise, cultural resources, neighborhood relocation, and
possibly marine water resources.
Unavoidable Impacts
Unavoidable impacts caused by demolition and construc-
tion are anticipated with respect to air and noise quality,
as well as short-term increased equipment traffic and use.
252
Unavoidable long term impacts are expected in the areas
of traffic, air quality, noise, and cultural resources.
Lrreversible and Lrretrievable Commitment of Resources
The implementation of any of the six alternatives would
consume non-renewable resources during the construction
and implementation (i.e., construction supplies, fuel, etc).
Since these resources can not be reused, they are consid-
ered to be irreversibly and irretrievably committed.
Similarly, disposal of demolition material at a landfill
and/or solid waste disposal facility will take up capacity in
such facilities which is irreversible and irretrievable.
Mitigation Opportunities
Mitigation opportunities have been evaluated for each of
the identified resources. The areas that have been evalu-
ated in the greatest detail and for which the greatest
number measures have been proposed are those which
have the greatest potential to have impacts. These include
traffic and transportation, neighborhood relocation,
sensitive cultural resources, and flood hazard areas.
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Project Background
The New London Development Corporation (NLDC),
in association with the Connecticut Department of
Economic and Community Development (DECD), is
undertaking a planning project adjacent to the
1.1- 1 is a location plan of the City of New London and
253
New London County. Figure 1.1-2 shows the project
area in relation to downtown New London. The pro-
ject area includes the U.S. Navy’s closed Naval Un-
dersea Warfare Center (NUWC), the regional Water
Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), and the adjacent
Fort Trumbull area as shown in Figure 1.1-3. The pro-
ject area is also adjacent to the Shaw’s Cove Redevel-
opment Area.
NLDC is a nonprofit, private economic development
organization originally formed in 1978. The corpora-
tion was established with the authority to raise and
borrow funds, manage projects, acquire and sell prop-
erties, and engage in any activity related to the pro-
gress and general welfare of the community.
Plans for the project area will be prepared in accor-
dance with a Municipal Development Planning proc-
ess under Section 130, 132, and/or 588(1) of the
Connecticut General Statutes. The planning process
may result in a recommendation to undertake rede-
velopment of all or part of the planning area. This
Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) is being pre-
en SSeS Dee
Act (CEPA) in conjunction with the Municipal Devel-
opment Plan (MDP). An Environmental Impact
Statement is also being prepared for the disposition of
the NUWC property, but has not yet been issued by
the Department of the Navy.
The driving force behind this project is the City of
New London’s desire to revitalize its economy by fo-
cusing on the potential offered in the Thames River
corridor. The need to stimulate the local economy is
heightened by the closing of the NUWC facility in
1996. As many as 1,500 people (not including contrac-
NN at ee
in the late 1980's (personal communication, John
Templeton, September 30, 1998).
254
A key catalyst for development of this area is the pro-
posed Pfizer, Inc. global research facility to be located
immediately to the south of the MDP boundary. New
London Mills previously occupied the site on which
Pfizer has proposed its development. The project will
involve a private investment of approximately $150
million and is designed to accommodate approxi-
mately 2,000 employees.
+e
a
Fort Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut
Draft Environmental Impact Evaluation - November 1998
8 Miles
257
-" pbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut
438
Figure 1.1-3
Project Area
/\/_ MDP Project Border
boviroumental impact Evaluation - November 1998
(New Landan, FEMA, and US Navy Irucnded for plarrang
not for design use.
258
In order to induce private investment into the Fort
Trumbull area, the State of Connecticut and the City
of New London have committed to invest over $64
million. Major categories of public investment include
$20 million for the creation of Fort Trumbull State
Park on a portion of the NUWC property; $7 million
for the upgrade of the regional sewage treatment fa-
cility which is located in the Fort Trumbull area; $9
million for environmental remediation of sites; and
$24 million for the preparation of a comprehensive
plan for the area, for property acquisition, infrastruc-
ture development, and other activities to support im-
plementation of the plan. An additional $10.5 million
will be available for relocation assistance. Of this
amount, $10 million will be in the form of Connecticut
Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) low rate financing
loan money. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
will be available in the form of down payment assis-
tance to residents, and an additional $250,000 will be
available through Small Business Assistance Program
relocation funding.
1.1.2 Project Location
The City of New London is located in southeastern
Connecticut. It is a waterfront community, along the
tidal estuary of the Thames River and Long Island
Sound. New London is only 5.79 square miles in size,
making it geometrically the second smallest munici-
pality in the State of Connecticut. The estimated 1998
population is 23,860 people based on data published
by Claritas, Inc. (State of Connecticut DECD popula-
tion estimates for 1995 are somewhat higher at
26,920 people.) The community supports several insti-
tutions, including Connecticut College, Mitchell Col-
lege, and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Nearly 54%
of the total lard area of New London is occupied by
259
nonprofit institutions which are exempt from local
property taxes.
The project area is approximately 90 acres in size and
includes a residential and commercial area of ap-
proximately 115 parcels. The NUWC site alone is 32
acres. For discussion purposes, the MDP area has
been segmented into several smaller areas as de-
scribed below. Figure 1.1-4 delineates the various pro-
ject planning areas. A brief description of each
follows:
Gateway Area — The Gateway Area-is envisioned to be
the primary entrance to the MDP area and encom-
passes the land area to the west of the Amtrak rail-
way. It includes properties on both sides of Howard
Street from its intersection with Hamilton Street to
the junction with Shaw Street and Trumbull Street.
The Gateway Area also includes properties on Hamil-
ton Street between Howard Street and the railroad
tracks, as well as properties along Harris Street to
the south. This area is currently occupied primarily
by commercial properties and parking, intermixed
with single- and multi-family residential dwellings,
and vacant properties. It occupies approximately 21
acres.
Thames River
09
261
Lower Pequot Avenue Area — The Lower Pequot Ave-
nue Area is a small portion of the MDP area, ap-
proximately 1.3 acres in size. It is limited to the four
parcels located just south of the junction of Shaw and
Trumbull Streets, between the railroad tracks to the
west, and Pequot Avenue to the east. This area in-
cludes two vacant residential properties, one vacant
lot, and one industrial use parcel.
Fort Area — The Fort Area includes all of the property
to the east of the Amtrak railroad within the MDP
area, exclusive of NUWC. This includes the Amtrak
property immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks,
as well as properties along Trumbull Street, Nameaug
Street, East Street, Walbach Street, Smith Street,
Goshen Street, and Chelsea Street. A prominent
physical feature of this area is the regional Water Pol-
lution Control Facility (WPCF), which occupies both
sides of Trumbull Street from Nameaug Street to
Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) -
1.1-5 shows the NUWC property and building desig-
nations. Building references by name and number are
listed in Appendix C. The NUWC property encom-
passes approximately 32 acres along the Thames
aff
The current plan for the property as adopted by the
local Reuse Authority (LRA) contemplates the dispo-
sition of 16 acres to the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) for the establish-
262
for possible future development; and several smaller
parcels, including a 1.5-acre parcel and a 0.1l-acre
parcel, to be retained by the U.S. Coast Guard and
the Navy, respectively. The reuse plan for the prop-
erty is being reevaluated as part of the MDP process.
The recommendation of the MDP process will be pre-
sented to the LRA for its consideration.
Pfizer Site — The Pfizer site is located on the 24-acre
property which was historically occupied by New
London Mills, a manufacturer of linoleum. The New
London Mills complex was dismantled in the late
1980's and early 1990's. Although the Pfizer site is not
part of the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and is
not subject to the CEPA process, this facility is a
neighboring property which, when developed, will
substantially contribute to the city’s economic devel-
opment objectives. It is being considered in the EIE,
primarily due to the cumulative nature of activities in
the area.
NUWC New London Site Plan
veal
Columbia Cove : i
| 3
>.
we
300 ie)
— Property Boundary ee “
— ; a eae Feet
*_y Buildings _ 00
Scare m Meters
Mapping provided by TAMS Consultants, Inc. FIGURE 1.1-5 U
442
£92
264
1.1.3 Project Chronology
The following is a chronology of major activities,
events, and milestones to date relating to the Fort
Trumbull MDP area:
1997 - New London Development Corporation
(NLDC) reforms to assist the City of New London
in its economic development process.
January 1998 — The State Bond Commission au-
thorizes $5.35 million in bonds to support plan-
ning activities and property acquisition to be
undertaken by NLDC in support of the project
and $10 million as the first installment toward
the investment in the creation of Fort Trumbull
State Park.
February 1998 — Pfizer Inc. announces its inten-
tion to develop a facility for clinical trials on the
former New London Mills site.
April 1998 —- NLDC hires an executive director,
its first employee. The New London City Council
gives initial designation to NLDC to prepare a
Municipal Development Plan for the Fort Trum-
bull area.
April 1998 —- NLDC holds the first in a series of
informal, neighborhood meetings to include and
incorporate public comment on the MDP process.
The City Council also creates a committee of six
people (two from the Local Reuse Authority
(LRA), two from the NLDC, and two from the
State of Connecticut) to evaluate the current
LRA plan for the disposition of the NUWC prop-
erty and to consider asking for a delay in the
public sale of a portion of this property.
May 1998 — The New London City Council gives
authority to NLDC to prepare plans for the Fort
265
Trumbull area under any of three state statutes
(Section 130, 132, and/or 588(1)) and establishes
the boundaries of the planning area. The State
Bond Commission approves the second install-
ment of $2.9 million to fund the preparation of a
Municipal Development Plan for the area and to
fund property acquisition activities. NLDC initi-
ates requests for qualifications from consultants
to prepare various aspects of the Municipal De-
velopment Plan and Environmental Impact
Evaluation under CEPA.
May 1998 — A consultant is hired by the Water
Pollution Control Authority to conduct a study of
the possible upgrades to the regional WPCF.
June 1998 — The City of New London authorizes
the conveyance of the former New London Mills
site to Pfizer, with the contingency that the State
of Connecticut commits to resolve or guarantee
resolution of all liens on the property. A total of
$6.1 million in additional state bonding authority
is approved to support the project.
June 1998 — The Local Reuse Authority formally
requests of the Navy that public sale of proper-
ties on the NUWC site be delayed until February
28, 1999 to allow time for the preparation of a
comprehensive plan for the Fort Trumbull area
through the Municipal Development Plan proc-
ess. This request is approved by the Navy.
June 1998 — The final Environmental Assess-
ment under the Connecticut Environmental Pro-
tection Act is issued by the Department of
Economic and Community Development, with
the recommendation to proceed with a full Envi-
ronmental Impact Evaluation.
266
¢ July 1998 —- Planning consulting team is hired for
the CEPA process and Municipal Development
Plan Preparation.
1.2 The CEPA Process
1.2.1 Overview of Regulation
The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA),
established in Sections 22a-1 through 22a-1h of the
Connecticut General Statutes, recognizes the complex
relationship between the natural environment and
human actions, including population growth, high-
density urbanization, industrial expansion, natural
and cultural resources, and technological advances.
The Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (Sec-
tions 22a-1 through 22a-la-12) outline a process
whereby, through coordination with other state, local,
regional and federal governments, as well as public
and private entities, a sponsoring state agency can
evaluate and minimize the projected impacts of a pro-
ject to the resources of the state.
State funds will be utilized in the Fort Trumbull MDP
area, thus triggering the CEPA process. The sponsor-
ing state agency is the Connecticut Department of
Economic and Community Development (DECD).
NLDC is the implementing agency.
1.2.2 Determination of Environmental Signifi-
cance
A major function of the CEPA process is the determi-
nation of whether a project will have a significant ef-
fect. Significant effect is defined as substantial
adverse impact on the environment. Agencies prepar-
ing such CEPA documents must consider the follow-
ing two factors: (1) direct and indirect effects and, (2)
cumulative impacts.
267
Environmental Assessment
The first phase of the CEPA process is development of
an Environmental Assessment (EA). In this work
task, existing data and information are evaluated in a
relatively fast track process to assess whether a pro-
ject may potentially cause a significant env'ronmental
impact. In some cases, a determination is made that
additional site specific and more intensive study is
necessary to make that determination. In other, less
complex cases, a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is issued at the conclusion of the EA process.
In July 1998, the Connecticut Department of Eco-
nomic and Community Development issued an Envi-
ronmental Assessment for the Fort Trumbull MDP
area and determined that the project could potentially
have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of
this is included as Appendix A. Several major areas of
concern were identified in the EA, including the pos-
sible acquisition of residential properties and reloca-
tion of residents; adequacy of the existing water
supply; congestion and traffic safety issues; historic
importance and archaeological significance of the pro-
ject area; flooding; and stormwater management. As a
result of DECD’s finding, the subject Environmental
Impact Evaluation has been conducted.
Environmental Impact Evaluations
The Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) process
is intended to be an early planning process during
which options are discussed and the impact of each
alternative action is compared. Significant issues are
identified and analyzed in detail, allowing participa-
tion of interested and/or affected agencies and per-
sons.
Public input and participation is a major component
of the CEPA process. Early scoping and information
exchange is essential. Section 6.0 of this document
contains a detailed accounting of the scoping, consul-
tation, and coordination process thet has taken place
to date. The overall process for public participation is
summarized as follows:
¢ A period of no less than forty-five (45) days must
be provided for notice, distribution, and review of
the Draft Environmental Impact Evaluation by
any interested parties.
¢ Upon receiving comment, the sponsoring agency
must review comments, perform any additional
environmental study and analysis, or amend the
evaluation as appropriate. It is the sponsoring
agency's responsibility to respond to all substan-
tive comments received.
¢ A public hearing may be held, if requested in ac-
cordance with state statutes, regulations, and
Section 22a-la-11 of the regulations. A period of
no less than thirty (30) days following the date of
availability of the EIE must be provided before
tion of the adequacy of the evaluation: (1) all
public notice documentation; (2) a brief summary
of the public hearing, if one is held, (3) comments
received from all interested parties; (4) the
agency decision relative to proceeding with the
proposed action; and (5) a discussion of the inten-
(final EIE docuses and the measures for miti-
gation identified ‘ .erein).
¢ The CEPA process concludes with the review of
the EIE and Record of Decision by OPM and
their determination of whether or not regulatory
requirements have been satisfied. The final EIE
is the basis for the implementation of the project.
¢ A Municipal Development Plan is then created
consistent with the findings of the CEPA process.
A mandatory public hearing is held upon comple-
tion of the MDP. Procedures 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 objectives of the
state. Upon obtaining such a finding, the plan
would then be legally adopted by the city and
approved by DECD.
1.3 Project Goals
To date, input has been solicited from local, state and
federal agencies. At the local level, this has included
various departments and agencies within the City of
New London, educational institutions located within
the city, the business community, and the New Lon-
of Policy and Management, (OPM), and the Depart-
ment of Transportation (DOT) have been included. At
the federal level, the U.S. Navy and their interests at
the NUWC property, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) have been
14
270
represented. This process creates a vehicle for com-
munity input and involvement.
The goals for the Fort Trumbull area have been iden-
tified by the committee of six as follows:
1. To create a world-class development that will
complement the undertakings of Pfizer, Inc. and
set a standard for development in New London.
2. 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.
3. To maximize public access to the waterfront and,
in doing so, encourage uses which are water de-
pendent or which will bo enhanced ty water ao
cess and views.
4. To develop a project which will help build mo-
mentum for the revitalization of downtown New
London and the ba’ance of the city to the benefit
of the city’s resideats and visitors.
These goals have been carried through the planning
and evaluation of alternatives.
Proposed Action
A variety of potential uses have been evaluated for
the Fort Trumbull area. However, a preferred alterna-
tive has not yet been selected. It is anticipated that
the ultimate selected preferred plan may be a hybrid
of several of the alternatives evaluated herein. Major
project components are highlighted below:
¢ Approximately 16 acres of the land currently oc-
cupied by the Naval Undersea Warfare Center
will be transferred to the Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection to establish the Fort
271
Trumbull State Park, providing open space for
passive and active recreation as well as preserva-
tion of this historic site as a cultural resource.
One small parcel of the NUWC site will remain
in the possession of the U.S. Coast Guard and a
second will remain in the possession of the U.S.
Navy for their continued use. The remainder of
the property is anticipated to be improved and
developed, either through public sale or through
another form of conveyance.
for the remainder of the Fort Trumbull area. The
following-land use alternatives are under consid-
eration. These are described in detail in Section
3.0 of this document.
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
Upgrades to the existing regional Water Pollu-
tion Control Facility are planned to reduce odors,
improve aesthetics, and improve the quality of
treated wastewater.
Stormwater quality will be improved via the in-
stallation of an updated stormwater collection
272
15 Relationship to Other Projects and Planning
Documents
For the purposes of this EIE, numerous planning
documents have been evaluated in the context of the
Fort Trumbull area to ensure that this planning effort
is consistent with relevant state, regional, and local
State Planning Documents
Conservation and Development, Policies Plan for
Connecticut, 1998-2003, Office of Policy and
Management, Hartford, CT.
Connecticut Environmental Goals and Indica-
tors, Connecticut Institute of Water Resources,
University of Connecticut, September 30, 1996.
Regional Planning Documents
Southeastern Council of Governments, Land Use,
1990, February 1991.
Southeastern Council of Governments, Population
and Housing, 1990, March 1992.
Southeastern Council of Governments, Social In-
dicators, 1990, February 1995.
Southeastern Council of Governments, Proposed
273
Guide for Southeastern Connecticut (DRAFT),
July 1997.
Local Planning Documents
¢ Plan of Conservation and Development, City of
New London, CT. Prepared by: The Office of De-
velopment and Planning and the New London
Plan of Development Steering Committee, March
1, 1997 (Adopted April 3, 1997).
¢ Zoning Regulations, City of New London, CT,
Planning and Zoning Commission, as amended
through September 1, 1998.
Other Related Documents
A great deal of work has been conducted to date by
the Navy on the NUWC property. The NUWC prop-
erty lies within the MDP boundary and, therefore, the
EIE has considered following planning and site inves-
tigation documents:
¢ Feasibility Report, Naval Undersea Warfare
Center, Fort Trumbull State Park, June 18, 1997,
Amended: December 1997.
¢ Implementation Strategy, Naval Undersea War-
fare Center, New London, CT, Economics Re-
search Associates and Sasaki Associates, Inc.,
April 17, 1997.
¢ Redevelopment Strategy, Naval Undersea War-
fare Center, New London, CT, Economics Re-
search Associates and Sasaki Associates, Inc.,
April 17, 1997.
¢ Draft Cultural Resources Survey; Naval Under-
sea Warfare Center; New London, Connecticut;
TAMS Consultants, Inc.; April 1998.
274
Additionally, the EIE has considered the neighboring
Pfizer, Inc. development through ongoing coordination
with Pfizer representatives. Pfizer is planning an
800,000 square foot global research and development
facility. The site of the Pfizer complex is located im-
mediately to the south of the Fort Trumbull MDP
area, between Pequot Avenue and Trumbull Street, on
property which was previously occupied by New Lon-
don Mills.
2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
2.1 Land Use
An understanding of land use plans and policies at the
local, regional and state levels is essential to the analysis
of potential alterations of land uses. The following discus-
sion sets the framework of land use policies which apply to
the Fort Trumbull MDP area. Consistency of identified
project alternatives (presented in Section 3.0) with these
plans, policies, statutes, and regulations is evaluated in
Section 4.0 of this document.
2.1.1 Statewide Land Use Conservation and
Development
The following discussion presents portions of the Con-
servation and Development Policies Plan for Connecti-
cut (1998-2003) as they relate to the Fort Trumbull
MDP project. Italicized sections are direct excerpts
from the Plan. Not all Plan policies are included in
this discussion, as they may not directly apply. For an
expanded review of the Plan, the reader is directed to
the full 141-page document.
Connecticut (1998-2003) is a statement of the state's
growth, resource management, and public investment
275
policies. The Plan provides a policy and planning
framework for the administrative and programmatic
actions and capital and operational investment deci-
sions of state government, which influence the future
growth and development of the state. The objective of
the Plan is to guide a balanced response to human,
environmental, and economic needs in a manner
which best suits the future of Connecticut. The Con-
necticut General Assembly, in accordance with Sec-
tions 16a-24 through 16a-33 of the Connecticut
General Statutes, established the Plan.
Public Act 91-395 requires state agencies to be consis-
tent with the Plan when undertaking certain actions,
including authorization of state grant money in ex-
cess of $100,000 for the acquisition, development, or
improvement of real property. The MDP project will
receive state funding as described in Section 1.0 of
this document. Therfore consistency with the state
Plan is evaluated herein.
The accompanying Conservation and Development
Plan Locational Guide Map apportions the state into
land categories according to each area’s characteristics
and suitability for different forms of development or
conservation activities. The categories of land use are
designated on the Locational Guide Map as follows:
Urban Areas
¢ Regional Centers
¢ Neighborhood Conservation Areas
¢ Growth Areas
Areas of Environmental Concern
¢ Existing Preserved Open Space
¢ Preservation Areas
¢ Conservation Areas
276
Rural Areas
¢ Rural Community Centers
¢ Rural Land
Figure 2.1-1 shows the statewide conservation and devel-
opment plan land designations for the project area. The
majority of the Fort Trumbull area is classified as a
Regional Center, with most of the balance of the project
area classified as Conservation Area. Small areas of
Preservation and Existing Preserved Open Space are also
designated on the Locational Guide Map. Descriptions of
land use designations in the project area are presented
below.
Regional Centers
Regional Centers encompass land areas containing
traditional core area commercial, industrial, trans-
portation, specialized institutional services, and fa-
cilities of intertown significance.
Section 4-66b of the General Statutes sets forth the
following urban goals to be used to assess consistency
of a proposed action with state policy:
¢ to revitalize the economic base of our urban areas
by rebuilding older commercial and industrial ar-
eas and encouraging new enterprises to locate in
the central cities in order to protect existing jobs
and create new job opportunities needed to provide
meaningful economic opportunity for inner city
residents;
¢ to revitalize urban neighborhoods to reduce the iso-
lation of various income, age, and minority groups
through the promotion of fair and balanced hous-
ing opportunities for low and moderate-income
residents;
Thames River
art Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut
[ Environmental Impact Evaluation - November 1998
LLG
278
¢ to revitalize the quality of life for the residents of
our urban areas by ensuring quality education,
comprehensive health care, access to balanced
transportation, adequate recreational facilities, re-
sponsive public safety, coordinated effective human
services programs, decent housing, and employment
opportunities; by preserving the scarce resources of
pure air and clean water; and by ensuring full and
equal rights and opportunities for all people to reap
the economic and social benefits of our society; and
© to coordinate the conservatio.: and growth of all ar-
eas of our state to ensure that each area preserves
its unique character and sense of community and
further ensure a balanced and prudent use of our
state’s scarce resources.
State policy seeks to concentrate economic develop-
ment to the extent possible in major urban centers,
promoting infill development and intensification
where appropriate. It is also intended to promote sta-
bility of urban communities and to support staged,
orderly growth of urban development.
The highest priority has been assigned to affirma-
tively supporting rehabilitation and revitalization of
the economic, social, and physical environment of Re-
gional Centers. State policy supports a range of public
facilities, services, and amenities that serve to en-
courage private investment in development forms
consistent with urban strategies. As a result, the fol-
lowing approach and guidelines are among those
identified in the Conservation and Development Poli-
cies Plan for Growth Areas (i.e. lands near Regional
Centers that provide the opportunity for staged urban
expansion generally in conformance with municipal or
regional development plans).
279
target economic development assistance emphasiz-
ing site cleanup, land assembly, structural reha-
bilitation; and the location of labor-intensive
businesses to revitalize the economic base of Re-
gional Centers, to encourage new enterprises and
create new opportunities for urban residents;
give priority to infrastructure proposals that pro-
vide needed growth capacity in Regional Centers;
support new product development and facilities for
start-up firms, especially those that provide some
entry level employment opportunities and which are
strategically suited to their communities (can com-
pete in local markets or complement a regional eco-
nomic cluster);
scrutinize regulatory processes and seek to simplify,
streamline, or eliminate those rules that unduly
hinder economic development in urban areas, while
ensuring continuing efficient protection of public
safety, health and the environment;
locate all appropriate state facilities within urban
areas with preference to sites in Regional Centers;
promote recreational uses of urban rivers and their
banks as part of a greenway system and the protec-
tion, interpretation, and public use of other urban
natural resources;
develop heritage parks where appropriate to foster
tourism and recreational opportunities and to dis-
play and interpret local history;
promote, to the extent possible, the concentration of
major facilities on public transportation routes at
employment densities of at least 50 employees per
acre.
280
Conservation Areas
Conservation Areas represent a significant portion of
the state and a myriad of land resources. Conserva-
tion areas include flood fringe areas that are, or may
be, defined under the National Flood Insurance Pro-
grams, Connecticut’s Channel Encroachment Line
Program, or the Coastal Area Management Program,
as areas subjected to 100-year flood and not included
in the floodway. Historic preservation areas are also
included in Conservation Areas.
To attain the widest range of beneficial public uses
and appropriate development, state actions in Con-
servation Areas should be designed to:
* promote research, education, resource management,
regulations, financial, and technical assistance or
public acquisition as necessary to achieve proper
use and protection of Conservation Areas;
¢ undertake or support only those uses that are com-
patible with the resource or hazard of concern, con-
sistent with evaluations of both direct and
secondary impacts;
¢ demonstrate the lack of alternative sites, overriding
social or economic concerns, and the lack of any
reasonable alternative public or private uses for
any proposal which is clearly and significantly in-
compatible with conservation; and
¢ include mitigation measures necessary to both pro-
tect against degradation and enhance environ-
mental quality.
Preservation and Existing Preserved Open Space
Areas
A narrow fringe of land along the waterfront edge
within the MDP area has been classified as
281
Preservation Area, due to its proximity to the water-
front and associated flood hazard characteristics.
State policies regarding preservation areas promote
preservation and management of these areas as open
space. Plans and proposals that are incompatible with
open space uses should demonstrate overriding public
benefits and the lack of viable alternative sites.
A small triangular parcel formed by Howard Street,
Harris Street, and Shaw Street has been classified as
Existing Preserved Open Space. It is unclear why this
designation has been assigned, since this land area is
currently developed. This area should be redesignated
by OPM during its next revision to the Plan.
2.1.2 Regional Land Use
The Southeastern Connecticut Region consists mostly
of the suburban municipalities of Colchester, East
Lyme, Griswold, Ledyard, Lisbon, Montville, Preston,
Sprague, Stonington, and Waterford surrounded by
the rural towns of Salem, Bozrah, Franklin, Volun-
town, and North Stonington. Norwich, Groton, and
New London are the urban centers, making up ap-
proximately 11.3% of the 559.2 square miles of the
Southeastern Connecticut Region.
Approximately 21% of the region is occupied by inten-
sive land uses, leaving a rather large portion (61%) of
undeveloped lands. Several factors limit the ability to
intensively develop areas in the southeastern Con-
necticut region, including poorly drained soils, shal-
low depth to bedrock, steep slopes, flood hazard areas,
availability of utilities, ownership, zoning, financing,
and regulatory jurisdictions of state and federal gov-
ernments.
The major development contributing to regional
growth has occurred at low densities, more in the
rural and suburban towns than the three urban mu-
nicipalities, although urban growth continues along
the Thames River corridor and the Long Island Sound
coast, and more recently along Interstate 95.
The region has had a historic dependence on defense
related industries. The end of the Cold War signifi-
cantly altered regional land use patterns, with the re-
duction of defense-related industries and manu-
facturing. It is further expected that dramatic
changes will continue to occur with the increase in
gional Conservation and Development Policy Guide
for Southeastern Connecticut, October 1997)
It is the goal of the Southeastern Connecticut Council
of Governments (SCCOG) that diversified and bal-
anced development be sought in the region and oppor-
tunities be created in an effort to minimize
dependence on a single industry for employment,
thereby reducing the strain of high unemployment
rates on the region’s economic health.
2.1.3 Land Uses in the Project Vicinity
Development in southeastern Connecticut is concen-
trated primarily along the coastline of Long Island
Sound and along the Thames River. Single-family and
multi-family residential areas, commercial establish-
ments, ~ ym pram ~ mama aceasta
the densely developed coastline
On the western bank of the Thames River, north of
the project area, are the Shaw's Cove area and down-
town New London which supports commercial uses
and major transportation uses, including ferry ser-
vices, passenger rail, and a major parking facility.
Further north are the State Pier, the Goldstar Memo-
rial bridge, Connecticut College and the U.S. Coast
283
Guard Academy. To the south along the western bank
of the Thames River are Greens Harbor, Mitchell Col-
lege, and Ocean Beach.
Major land uses on the eastern bank of the Thames
River, across from the project area, include General
Dynamic’s Electric Boat facility, Pfizer Pharmaceuti-
cal Company, and Fort Griswold.
Other noteworthy land uses in the surrounding re-
gional area include Crystal Mall in Waterford, Fox-
woods Casino in Ledyard, Mohegan Sun Casino in
Montville, and Mystic Seaport and Aquarium in Ston-
ington. Nearby open space areas include Harkness
Memorial State Park in Waterford, and Bluff Point
State Park and Fort Griswold in Groton.
_Land uses immediately surrounding the Fort Trum-
bull area consist of waterfront uses dominated by
harbors and marinas, commercial uses, and mixed
residential and office/commercial areas.
2.1.4 Land Uses Within the MDP Boundary
Figure 2.1-2 depicts existing land uses in the project
area. Land use within the MDP area includes the
NUWC facility, the regional Water Pollution Control
Facility, a mixed residential/commercial area, and
single- and multi-family neighborhoods. A description
of land uses in the four project planning areas follows.
284
|
t ry
:
Figure 2. 1-2
Land Uses in
the Project Area
rort Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut
t Environmental Impact Evaluation - November 1998
Qtty of New Landon, and US Navy. Innended for planning
inc. and HMA, Inc. Sources inchade Conmectiag DEP,
any - not for desagn purposes.
cae. GIS coverages developed by Milone & Mar Brmaxr
—
te]
"Fr
285
Gateway Area
The portion of the project area located to the west of
the railroad tracks consists of commercial and indus-
trial establishments intermixed with single- and
multi-family residences. The Miner & Alexander
Lumber Company is the major commercial establish-
ment located between Hamilton Street and Shaw’s
Cove. The largest building in this area is a 50,000
square foot office building located at 194 Howard
Street. This structure has been vacant but is being
renovated for office use. Businesses, office buildings,
and residences occur along Howard Street. Several
undeveloped parcels occur to the west of Howard
Street along the western edge of the project area.
Fort Area
A major physical feature in the Fort Area is the re-
gional Water Pollution Control Facility which is bor-
dered by Nameaug Street to the west, Walbach Street
to the north, Smith Street to the east, and Bentley
Creek to the south. The facility is marked by the mas-
sive treatment tanks and buildings associated with
the wastewater treatment process.
The remainder of the Fort Area consists primarily of
single-family and multi-family residences, with sev-
eral smal] businesses, restaurants, and commercial
establishments. New London Seafood Distributors is
located in the northern portion of the Fort Area near
Columbia Cove, and Fort Trumbull Marina is located
in the southern portion of the Fort Area along Bentley
Creek.
286
Lower Pequot Avenue Area
Land uses in the Lower Pequot Avenue Area are lim-
ited to two vacant residential dwellings, one vacant
lot, and one industrial property.
NUWC Area
The eastern portion of the project area, located to the
east of Smith and East Streets and bordering the
Thames River, is occupied by the Fort Trumbull U.S.
Navy Reserve Base, Naval Undersea Warfare Center
(NUWC). The base consists of a 19th century fort and
blockhouse as well as various laboratories, adminis-
trative offices, residences, and other buildings. Sev-
eral piers on the Thames River are also associated
with this facility. This facility has been closed since
1996 and most of the buildings are unoccupied. A staff
of approximately 15 people continue to secure and
maintain the facility.
2.1.5 History of Development
Aerial photographs of the project area dating back to
1965 were examined to qualitatively dd®ument
changes which have occurred over the last three dec-
ades. A discussion of this review follows.
1965 aerial photograph
In 1965, the project area was densely developed, with
a general appearance similar to present day condi-
tions. The following differences are noted:
* The NUWC property had more lawn and parking
areas and fewer buildings than it does today. A
small bay was present at the southeastern corner
of the property.
¢ The regional Water Pollution Control Facility on
Trumbull Street appears much the same as today;
287
however, the portion of the facility to the north of
Trumbull Street had not yet been constructed.
This area supported residential houses, a ware-
house, and undeveloped land.
¢ In the western portion of the project area, the un-
developed land between Howard Street and Shaw
Street appeared less overgrown than it does to-
day. An open stormwater drainage channel ex-
tended north to Hamilton Street. The large parcel
between Howard Street and the railroad tracks,
now the site of a large office building, supported
several factory or warehouse buildings.
1970 aerial photograph
Very little visible change took place within the project
area between 1965 and 1970. The open stormwater
drainage channel in the undeveloped land between
Howard Street and Shaw Street had been piped un-
derground at its northern end, and the remaining open
channel appeared much the same as it does today.
1975 aerial photograph
Significant changes occurred at the NUWC property
between 1970 and 1975. Several buildings were con-
structed, including Buildings 2, 80T, 96, 99, and 122T
(see Figure 1.1-5). The small bay at the southeastern
corner of NUWC had been filled in and a parking lot
w.s constructed on top of it.
The factory or warehouse buildings located on the
large parcel between Howard Street and the railroad
tracks were demolished, and the site was vacant.
1980 aerial photograph
The portion of the regional Water Pollution Control
Facility south of Trumbull Street was constructed
between 1975 and 1980. The buildings that had
288
occupied the site were demolished, with the exception
of a large building near the corner of Walbach Street
and Smith Street, which remains standing today.
The large parcel between Howard Street and the rail-
road tracks remained vacant.
1986 aerial photograph
A large office building had been constructed on the
vacant parcel between Howard Street and the rail-
road tracks. North of the study area, the realignment
of Howard Street and the construction of the Shaw’s
Cove office complex was completed.
1990 aerial photograph
Between 1986 and 1990, a parking lot was con-
structed at the regional Water Pollution Control Fa-
cility on the corner of Nameaug Street and Walbach
Street. Otherwise, very little visible change occurred
in the area during this period.
1996 aerial photograph
An additional sewage treatment tank was constructed
at the regional Water Pollution Control Facility on
the north side of Trumbull Street.
2.1.6 Zoning
Three municipal zones occur within the project area as
shown graphically in Figure 2.1-3. These are Waterfront
Commercial/Industrial (WC-I]), General Commercial
District (C-1), and the Waterfront Development District
(WD). In many locations within the MDP area, land
uses are inconsistent with the zoning designation.
A description of zoning in the project planning areas
follows.
Ro natn es ER
eS Cae ~
EK
. <
682
F * Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut Zoning Lf
‘_..aft Environmental Impact Evaluation - November 1998 A/V? Project Border
be mui HA be Same sche Caves OEP | C1 Geran Communes Chsntat
Gry of New Landan, FEMA, and US Navy. Insended for planning WO Waterfront Development
anty - not for design use.
Gateway Area
The Gateway Area to the south of Hamilton Street is
zoned C-1, General Commercial District. According to
the New London Zoning Regulations, the purpose of
the General Commercial District is “to provide for a
wide range of commercial! and limited industrial uses
along major arterials; to accommodate uses that bene-
fit from large numbers of motorists, and businesses
that are not intensive central business area type ac-
tivities. New residential development is discouraged
except in certain instances.” The minimum lot area in
the General Commercial District is 5,000 square feet.
The Gateway Area to the north of Hamilton Street is
zoned WD, Waterfront Development District. Accord-
ing to the New London Zoning Regulations, the pur-
pose of the Waterfront Development District is to
“encourage a mixture of land uses, with emphasis on
waterfront access and water dependent and related
uses.” The minimum lot area in the Waterfront De-
velopment District is 20,000 square feet.
Fort Area
Most of the Fort Area is zoned C-1, General Commer-
cial District, from Hamilton Street to Trumbull
Street.
The waterfront areas along the southern side of
Trumbull Street, including a portion of the Water Pol-
lution Control Facility and a small commercial ma-
rina, are zoned WCI, Waterfront Commercial District,
as is an area to the north of Hamilton Street, imme-
diately adjacent to the NUWC property.
The purpose of the Waterfront Commercial/Industrial
zone is “to encourage water dependent and water
related industrial and major commercial use along
291
appropriate portions of the Thames River waterfront
consistent with the objectives of the State Coastal
Area Management Program and the New London
CAM Plan of Development.” Minimum lot area in the
Waterfront Commercial/Industrial zone is 10,000
square feet.
A small area to the north of Hamilton Street located
immediately to the east of the Amtrak line is zoned
Waterfront Development District (WD), including the
Miner & Alexander Lumber Company.
Lower Pequot Avenue Area
The area south of Trumbull Street between Pequot
Avenue and the railroad tracks is also zoned Water-
front Commercial/Industrial (WCI).
NUWC Area
The area east of Smith Street and East Street extend-
ing to the Thames River, including the NUWC facility,
is zoned Waterfront Commercial/Industrial (WCI).
2.1.7 Coastal Zone Management
The Fort Trumbull MDP area is located within Con-
necticut’s coastal boundary as defined by Section 22a-
94 of the Connecticut General Statues (CGS) and is
subject to the provisions of the Connecticut Coastal
Management Act (CCMA) (CGS Sections 22a-90
through 22a-112). In accordance with CGS Section
22a-100, state actions and state funded actions within
the coastal boundary which may significantly affect
the environment must be consistent with the goals
and policies of the CCMA.
292
The coastal boundary is determined as follows: (1) a
continuous line on the landward side by the interior
contour elevation of the 100-year frequency coastal
flood zone, as defined and determined by the National
Flood Insurance Act; or (2) a 1,000 foot setback meas-
ured from the mean high water mark in coastal wa-
ters; or a 1,000 foot linear setback measured from the
inland boundary of tidal wetlands mapped under CGS
Section 22a-20, whichever is farthest inland. The en-
tire MDP project area is within the coastal boundary.
Coastal waters are defined as those waters of Long Is-
land Sound and its harbors, embayments, tidal rivers,
streams and creeks which contain a salinity concen-
- tration of at least 500 parts per million (0.5 parts per
thousand, ppt) under the low flow stream conditions
as established by the Commissioner of the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection (CGS Section 22a-
93(5)).
The following general goals and policies have been es-
tablished in CGS Section 22a-92:
(1) to ensure that the development, preservation or
use of the land and water resources of the
coastal area proceeds in a manner consistent
with the capability of the land and water re-
sources to support development, preservation or
use without significantly disrupting either the
natural environment or sound economic growth;
(2) to preserve and enhance coastal resources in ac-
cordance with the policies established by chap-
ters 439 (Environmental Protection Department
and State Policy), 440 (Wetlands and Water-
courses), 446i (Water Resources), 446k (Water
Pollution Control), 447 (State Parks and For-
ests), 474 (Pollution), and 477 (Flood Control and
Beach Erosion);
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
293
to give high priority and preference to uses and
facilities which are dependent upon proximity to
the water or the shorelands immediately adja-
cent to marine and tidal waters;
to resolve conflicts between competing uses on
the shorelands adjacent to marine and tidal wa-
ters by giving preference to uses that minimize
adverse impacts on natural coastal resources,
while providing long-term and stable economic
benefits;
to consider in the planning process, the potential
impact of coastal flooding and erosion patterns
on coastal development so as to minimize dam-
age to and destruction of life and property and
reduee the necessity of public expenditure to pro-
tect future development from such hazards;
to encourage public access to the waters of Long
Island Sound by expansion, development, and ef-
fective utilization of state-owned recreational fa-
cilities within the coastal area that are
consistent with sound resource conservation pro-
cedures and constitutionally protected rights of
private property owners;
to conduct, sponsor. and assist research in
coastal matters to improve the data base upon
which coastal land and water use decisions are
made;
to coordinate the activities of public agencies to
ensure that state expenditures enhance devel-
opment, while affording maximum protection to
natural coastal resources and processes in a
manner consistent with the state plan for con-
servation and development adopted pursuant to
part I of Chapter 297;
(9)
(10)
294
to coordinate planning and regulatory activities
of public agencies at all levels of government to
ensure maximum protection of coastal resources,
while minimizing conflicts and disruption of eco-
nomic development; and
to ensure that the state and the coastal munici-
palities provide adequate planning for facilities
and resources which are in the national interest
and to ensure that any restrictions or exclusions
of such facilities or uses are reasonable. Facili-
ties and resources which are in the national in-
terest include:
(a) - adequate protection of tidal wetlands and re-
lated estuarine resources;
(b) restoration and enhancement of Connecti-
cut’s shellfish industry;
(c) restoration, preservation, and enhancement
of the state’s recreational and commercial
fisheries, including anadromous species;
(d) water pollution control measures and facili-
ties consistent with the requirements of the
federal Clean Water Act, as amended;
(e) air pollution control measures and facilities
consistent with the requirements of the fed-
eral Clean Air Act, as amended;
(f) continued operations of existing federally-
funded dredged and maintained navigation
channels and basins;
(g) energy facilities serving statewide and inter-
state markets, including electric generating
facilities and facilities for storage, receiving
or processing petroleum products and other
fuels;
295
(h) improvements to the existing interstate rail,
highway and water-borne transportation
system;
(i) provision of adequate state or federally-
owned marine related recreational facilities,
including natural areas and wildlife sanctu-
aries; and
(j) essential maintenance and improvement of
existing water-dependent military, naviga-
tional, resource management, and research
facilities.
Reasonable grounds for the restriction or exclusion of
a facility or use in the national interest shall include
a finding that such a facility or use: (a) may reasona-
bly be sited outside the coastal boundary; (b) fails to
meet any applicable federal and state environmental,
health or safety standard, or (c) unreasonably re-
stricts physical or visual access to coastal waters.
Adverse impacts on coastal waters, as defined by the
CCMA (CGS Section 22a-93(15) and 22a-93(17)), include
the following:
¢ degrading tidal wetlands, beaches and dunes, rocky
shorefronts, and bluffs and escarpments through sig-
nificant alteration of their natural characteristics or
functions;
* increasing the hazard of coastal flooding through
significant alteration of shoreline configurations or
bathymetry, particularly within high velocity flood
zones;
¢ degrading existing circulation patterns of coastal
296
degrading natural or existing drainage patterns
through the significant alteration of ground water flow
and recharge and volume of runoff;
degrading natural erosion patterns through the signifi-
cant alteration of littoral transport of sediments in
terms of deposition or source reduction;
degrading visual quality through significant alteration
of the natural features of vistas and view points;
development and activities such as (A) locating a non-
water-dependent use at a site that (i) is physically
suited for a water-dependent use for which there is a
reasonable demand or (ii) has been identified for a wa-
ter-dependent use in the plan of development of the
municipality or the zoning regulations; (B) replacement
of a water-dependent use with a non-water-dependent
use; and (C) siting of a non-water-dependent use which
would substantially reduce or inhibit existing public
access to marine or tidal waters;
degrading water quality through the significant intro-
duction into either coastal waters or ground water sup-
plies of suspended solids, nutrients, toxics, heavy
metals or pathogens, or through the significant altera-
tion of temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen or salinity;
and
degrading or destroying essential wildlife, finfish or
shellfish habitat through significant alteration of the
composition, migration patterns, distribution, breeding
or other populations characteristic of the natural spe-
cies or significant alterations of the natural components
of the habitat.
waters through the significant alteration of patterns of
tidal exchange or flushing rates, freshwater input, or
existing basin characteristics and channel contours;
As per Section 22a-92(a)(3), highest priority and prefer-
ence must be given to uses and facilities dependent upon
proximity to water or shorelands immediately adjacent to
marine and tidal waters. As previously described, the
297
CCMA also requires the minimization of adverse impacts
on future water-dependent development opportunities and
activities (CGS Section 22a-93(17)).
~ As per the CCMA, the management of estuarine embay-
merits with respect to coastal uses must sustain biological
productivity and maintain healthy marine populations.
Section 22a-93(7)(G) defines estuarine embayment as a
protected coastal body of water with an open connection to
the sea in which saline seawater is measurably diluted by
freshwater, including tidal rivers, bays, lagoons and coves.
The Fort Trumbull area is surrounded by waters that are
characterized as an estuarine embayment pursuant to the
CCMA definition.
Other pertinent sections of the CCMA are discussed in
Section 2.9 (Water Resources, Section 2.10 (Flood Hazard
Potential), and Section 2.11 (Biological Environment) as it
pertains to these resources.
2.2 Socioeconomics
The following information regarding demographics,
employment, and tax base has been obtained in part
from the City of New London Plan of Development,
regional documents. Census information and statis-
tics, as well as data obtained from the New London
Assessor’s Office and field investigations. This discus-
sion is intended to provide an overall background of
the demographic make-up of the City of New London
and the project area. Some of this information is ref-
erenced in the discussion of potential impacts in Sec-
tion 4.0 of this document.
The population in New London has been declining
since 1960 and has not been lower since the 1930's.
Unemployment in the city, at 7.6%, is considerably
higher than the statewide rate of 4.0% and is higher
than the closest urban municipalities of Groton (4.7%)
and Norwich (6.3%). Tax revenues in the MDP area
are quite low at $324,926, considering it comprises an
area of approximately 90 acres. A more detailed dis-
cussion of demographics, employment, and tax reve-
nues follows.
2.2.1 Demographics
New London has been affected by the dramatic
growth in population in the surrounding suburban
and rural towns. Growth in New London stabilized in
1960 and since then, the city has been experiencing a
decline. Since 1980, specific demographic changes
have also occurred to the City of New London’s resi-
dential population.
Between the years 1900 and 1960, the city’s popula-
tion nearly doubled from 17,548 persons to 34,182
persons, an increase of 95%. However, following the
peak in 1960, population decreased by 16.5% to its
1990 level of 28,540 persons. Table 2.2-1 summarizes
the growth and decline of the population of New Lon-
don based on U.S. Census data.
The estimated 1998 population in New London, Con-
necticut is 23,860 based on data published by Clari-
tas, Inc. This represents a decline of almost 5,000
persons in eight years. The population has not been
this low since prior to 1920. Connecticut DECD popu-
lation estimates are somewhat higher, with an esti-
mated 1995 population of 26,920.
299
TABLE 2.2-1
New London Historic Population
(1900-1990)*
Year Population Change Year Change
1900| 17,548 --- 1950; 30,551 + 0.3%
1910, 19,659 + 12.0%|1960| 34,182 + 11.9%
1920, 25,688 + 30.7%|1970| 31,630 - 8.1%
1930} 26,640 + 3.7% |1980| 28,842 - 8.8%
(1940! 30,456 + 14.3%/ 1990; 28,540 - 1.0%
*Source: U.S. Census
300
TABLE 2.2-2
1998 Estimated New London
Population - Claritas, Inc.
1990 % Change
Universe Census 1998 (est.) | (1990-98)
Population 28,540 23,860 -16.4
Households 10,712 9,271 -13.5
Families 6,007 5,047 -16.0
Housing Units 11,970 10,698 -10.6
‘Household Size 2.29 2.26 -1.3
The city’s declining population figures can be partially
attributed to a series of changes to the demographic
makeup that have occurred in the past few decades.
Some of the changes include a declining number of
families residing in the city, a decline in the size of
the typical household, an increase in the number of
householders living alone or in non-family house-
holds, as well as a decline in the birth rate. The popu-
lation pattern is also affected by the World War II and
Cold War expansion, and in later years, contraction of
activities of the U.S. Naval submarine base in Groto
and at Electric Boat. .
Table 2.2-2 presents 1998 estimated population as
compared to 1990 Census data based upon informa-
tion published by Claritas, Inc. The Connecticut Of-
fice of Policy and Management projects that the
decline in the city’s population will slow over the next
five years and is expected to stabilize by the year
___2000 and then begin to increase. The sharp decline in
population and families residing in New London dem-
onstrates the need for revitalization in this commu-
nity.
Source: Claritas, Inc., June 18, 1998.
The Fort Trumbull area is generally comprised of
Census Tract 6907. Figure 2.2-1 shows the extent of
Census Tract 6907. Table 2.2-3 presents demographic
and socio-economic characteristics of this Census
Tract in comparison to the city at large. As these fig-
ures demonstrate, demographics of the Fort Trumbull
area is similar to that of the City of New London as a
whole.
302
TABLE 2.2-3
and Socio-Economic Characteristics
City of New London and Fort Trumbull Study Area
City of New| Tract
London | 6907
tion 28,540 1,449
Households 10,715 565
% Racial Minority 27.2 31.5
% Hispanic origin 12.1 11.6
Housing Units 11,970 656
Renter-Occupied Housing Units (%) 63.1% | 61.4%
Owner-Occupied Housing Units (%) 36.9% | 38.6%
Median Year Structure Built 1939 1939
of Residency Over 30 Years (%) 10.4% 12.2%
edian Household Income $26,336 7
Median Family Income $31,274 $29,911
Per Capita income $12,971 ($12,
% Low/Moderate Income Persons 55.02% |56.88%)
Source: 1990 Census STF 1A and STF-3A; U.S. Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development
303
economic base. The city’s economy has evolved
as an agricultural plantation (1645), it grew into a
significant merchant shipping and fishing/whaling
port (1718-1871) before becoming a manufacturing
community (1827-1920) and, most recently, a retail
and service center. Throughout all of these periods,
the city has been able to rebound and to retain a
measure of its economic vitality.
Over the past 20 years (1970 to 1990), the city’s econ-
omy has not grown as substantially as the regional
and state economy. The regional labor market experi-
enced a higher growth rate (45%) in employment than
either the city (17%) or the state (40%) in the same
time period, although the city did expand its employ-
ment base by 2,770 jobs. Its slower rate of growth re-
sulted in its share of the total employment in the
regional labor market to decline from about 21% in
1970 to less than 17% in 1989.
The unemployment rate as estimated for New London
residents in 1998 by the Connecticut Department of
Labor was 7.6%. This figure has remained relatively
stable since 1990. This is somewhat higher than the
unemployment rate for the State of Connecticut,
which was 5.2% in 1990 and rests at 4.0% in 1998.
Table 2.2-4 illustrates employment trends by place of
work in the city.
304
TABLE 2.2-4
Employment Trends by Place of Work
for the City of New London
(Residents and Non-Residents) 1990-1997
Construction 430 180 -250 -58
ufacturing 950 730 -220 -23
portation,
., Utilities N/A | 1,220 --- ---
Trade 500 410 -90 -18
Trade 2,730 | 2,780 +50 +2
Insurance,
Estate 850 450 -400 -47
Other Services 7,300 | 7,870 +570 +7
Government 4,300, | 2,950 | -1,350 -31
TOTALS: 17,060 16,590 = -1,690 -3%
Construction experienced the largest decrease in
numbers from 430 in 1990 to 180 in 1997, illustrating
a 58% decrease. A considerable decrease (47%) in em-
ployment was also experienced by the finance, insur-
ance, and real estate brackets from 850 in 1990 to 450
in 1997. Overall total employment dropped by 3%.
Existing Employment Base Within the MDP Area
At the present time, there are approximately 28 busi-
nesses located within the MDP area. It is estimated
that these businesses employ between 148 and 222
people in total, as outlined in Table 2.2-5.
Of the 28 businesses in the study area, only seven
employ more than 10 people. Amtrak is the largest
employer, with estimated employment of 40 to 60
people. No other employer in the study area employs
more than 20 people.
305
306
er Pequot Avenue Low High
Acton Sheet Metal 21 PequotAve. 3 3
Letter Company 21 PequotAve. 2 2
Thames Refinisher 21 PequotAve. 4 4
Subtotal 9 i]
Study Area Total 148 222
TABLE 2.2-5
Businesses in the MDP Area (October 1998)
Estimated
Business Location Range
Gateway Area Low High
Miner and Alexander 150 Howard St. 10 16
Hawthhorne Woodworking 162 HamiltonSt 2 3
| _Leger Electric 162 Hamilton St. 6 10
County Contractor 169 Howard St. 4 8
Acct/Lawyer Firms (3) 194 Howard St. 12 20
Integrated System 210 Howard St. 3 5
Islamic Center 216 Howard St. 1 1
Leo’s Service Station 175 Howard St. 2 3
Halfway House 189 Howard St. 3 5
Hughie’s Restaurant 221 Howard St. 10 (12
Conn. Comm. RE 229 Howard St. 3 5
Kevin's Corner
(Thames Refinisher) Harris St. 0
Subtotal 56 88
ort Area Low High
Fort Trumbull Marina 93 Trumbull St. 2 3
Private Lobstermen 2 3
Optican 95 Trumbull St. 2 3
NL Trap & Bait 82 Trumbull St. 3 5
Byron’s Auto 72 Smith St. 2 3
ia Primaria Church 68 Smith St. 1 1
Comm. Fishing Fleet 37 Smith St. 12__—=:18
Processing Facility 37 Smith St. 3 5
Sonalysts, Inc.
(Currently Vacant) 72 Goshen St. 2 5
Fort Trumbull Cafe 36 Walbach St. 3 5
Amtrak StagingArea _Walbach St. 40 60
Caretaker/Security [1] NUWC ll 14
Subtotal 83 125
{1] Currently, a 14-person staff that will be reduced to 11
persons in September, 1998.
2.2.3 Existing Tax Revenues
According to information provided by the New London
Assessor's Office, properties in the MDP area have a
total assessed valuation of $13.1 million, which in-
cludes several tax-exempt properties. This figure in-
cludes $4.2 million in land and an additional $8.9
million in buildings. Table 2.2-6 provides a summary
of the taxable valuation of properties in the study
area, by geographic area.
As shown in Table 2.2-6, the properties in the study
area generate $357,929 in property tax revenue at full
taxation. Excluding exempt and city-owned proper-
ties, a total of $324,926 is generated each year in real
property taxes.
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the
underlying land values will reflect existing conditions,
and that any new construction in the study area will
be assessed at 70% of construction cost, based on as-
sessment practices in Connecticut. No timing or phas-
ing of revenues has been included, and all financial
figures are stated in 1998 dollars.
307
TABLE 2.2-6
Taxable Valuation of Study Area Properties
Gross Land Bldg. Total Real Estate
Acres Bldg. SF Asmt. (000) | Asmt. (000) | Asmt. (000)| Taxes [1]
C-PS [2] 14.7 555,185 N/A N/A N/A $0
Gateway 12.4 236,874 $1,634.03 | $5,316.42 $6,950.45 $189,747
ort Trumbull [3] 14.4 215,169 $2,461.83 | $3,323.11 $5,784.94 $157,929
Lower Pequot [4] 0.9 28,218 $121.10 $254.45 $375.55 $10,253
Subtotal 42.5 1,035,446 $4,216.96 | $8,893.98 $13,110.94 $357,929
GW Exempt (5) — 2.9 20,779 $179.83 $299.74 $479.57 ($13,092)
FT Exempt [6] 28 13,440 $561.54 $167.79 $729.33 ($19,911)
ubtotal 5.7 34,219 $741.37 $467.53 $1,208.90 ($33,003)
et Total 36.8 1,001,227 $3,475.59 | $8,426.45 $11,902.04 $324,926
Source: City of New London Assessment Division and RKG Associates, Inc.
[1] Based on a mil rate of $27.30.
{2) That portion slated for public sale and/or, maritime conveyance.
[3] Does not include wastewater treatment facility and adjacent city-owned land.
[4] Reflects properties #5 through 21 Pequot Avenue.
[5] Exempt properties in the Gateway include eight city-owned parcels.
[6] Exempt properties in the Fort Area include one church and five railroad parcels (or portions thereof).
—_—
308
2.3. Neighborhood/Housing
The potential for neighborhood relocation was identi-
fied in the Environmental Assessment for this project,
as a significant issue requiring analysis in the CEPA
process. The following discussion is presented as a
basis for impact analysis of potential displaced resi-
dents and businesses associated with the identified
land use alternatives.
2.3.1 Citywide Housing
Over the past several decades, the City of New Lon-
don’s housing stock has been affected by a series of
demographic and development trends. These trends
have affected the ability of the community to respond
to the maintenance, enhancement, supply and de-
mand for the city’s housing stock.
The 1990 Census statistics reveal that the composi-
tion of the housing supply has changed. The number
of single-family housing units was 4,109, or 36% of all
city housing units in 1980. The 1990 figures show a
decrease of approximately 5% to 3,751, or 31.3% of
the total housing units in the city. Table 2.3-1 illus-
trates the differences in housing stock between 1980
and 1990.
309
TABLE 2.3-1
Composition of the New London Housing Stock
1980 - 1990
Type 1980 Percent; 1990 Percent
Single-Family Unit 3,751 | 31.3%
2-4Family Unit | £109 | 36.0% | 3467 | 32.6%
, 3,440 | 30.1%
5 — 9 Family Unit 1165 | 10.2% 1,326 | 11.1%
10+ Family Unit 2 691 23 6% 2,797 | 23.4%
Other : ; 199 1.7%
TOTALS: 11,405 11,970
Source: U.S. Census, 1980 and 1990
Today, the single-family dwelling is not the dominant
form, and the percentage of single-family units in the
housing stock is dramatically lower than all other
municipalities in the region, including Norwich, and
is lower than several of the larger urban communities
in the state, including Stamford, Meriden, Middle-
town, Waterbury, and New Britain. Consequently, the
percentage of multi-family dwelling units (2+ family
units) is correspondingly high and has increased by
over 12% from 7,296 in 1980 to 8,219 units in 1990. At
the present time, 67% of all housing units in the city
are classified as multi-family dwellings.
The majority of the city’s residents tend to rent the
housing that they live in. The total number of housing
units that were renter-occupied in 1990 was 6,758
units or 63.1%, whereas only 3,954 or 36.9% of the
units were owner-occupied. By comparison, a total of
5,719 housing units, 58.6% of all occupied housing
units, were renter-occupied in 1970. Statistically, the
trend towards the increasing numbers of renter-
‘ed units highlights the di acute teatinel,
ance between owner versus renter-occupied units.
310
These figures identify the need to develop strategies
and programs to allow opportunities for more resi-
dents to attain home ownership, thereby improving
the balance in the housing stock.
According to the 1990 U.S. Census, 7,300 (61%) of the
total housing units in the City of New London were
built prior to 1950. Only 15% of the city’s existing
housing stock has been constructed since 1970. It is
expected that the majority of these buildings are
structurally sound, although their age warrants the
need for increasing levels of maintenance, rehabilita-
tion, and modernization.
The overall condition of housing stock with respect to
code compliance is not known at this time as this
would, in many cases, require inspection of residen-
tial dwelling interiors which are not currently acces-
sible. At least two buildings in the project area have
been condemned by the city. Additional information
concerning the condition of buildings within the pro-
ject area is provided in Section 2.3.3 of this document.
Table 2.3-2 presents the age of the New London hous-
ing stock as of 1990.
TABLE 2.3-2
Age of New London Housing Stock
Year Built Percent Number
1939 or earlier 52.9% 6,336
1940 to 1949 8.1% 964
1950 to 1959 10.7% 1,279
1960 to 1969 13.0% 1,553
1970 to 1979 11.7% 1,406
1980 to 1990 3.6% 432
TOTALS: 100.0% 11,970
Source: U.S. Census, 1990
311
New London has little vacant land available for new
residential development. A recent land use survey con-
ducted by city staff revealed that only 258.61 acres
(7.1%) of the total land area of the city (3,652.78 acres)
are vacant and residentially zoned. A good portion of
this vacant land has serious limitations for develop-
ment. Consequently, very few new housing units were
built during the 1980's in the city as compared to other
communities in the region. During the period of 1980 to
1989, the City of New London experienced only a 2.5%
increase in construction of new housing units as re-
ported by the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Plan-
ning Agency in June of 1990. The regional average was
14.7%, and Colchester experienced the largest increase
at 50%. Table 2.3-3 illustrates the increase in housing
units for New London and selected surrounding towns.
TABLE 2.3-3
Estimated Increase in Housing Units
for New London and Selected Surrounding Towns -
1980 to 1989
Town Percent Total Units
New London 2.5% 289
Sprague 9.0% 95
Norwich 9.7% 1,482
Waterford 15.8% 1,017
Groton 19.7% 2,749
Salem 39. 8% 356
Colchester 50.8% 1,404
Source: Southeastern Connecticut Regional Planning Agency
Since 1980, the number of vacant housing units has
increased significantly in the City of New London,
from a total of 950 vacant units to 1,258 units (+32%)
in 1990. This increase equates to a vacancy rate of
10.5%, which can be further broken down at a rate of
312 =
2.3% for homeowners and 10.4% for renters. Exclud-
ing the 121 seasonal housing units, the vacancy factor
of year-round housing units was 9.5%, as indicated in
the 1990 Census.
More recent vacancy data is not available; however,
anecdotal evidence from real estate professionals
indicates vacancy at the néwer, modernized apart-
ments has declined from levels reported in the 1990
Census. However, there still remains an unknown
number of dwelling units considered “unmarketable/
uninhabitable” throughout New London, including
the project area.
2.3.2 Residential Analysis
Overview
The New London Plan of Conservation and Devel-
opment reports that, despite its relatively compact
size, New London offers a wide diversity of housing
opportunities for its residents. The city contains a
significant inventory of housing stock which varies
in size and price and includes: spacious, well main-
tained historic mansions; single family homes;
duplexes; townhouses; condominiums; apartment
complexes; rooming and boarding houses; apartment
hotels; group homes; and high density, high rise pub-
lic housing. The City contains some of the most af-
fordable housing in the State.
Table 2.3-4 presents statistics available from the 1990
Census of Population and Housing. It provides sum-
mary information on the number, availability, and cost
of owner-occupied and rental housing units in New
London and the neighboring municipalities of Groton
and Waterford. As appropriate, data from the City of
New London's Consolidated Plan for Housing and
Community Development and Plan of Conservation and
Development has also been included in this analysis.
Comparative Census Statistics -
New London and Adjacent Communities
‘2
Number of
Housing Units 11,970 7,357 | 16,598
Occupied Units 10,712 6,956 | 14,853
Vacant Units 1,258 401 1,745
% Vacant 10.5 5.4 10.5
Owner Occupied Uni 3,954 5,878 7,048
% Owner Occupied 36.9 84.5 47.5
Occupied Units 6,758 1,078 7,805
% Renter Occupied 63.1 15.5 52.5
Overall Vacancy Rate 10.5 5.4 10.5
Vacancy Rate for
Owner Occupied 2.3 1.5 4.6
Vacancy Rate for
Renter Occupied 10.4 5.4 7.9
Value $131,600 | $159,700 | $148,200
Contract Rent $455 $570 $547
Ownership
As evidenced by the data presented in Table 2.3-4, the
majority of the city’s residents rent housing (63.1% of
several census periods the of renter-occupied
housing be [illegible] eased. In 1970, 58.6% of all oc-
cupied housing units were renter-occupied, increasing
to 62.5% in 1980. ‘As cutiined in the city’s Plan of Con-
servation and Development, this trend of increasing
number of renter-occupied units highlights the cur-
rent imbalance between owner and renter housing.
314
According to the Plan, these figures identify the “need
to develop strategies and programs to allow opportu-
nities for more residents to attain home ownership,
thereby improving the balance in the housing stock.”
Home Ownership
At the time of the 1990 Census, 31.3% (3,751) of the
city’s housing stock was comprised of single-family
units. This percentage is comparatively lower than all
of the other municipalities in the New London region.
Single-family homes comprised 56.5% of Groton’s
ing stock and 57.4% of Waterford’s housing stock.
Of the 3,751 single-family housing units in New Lon-
don, 3,387 were single-family detached units and 364
were single-family attached (generally condominium-
type units). Table 2.3-5 depicts the housing units by
structure type based on the 1990 Census. The number
of 2- to 4-unit structures in New London provides the
opportunity to combine home ownership with rental
income availability. This configuration, where the
homeowner can offset costs with rental income from
tenants in other units within the structure, is a com-
mon configuration for affordable housing programs.
TABLE 2.3-5
Housing Units by Structure Type
Units in Structure |New London| Waterford Groton
1-Unit, Detached 3,387 6,359 | 7,509
1-Unit, Attached 364 148 | 2,012
2 to 4 Units 3,897 414 | 2,755
5 to 9 Units 1,326 150 | 1,146
10 or More Units 2,797 73 | 2,215
Mobile Home,
Trailer, Other 199 213 961
Total 11,970 7,357
315
As a means to reverse the declining trend in home
ownership in the city and to ensure long-term housing
affordability, New London has established a program
whereby deteriorating properties are purchased and
rehabilitated and then sold to low- and moderate- in-
come families. Property deeds contain resale restric-
tions on the price or give the right of first refusal to
the city or a trust, which in turn would sell it to an-
other low-moderate income family.
In 1993, the City initiated a purchase and rehabilita-
tion program which has resulted in the reconstruction
of several homes. As of October 1998, four homes (3
single-family and 1 duplex) were available through
the New London Neighborhood Investment Initiative
Program. These homes are being sold for between
$62,000 and $80,000. Homes are sold to income-
qualified owners (80% of New London Area Median
Income) in move-in condition. They have been reno-
vated to meet housing and building code standards as
well as local lead-safe standards. Three additional
properties were underway as part of the Neighbor-
hood Investment Initiative Program. All three of
these units contain at least one rental unit.
In addition to the city’s Neighberhood Investment Ini-
tiative Program, which provides affordable home
ownership opportunities, a special home ownership
assistance program is also being offered to households
being displaced by municipal development programs
through the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority
(CHFA). CHFA provides Home buyer mortgages,
downpayment assistance and/or rehabilitation mort-
gage loans to income-eligible households._A special
“% fee reduction is available for program partici-
pants from/or in New London.
——
316
Availability of Rental Housing
At the time of the 1990 Census, 2,797 housing units
were located in structures containing 10 or more
housing units. A 1996 inventory of multi-family hous-
ing (i.e. those developments containing 10 or more
units) was undertaken as part of the Plan of Conser-
vation and Development process. This inventory is in-
cluded in Appendix B. The majority of the multi-
family housing in the city was built during the 1960’s
and 1970's. Of the 3,748 units in the 1996 inventory,
1,633 (44%) were publicly subsidized in some manner
and the remaining were private market units.
In addition to the rental opportunities in large multi-
two to four units (3,897 units) and a lesser amount in
buildings of five to nine units (1,326 units).
317
were typically $50 more per month than New London
rents for similar sized units.
In an averege weekly listing, between 15 and 20 one-
bedroom units were listed for rent; 10 to 15 two-
bedroom units were listed; 5 three-bedroom units
were listed; and 5 studio/efficiency units were listed
for rent in New London. In addition, the larger
apartment complexes in the area advertised unit
availability without providing unit characteristics.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment published the 40th percentile fair market
rents for existing housing based upon survey data.
The monthly fair market rents for the New London-
Norwich area as of October 1, 1998 were $491 for an
efficiency unit; $594 for a one-bedroom; $723 for a
two-bedroom; $905 for a three-bedroom; and $1,034
for a four-bedroom. These rents include utilities.
Availability of Ownership Housing
Since 1990, the City of New London has experienced
very little new housing construction. In fact, over the
past several years, demolition of substandard and de-
teriorated properties has offset any true net gains in
dwelling units. Due to the lack of developable land for
residential purposes in the city, the majority of new
housing units brought to the market have been reno-
vated units in existing structures.
Table 2.3-6 presents authorized new housing ccn-
struction in New London, Waterford, and Groton from
1990 to 1997.
318
TABLE 2.3-6
Housing Units Authorized (New Construction)
1990 to 1997
Location (|1990/1991/1992|1993/1994/1995/1996/1997
New London| 16 5} ll 3 1 2 0 0
Waterford 37| 42) 42) 58] 110} 89| 157); 79
Groton 52| 46| 121} 59| 71) 40) 74| 82
As of mid-August 1998, according to the southeastern
Connecticut Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Ser-
vice, 105 residential properties were sold in New
London at an average selling price of $102,100. Over
the same eight month period, 180 homes were sold in
Waterford and 234 homes were sold in Groton.
Average [illegible] prices in Waterford and Groton
were slightly higher than New London’s sale prices,
at $142,000 and $159,900 respectively.
Recent residential sales data (as provided by Com-
mercial Record) for New London, Groton, Waterford
and all of New London County are shown in Table
2.3-7. Over the past five years, New London averaged
275 sales per year with median sales prices in the
$75,000 to $80,000 range.
319
TABLE 2.3-7
Residential Sales Data (1993 to 1997)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
ew London
# of Sales 209 253 298 286 346
Median
Sales Price $80,000| $75,000} $80,000} $82,000) $74,000
Waterford
# of Sales 291 320 323 365 404
Median {s115,000/$109,900|$109,900|$112,500|$111,100
Sales Price
Groton
# of Sales 380 458 489 490 531
Median
Sales Pric e(112,000 $107,000/$108,000/$109,000/$116,500
ew Londo
County
#ofSales| 3,438) 3,951 3,935 3,983 4,494
Median
Satine Outed $109,000'$109,000|$105,000/$105,000/$110,000
Source: Commercial Record
As of September 1998, New London had 106 active
residential listings. Waterford had 154 and Groton
had 220. Average list prices for the three communities
are $104,000, $168,100, and $194,000 respectively. A
review of published real estate listings in New Lon-
don showed 19 homes for sale under $70,000 and 23
homes for sale between $70,000 and $90,000. A sum-
marized listing of homes for sale in New London at
the time of this report is included in Appendix B.
320
City of New London Housing Goals and Policies
Within both the city’s Plan of Conservation and De-
velopment and Consolidated Plan for Housing and
Community Development, several common themes for
future housing goals were voiced. These themes in-
cluded: improving the existing housing stock through
rehabilitation, conservation, and code enforcement.
providing more opportunities for home ownership, de-
creasing the burden on New London taxpayers by
seeking a more regional approach to the provision of
affordable housing, and providing a more balanced
housing supply within the city in terms of cost, type,
and ownership.
The overall housing goal for the city, as included in its
1997 Plan of Conservation and Development reads as
follows:
Enhance the city’s position as a fine residential
community by improving the quality of the city’s
neighborhoods, providing more opportunities for
home ownership, improving the condition of the
housing stock, and decreasing the burden on New
London’s tax payers, while assuring the provision
of a quality housing supply that reflects a more
balanced distribution of costs, types, sizes, loca-
tions, ownership, and supply throughout the city
and the region to meet the changing needs of all
segments of the city’s population.
Compared to other communities in the region and the
state, the City of New London contains a dispropor-
tionate percentage of publicly-assisted housing as
well as rental housing. According to statistics main-
tained by the State of Connecticut Department of
Economic and Community Development, as they re-
late to the Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure,
18.62% of New London’s housing stock is affordable as
defined by Connecticut General Statute 8-39a.
321
2.3.3 Building Inventory of the MDP Area
The MDP area has a diverse inventory of 117 build-
ings containing approximately 1.04 million square
feet of space. The development area at NUWC (which
excludes the planned state park and areas to remain
with the U.S. Coast Guard and the Navy) is densely
developed and is improved with 19 buildings contain-
ing nearly 555,200 square feet or 53% of the building
area in the Fort Trumbull MDP area. The Gateway
Area has 23% of the building inventory, followed by
the Fort Area with 21%. The Lower Pequot Avenue
Area contains the remaining 3% of the building space.
NUWC
Considering that the primary mission at NUWC was
research and development (R&D), it is not surprising
that nearly 79% of the buildings in the development
portion of NUWC were utilized for office and/or R&D
purposes. Another 11% of the space was utilized for
shop and/or warehouse purposes, followed by 10% for
recreational, utility and miscellaneous purposes. All
buildings within the development portion of NUWC
are considered vacant at this time.
Gateway Area
The Gateway Area contains 236,900 square feet in 38
buildings, including 168,600 square feet in 19 non-
residential buildings. The residential component con-
sists of 34 dwelling units in 19 buildings (68,300
square feet). It is estimated that 10 units are cur-
rently vacant, indicating an occupancy rate of 71%.
More than 88,200 square feet of non-residential build-
ing space are vacant, resulting in an occupancy rate
of 48%. Warehouse use is the most prominent com-
mercial use, followed by office use. To a smaller ex-
tent, retail and restaurant uses are also present in
this area.
322
Fort Area
The Fort Area contains 57 buildings with 215,200
square feet. Non-residential structures represent
79,800 square feet in this portion of the study area.
Residential is the most prevalent use in this district
as evidenced by the 135,400 square feet of gross build-
ing area in 43 buildings. In total there are 80 dwelling
units in this district and 10 are estimated to be va-
cant, indicating an occupancy rate of 87%. Older
multi-level mill buildings are the predominate com-
mercial use, followed by office use, warehouse/shop
use, retail/restaurant and other uses. An estimated
30,900 square feet of non-residential building space
are vacant, indicating an occupancy rate of 61%. This
high vacancy in the Gateway and Fort Area is caused
in part by the structural design, age and condition of
most of the buildings, which appear inefficient (physi-
cally and financially) to support any long-term reuse
potential.
Lower Pequot Avenue Area
The Lower Pequot Avenue Area is improved with
three buildings, totaling 28,200 square feet, with
21,150 square feet contained in one non-residential
building. There are two residential buildings, contain-
ing four units, totaling 7,100 square feet in gross
building area. One of these residential buildings has
been condemned and one of the units in the second
building is considered an illegal apartment.
Age and Condition of Building Stock
Fifty-five percent of the building stock in the MDP
area is pre-1950 construction, while only 15% of the
building inventory is post-1980 construction. All resi-
dential properties were constructed prior to 1940; in
fact, most were built between 1890 and 1910. Since
1940, most of the building activity in the MDP area
323
has occurred at NUWC. Building 2 (1990) at NUWC
and 194 Howard Street (1985) in the Gateway Area
are the most recent major buildings constructed in
the area.
Given the age of the building stock, it is not surpris-
ing that 41% (427,200 square feet) is wood framed
construction (Class D), and another 18% (185,000
square feet) is wood and masonry framed construction
(Class C). There are 423,200 square feet (41%) of ma-
sonry/steel construction (Class B or A). reflective of
more modern construction techniques. This group in-
cludes Buildings 2, 80 and 96 at NUWC, as well as
the 194 Howard Street office building.
More than 541,400 square feet of the non-residential
building area (66%) is in fair to poor condition. This
includes Building 80 as well as the other older, wood
framed buildings at NUWC. In addition, almost all of
the older warehouse and mill buildings in the other
districts are in similar condition. In general, these
buildings exhibit a high amount of functional obsoles-
cence, and the cost to improve these structures sig-
nificantly exceeds their economic viability. On the
other hand, nearly 283,300 square feet of non-
residential building area (34%) is in average or good
condition.
Less than 12% of residential buildings, interspersed
throughout the different districts, are considered in
average or better condition. Approximately 122,300
square feet of residential properties are considered in
fair condition, representing 58% of the residential in-
ventory. The remaining 63,800 square feet (30%) are
in poor cendition. These properties are similarly scat-
tered throughout the MPD area contributing to a saw-
tooth visual impression in the various blocks.
324
Since 1990, the existing buildings have undergone
minimal private investment. In fact, portions of the
MDP area appear to have suffered more from disin-
vestment and owners’ neglect than improvements or
upgrades. Slightly more than $925,000 in improve-
ment costs, based on assessor’s information, has been
invested since 1990, and more than 60% of this
amount has been for improvements to 14 non-
residential buildings. Total improvement costs over
these eight years, when compared to current assess-
ments, equate to only 6% of total value. This indicates
an average improvement cost of less than 1% of as-
sessment per year, suggesting that many properties
suffer from deferred maintenance.
Seven buildings in the future development portion of
NUWC (i.e., non-state park area, including Buildings
14, 41, 34, 44, 43, 80 and 96), totaling 407,300 square
feet, are located within a proposed historic district.
This equates to 74% of the building inventory in the
development portion of NUWC. Nearly all these
buildings (except Building 96) are in fair to poor con-
dition and appear inefficient, either physically or fi-
nancially, to support long-term reuse potential.
Only two buildings, containing 141,400 square feet,
are ranked high in terms of their long-term market
potential as office buildings. This represents nearly
14% of the MDP area inventory. In addition, 13 non-
residential buildings, containing 150,800 square feet,
are considered to have possible interim and/or
medium development market potential, that may
complement the proposed reuses for the area. Most of
these interim properties, equating to nearly 15% of
the inventory, are currently occupied. Alternatively,
some, or all, of these buildings could be demolished
and their sites assembled for other uses, if retaining
them over the long term is not feasible and/or their
325
redevelopment conflicted with other reuse alterna-
tives. Most, if not all, these buildings would require
significant investment to continue and/or upgrade
their uses.
It should be noted that the three buildings (Buildings
2, 96 and 99) at NUWC with medium to high reuse
potential will require exterior changes, internal fit-
up, and mechanical upgrades which may trigger addi-
tional costs to flood-proof these buildings, given the
grandfathered location within the 100-year floodplain.
This could effectively diminish their reuse potential.
The remaining 102 buildings totaling 743,250 square
feet (72% of the building inventory) have limited, if
any, long-term market potential. This group includes
the remaining non-residential buildings and all resi-
dential properties. Most of these buildings are in rela-
tively poor condition, vary in architectural style and
materials, and exhibit a high amount of functional
obsolescence. Because their reuse would require fi-
nancial investment for modernization, demolition
may be considered for these structures. The reuse of
these existing buildings may not complement redevel-
opment opportunities in the MDP area.
Vacancy of Building Stock
An estimated 674,300 square feet of non-residential
buildings are vacant (including NUWC), indicating a
vacancy rate of 82%. There are also 118 residential
dwelling units in the MDP area (including two which
have been condemned and one which is an illegal
apartment). It is estimated that 24 of the residential
units are vacant, indicating a vacancy factor of 20%.
2.3.4 Relocation Plan and Process
In July of 1998, the Relocation Plan for the Fort
Trumbull Area Municipal Development Project was
326
developed in conjunction with this project. The Plan
conforms with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act
(URAA). Since that time, NLDC has been acquiring
properties and relocating individuals and businesses
in the MDP area on a voluntary basis.
Future acquisition and relocation, if determined to be
necessary, will be undertaken to ensure the availabil-
ity of resources to accommodate displacees. This care-
ful management of the redevelopment process will
ensure availability of resources to accommodate dis-
placees. The relocation process will be accomplished
by the New London Development Corporation with
assistance from others as appropriate. The relocation
of site occupants will comply with the Uniform Relo-
cation Assistance Act (Chapter 135 Connecticut Gen-
eral Statutes), the Relocation Location Plan for the
Fort Trumbull Area Municipal Development Project
(July 1988), and local procedures.
In addition to relocation assistance under the URAA,
$10 million of Connecticut Housing Finance Authority
(CHFA) low rate financing loans will be available to
help residents that may be dislocated during or follow-
ing any proposed redevelopment. The funds will be of-
fered at a rate which is 25 percent lower than CHFA’s
usual rate in first mortgage financing and can be used
by renters and owners to purchase and rehabilitate
homes. An additional $250,000 will be available in
downpayment assistance for relocated homeowners. The
Small Business Assistance Program will also be avail-
able, with $250,000 to help small businesses which may
be displaced. A detailed discussion of relocation assis-
tance is presented in Section 5.4 of this document.
2.3.5 Residential Households, Businesses, and
Non-Profit Agencies
The planning process for creation of a Municipal De-
velopment Plan for the Fort Trumbull area has not
327
been concluded. This is anticipated to be accom-
plished through the latter part of 1998 and conclude
in early 1999. As part of the MDP, a determination
will be made of necessary acquisition and relocation
of residential households, businesses, and nonprofit
agencies, based upon selection of a preferred alterna-
tive. Section 4.0 provides a description of the poten-
tial impacts of six alternatives with respect to the
need to relocate existing project area occupants. The
location of properties to be acquired, if any, relative to
the project boundaries, will be shown on an acquisi-
tion map which will accompany the MDP.
Figure 2.3-1 depicts the project area, with designa-
tions of map and block numbers. A basic survey of the
project area resulted in the identification of the non-
residential uses in the project area as presented in
Table 2.3-8. Not all of these spaces are occupied at
this time. Appendix C provides a complete listing of
properties within the MDP boundary.
TABLE 2.3-8
Summary of Non-Residential Uses by Block Number
_ Assessor's Assessor’s Business/Non-Profit
Block No. Map Agencies
68 22 4
89 22 3
101 22 4
102 22 2
105 22 1
106 22 3
107 21 & 22 10
109 26 1
TOTAL: 28
BE
Thames River
>
+ Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut Figure 2.3-1
ar~* Environmental Impact Evaluation - November 1998 Block and Lot
GS coverages deveiaped by Mane & MacBroom. Designations
«< wd HMA lo SS a
‘wy of New Landon, FEMA. Nevy bosemdted
&-asteipe a /\/ MDP Project Border
403
329
Residential properties in the project study area are
summarized in Table 2.3-9. Future acquisition of
residential dwellings and relocation of occupants, if
any, would be undertaken in a process to ensure the
availability of resources to accommodate displacees.
TABLE 2.3-9
Summary of Residential Uses by Block Number
ER Pe SP Pa | Total
Block No. Map | Buildings .~>
68 22 0 0 0
89 22 2 0 ri
101 22 i3 id 19
102 29 r 7 8
105 22 22 34 rv
106 22 7 12 id
io? | 21& 22 16 25 29
109 26 0 0 0
TOTAL:| 64 92 iis
Upon completion and approval of the Fort Trumbull
Municipal Development Plan by the governing body of
the City of New London and initiation of the project,
NLDC staff and/or its designees will meet with each
resident owner and tenant scheduled to be displaced
to conduct a survey. The purpose of the survey will be
to document the characteristics of each household or
business, (i.e., services or products sold, space occu-
pied) and ultimately determine specifications for a
new residence or business site. Based upon this in-
formation, alternative dwelling units and commercial
sites will be identified for these households, busi-
nesses, and non-profit agencies.
2.4
330
At this time, the real estate market, both its residen-
tial and commercial segments, appears to have a va-
cancy rate and turnover rate that will satisfy the
requirements of potential displacees from the project
area. Project relocation staff and/or its designees will
follow the Relocation Assistance Advisory Plan to be
adopted by NLDC and the City of New London to
carry out relocation responsibilities.
2.3.6 Anticiputed Relocation Expenses
The total expenses to relocate residential households,
businesses, and non-profit agencies from the project
area cannot be estimated at this time. Upon comple-
tion of the-Municipal Development Plan, a determina-
tion of the extent of acquisition, if any, will be made
and a budget will be established. The budget will in-
clude expenditures for eligible moving payments,
fixed payments, replacement housing payments, mov-
ing personal property and, when necessary, payments
for direct losses of personal property. A contingency
account will also be budgeted.
Funding for the relocation program is to coincide with
the phasing of the acquisition of properties.
Additional information regarding relocation expenses
is presented in Section 5.0 of this document.
Community Facilities and Services
The following information regarding education,
health care, public safety, emergency services, and
parks and recreation has been taken in part from the
City of New London Plan of Development. Personal
telephone interviews have been conducted to update
331
and verify this information, which will serve as the
basis for evaluation of potential impacts as presented
in Section 4.0 of this document.
2.4.1 Education
The City of New London provides a full range of edu-
cational services to its residents. The education sys-
tem is managed by a seven-member group of elected
officials known as the Board of Education. Five ele-
mentary schools located throughout the city provide
educational services for children in grades K-6. These
elementary schools include the Winthrop, Jennings,
Edgerton, Harbor, and Nathan Hale Schools. Also in-
cluded in the school system is the Little Red School-
house, providing special needs programs. Middle
school services are provided at the Bennie Dover
Jackson Middle School for grades 6-8. The New Lon-
don High School provides education for grades 9-12.
A number of private schools also exist in the City of
New London. Five private schools provide elementary
education, including Saint Mary’s School, Saint Jo-
seph’s School, Solomon Schecter Academy, the Word
Center Christian Academy, the Regional Multi-
Cultural Magnet School, and the Inter-district School
for Arts and Communication (ISAAC). The Williams
Memorial Institute provides private education at the
junior and senior high school levels.
Both daytime and evening adult education programs
are provided to the residents of New London. The city
leases a building in the Shaw’s Cove Business Park
which houses the Adult Education Center. Also lo-
cated within the city are several institutions of higher
learning, including the Sawyer School, Ridley Lowell
Business and Technical Institute, Mitchell College,
332
Connecticut College, and the United States Coast
Guard Academy.
The current school enrollment levels are expected to
remain relatively stable. As a result, it is not antici-
pated that any schools will be closed or new schools
constructed. At the present time, most of the schools
operate at enrollment levels below the rated capacity
of the buildings.
Table 2.4-1 lists the grades, current enrollment as of
1998, maximum capacity of each school, and the
streets in the Fort Trumbull area of New London in
each school district. The majority of the MDP area is
allocated to the Harbor School for elementary educa-
tion. All middle school and high school students in
this area would go to Bennie Dover Jackson Middle
School and New London High School, respectively.
333
TABLE 2.4-1
Current Enrollment and Maximum Capacities
of New London Public Schools
Name Grade /Current imum|Fort Trumbull
Enroll- |Capacity |Area Streets
ment Assigned
to School
Little Red ungraded Not |None
Schoolhouse Available!
(special needs
program)
Edgerton elementary; 327 408 (None
School
Harbor School \elementary 377 476 |Chelsea Street
East Street
[Goshen Street
Maple Avenue
Pequot Aven
Jennings elementary; 382 377 |None
School
Nathan Hale (elementary, 259 408 /jNone
School
Winthrop elementary 271 383 {Hamilton
School Howard Street
Bennie Dover | middle 683 728 «All
Jackson school
Middle School
New London high 726 800 |All
High School school
Source: City of New London. Board of Education, 1998.
334
2.4.2 Health Care
The major contributor to the region’s health care fa-
cilities is the Lawrence and Memorial Hospital lo-
cated on Montauk Avenue in New London. This
facility maintains 350 beds and serves approximately
14,000 hospitalized inpatients and over 100,000 out-
patients per year. The hospital is currently under an
expansion and modernization project which will bring
the facility up to par with some of the other leading
hospitals in the state. When the project is complete,
the new services will include a new advanced emer-
gency room, a maternity service wing, new operating
suites, and a community service center. The expan-
sion project has been divided into three separate
phases. Currently, Phase 2 is near completion.
The City of New London is also home to approxi-
mately 70 offices of local physicians, dentists, and
other health care professionals. The Community
Health Center relocated its facility to the Shaw’s Cove
Business Park in the fall of 1994.
The City of New London Health Department is also
active in protecting the health of the public. The
Health Department currently oversees a number of
programs, including lead abatement, code enforce-
ment, immunization, radon, Aids, teen pregnancy pro-
tection, and school dental and health.
2.4.3 Public Safely and Emergency Services
The City of New London provides a variety of police,
fire and emergency services in an effort to reduce the
loss of life and property and protect the public’s
safety.
335
Police Services
The New London Police Department headquarters
(staffed 24 hours per day) is located on Governor Win-
throp Boulevard. In addition to the headquarters,
there are two auxiliary police stations (staffed a por-
tion of the day) located on Bank Street and Truman
Street. A total of 90 sworn officers and 20 civilian per-
sonnel comprise the New London Police Department.
The Police Department also operates 14 marked pa-
trol cars and 10 unmarked cars as well as a marine
unit that includes a boat and three officers. (Personal
communication, Captain Edwards, July 1998)
Fire and Emergency Services
The New London Fire Department headquarters is lo-
cated on Bank Street. Two additional fire stations are
located on Broad Street and Lower Boulevard. In all,
the Fire Department employs 76 people, including the
fire chief, deputy fire chief, fire marshal, a fire inspec-
tor, and administrative staff. There are no volunteer
firefighters. The Fire Department headquarters lo-
cated on Bank Street also houses one ladder and one
tower engine. The Fire Department possesses two ad-
ditional fire engines held in reserve. (Personal com-
munication, Fire Department administrative staff,
July 1998)
In addition to its firefighting relaced responsibilities,
the New London Fire Department serves as the lead
resource necessary to abate hazardous materials inci-
dents, rescue operations, radiological incidents, and
other emergency incidents.
The City of New London operates an Ambulance Divi-
sion as part of the Fire Department. The Ambulance
Division operates out of the Fire Department head-
quarters located on Bank Street as well as at the
North Station. Two ambulances are operated full
336
time, with one additional ambulance in reserve. Each
ambulance is operated by a two-person crew, with a
total of four employees working per shift providing
emergency medical services to the community. (Per-
sonal communication, Fire Department administra-
tive staff, July 1998)
From the perspective of fire hazard rating of construc-
tion materials, 41% (427,200 square feet) of the build-
ing stock in the study area is wood framed construction
(Class D), and another 18% (185,000 square feet) is
wood and masonry framed construction (Class C).
There are 423,200 square feet (41%) of masonry/steel
construction (Class B or A), reflective of more modern
construction techniques. This group includes Build-
ings 2, 80 and 96 at NUWC, as well as the 194 How-
ard Street office building.
2.4.4 Parks and Recreation
City-Wide Park and Recreation Facilities
According to information in the 1997 New London
Plan of Development, the city owns and operates
one regional park, three citywide parks, three
beaches, one senior center/auditorium, two historic
sites, 11 neighborhood playgrounds, seven neighbor-
hood parks, one pier, one marina, and two open
space parks. This park system totals 292 acres at 28
sites and ranges in size from 0.35 acres to 95 acres.
In addition to these public facilities, there are several
private and quasi-public facilities located within the
city that are available to community residents. These
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.