Center School Presentations

Notice of Special Meeting by Town Council

January 27th at 5:30 p.m.
Information from finalists attached

Pursuant to the direction of Christopher Pia, Chair, the Stratford Town Council will conduct a special meeting on January 27, 2022 in Council Chambers of Stratford Town Hall, 2725 Main Street, Stratford, CT at 5:30 p.m. for the presentation of proposals by the two finalists for the Stratford Center Transit Oriented Development Project.

Presentations – stratford center transit oriented development project will be made by the two finalists:

  • Romano Brothers Builders
  • Spirit Investment Partners – Kaali-Nagy Properties

Presentations and all information on the two finalists may be found at the following website:

https://www.stratfordct.gov/qcontent/NewsFeed.aspx?FeedID=3088

1. Spirit Proposal:

PROPOSAL PREPARED FOR:

TOWN OF STRATFORD

Attn: Phillip Ryan, Purchasing Agent 2725 Main Street, Rm 104
Stratford, CT 06615

RFP #2022-01 SUBMITTED October 25, 2021

A Co-Development of Spirit Investment Partners and Kaali-Nagy Properties
45 East Putnam Avenue, Suite 106
Greenwich, CT 06830
Phone: (212) 331-8354

www.spiritinvestmentpartners.com

www.Kaali-nagy.com

October 25, 2021

Ms. Mary Dean

Economic & Community Development Director Town of Stratford
2725 Main Street,
Stratford, CT 06615

RE: RFP # 2022-01 Stratford Center Transit Oriented Development Project

 45 East Putnam Avenue Suite 106
Greenwich, CT 06830
(203) 966-8254

 

Dear Mary Dean: 

Once again, we would like to thank you and your fellow committee members for the opportunity to be involved in this RFP. As you know, we have put in a considerable amount of time over the past few months and welcome the opportunity to hopefully seeing this project through.

After some careful consideration, including updating our rents and fine tuning our projected cash flows, we are please to present a revised financial offer that is enclosed in this submission. Further, we have reviewed the appraisal submitted to us on October 18th and believe our current offer is more in line with the information included after considering the goals and requests set forth in the RFP.

Included in this submission you will find the following updated information:

  • Proposed Sources and Uses
  • Updated 10-year Cash Flow with associated footnotes
  • Proposed 10-Year PILOT, which is in accordance with Section 191-11 of the Stratford Tax Incentive Program
  • Revised Letter of Intent

As previously mentioned, we would welcome the opportunity to provide any supporting schedules that include more detail of the information enclosed.

On behalf of the Spirit-KN team, we thank you again and look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely,

Scott D. Zwilling Principal, Spirit KN

 

Project Budget | Sources & Uses

Project Budget

The Project Budget outlines the various costs associated with the development and the associated sources of funds needed.

Spirit KN are well financed and highly confident in its ability to capitalize this project. We are happy to discuss our financials with the Town of Stratford.   

10 Year Cash Flow Model

Proforma Footnotes

 

  1. All units at Sutton Place project to be 100% market rate with the following unit

  1. Market Standard 0% Loss to Lease
  2. Assumed pre-leasing of 30% at opening of property, while leasing up at 15 units / month afterwards until reaching a stabilized occupancy of 95%. In Deal Year 3, we’ve assumed various amounts of free months on a twelve-month lease, from 2 months, to 1 month, to half a
  3. Stabilized Occupancy of 95%
  4. Assumes 1 Model Unit
  5. Assumes a 5% delinquency and collection loss
  6. Projecting a $5 trash fee and full reimbursement of water and sewer costs. All other utilities will be paid directly by
  7. Includes $50 / month per parking space of below ground structure, pet income, application fees, late fees, and a

$55/month amenity fee. Assumptions are comparable to similar properties in the area.

 

 

Proforma Footnotes

  1. Comparable to market standards
  2. Assumes staffing of a property manager, a leasing agent, a superintendent, and a maintenance Compensation in-line with market comparables.
  3. Advertising and Marketing is in-line with previously managed Additional marketing funds for the initial lease up period are capitalized in the construction budget.
  4. Turnover costs in-line with market Assume 0 turns in the first year, and 20% in year two, 40% thereafter.
  5. Repairs and Maintenance costs are in-line with newly constructed
  6. Contract Service costs are in-line with newly constructed buildings
  7. Market Standard 75% Management Fee.
  8. Utility Estimates are in-line with comparable properties in the
  9. Insurance quotes have been priced out with Lockton Companies at $400 /
  10. Property Taxes have been vetted with multiple tax specialists familiar with Fairfield County and local tax See next page for the full tax projection and corresponding Tax Incentive Proposal.

Proposed Pilot

Given the cost of the subterranean parking garage and other restriction imposed upon the proposed development, Spirit KN is requesting a PILOT schedule, which is in accordance with the Town of Stratford Tax Incentive Program.

 

RE: RFP #2022-01 – Stratford Center Transit Oriented Development Project Revised LOI

 

Dear Mary Dean:

This letter sets forth the terms and conditions under which Spirit Investment Partners/Kaali-Nagy Properties and/or its assignees (the “Purchaser”) is willing to proceed with the acquisition of the

  • acre of land, formerly known as the Center Elementary School Site, located at 1000 East Broadway, Stratford, CT 06615 from the Town of Stratford (the “Seller”). Upon execution by both parties, this letter shall serve as the basis for the legal counsel of Purchaser to prepare a definitive Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “Agreement”) per the price and conditions below:
  1. Purchaser’s Project Purchaser intends to develop the Property with 160 multifamily units and related amenities (the “Purchaser’s Project”).
  2. Price The purchase price for the Property shall be One Million Six Hundred Twenty Five Thousand ($1,625,000), all cash at closing, less deposits and subject to customary adjustments and prorations (the “Purchase Price”). The final land price shall be adjusted proportionately based on the number of units approved by governmental
  3. Inspection Period The Purchaser shall have an inspection period of ninety (90) days following execution and delivery of a purchase and sale contract (the “Contract”) and delivery of the last of the due diligence items (the “Inspection Period”), during with time Purchaser may cancel the Contract at Purchaser’s absolute discretion by written notice to A detailed list of due diligence items will be provided for in the Contract. Seller shall deliver all of said items in its possession and control.
  4. Deposits All deposits shall be applicable to the Purchase Price at Final Closing and delivered as follows:
    Within two (2) business days from full execution of the Contract, Purchaser shall deposit the sum of Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($37,500) (“Initial Deposit”) to be held in escrow in an interest-bearing account by the Title Company during the pendency of the Agreement. The Initial Deposit shall be fully refundable prior to the close of the Inspection

In the event the Purchaser elects to proceed with the purchase beyond the Inspection Period, Purchase shall place a second deposit of Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($37,500) (“Additional Deposit”, plus Initial Deposit collectively known as the “Earnest Money”) to be held in escrow by the Title Company in an interest-bearing account by the Title Company during the pendency of the All interest earned shall become part of the Earnest Money. After the Earnest Money becomes non-refundable, subject to the conditions in Section 6 and 7, if the Purchaser fails to consummate the transaction as required under the terms of the Agreement, said Earnest Money shall be retained by Seller as full and final liquidated damages. If Seller fails to consummate the transaction as required under the terms of the Agreement, the Earnest Money shall be returned to Purchaser and Purchaser shall be entitled to such remedies as are set forth in the Purchase Agreement, including specific performance.

  1. Closing The closing under the Contract shall occur sixty (60) days after the Final Approvals are in place for the development of Purchaser’s Project, unless Purchaser waives this condition in writing. Purchaser, at its election, may extend the closing for three (3) consecutive 30-day period by increasing the Deposit by $25,000 for each such extension. These extension deposits ($75,000 if all three are exercised) shall be nonrefundable and shall be applied to the Purchase Price.
  2. Final Approvals The Purchaser, at Purchaser’s expense, will diligently seek the Final These include zoning (including site plan approval, variances, special use permits, and the like, as applicable under municipal zoning) so as to allow for Purchaser’s Project to be constructed, with all appeals periods having lapsed. Once the site plan approval becomes final, Purchase, at Purchaser’s cost, will prepare construction/engineering drawings for the Project and will present the same to appropriate governmental and quasi-governmental agencies for approval and for other approvals as may be required. Once those plans are approved and building permits are available (contingent only upon payment of applicable fees) with all appeal period having lapsed, the Project will be deemed to have the “Final Approvals” and Purchaser will proceed to closing. If Final Approvals include less than 160 multifamily units, Purchaser may terminate the Contract and obtain the return of the Earnest Money.
  3. Conditions Precedent to Closing The following matters shall be conditions to Purchaser’s obligation to close and the Earnest Money becoming non-refundable.
  4. Purchaser shall have obtained Final Approvals. If Purchaser does not receive the Final Approvals within Twelve (12) months (the “Approval date”) from the end of the inspection period, Purchaser may unilaterally extend the Approval Date for six months, provided Purchaser evidences to Seller that it has submitted to governmental agencies construction plan and specifications for the same. If the Final Approvals are not obtained by the eighteenth (18th) month following the end of the Inspection Period, either party may terminate the Contract with written notice, provided Purchaser may negate a Seller termination notice by electing to proceed to Closing and waive the condition precedent of Final If Purchaser elects to terminate the agreement, all Earnest Money shall be refunded to Purchaser within ten (10) days on notice of election to terminate

PILOT and incentive approval for the said Project by the Town of Stratford that is acceptable to Purchaser.

  1. There will be no moratoria imposed by any federal, state or local governments or agencies thereof or private or public utilities that would prevent delay or impair any aspect of Purchaser’s development of the Property and issuance of appropriate permits for Purchaser’s
  2. All utilities for the Project will be available to the site in sufficient capacity to service Purchaser’s Project and available for “tap in”.
  3. Seller shall convey title to the Property to Purchaser subject only to restrictions and other matters of title existing and/or agreed upon prior to the end of the Inspection Period, none of which may preclude Purchaser’s
  4. The physical condition of the Property shall not have materially changed from the end of the Inspection Period until the closing.
  5. Cooperation Seller will fully cooperate with and assist Purchaser in securing all necessary approvals for Purchaser’s Purchaser will be responsible for all costs associated with the Final Approvals. Purchase will be responsible for all costs associated with the design of the Project. Closing costs will be shared jointly by Purchaser and Seller in customary fashion for Stratford, Connecticut.
  6. Brokers The parties represent and warrant to each other that they have not dealt with any real estate brokers, salesman, or finders to whom a brokerage commission is

Seller and Purchaser shall provide appropriate mutual indemnification language with respect to claims of real estate brokers and/or real estate agents in the Contract.

This letter is an expression of interest only, and none of the provisions hereof shall be binding on either party unless and until set forth in the Contract and signed by both parties. This offer will expire unless accepted by Seller and a signed counterpart of this Letter is received by us on or before 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time on or before September 8th, 2021.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, by its execution below, Seller hereby agrees that it will not enter into active discussions concerning the development of the Property with a third party, will not market the Property to any other person, and will not execute any other letter of interest or other agreement with any potential buyer after the execution date of this Letter of Interest for thirty days. If the foregoing is agreeable, please sign below and return a copy to Purchaser and we will instruct our attorneys to prepare a purchase contract appropriate in a transaction of this nature. In connection with the same please provide us with a copy of the existing survey, owner’s title insurance policy, and hard copies of title exceptions.

We look forward to working with you to complete this transaction.

Sincerely,

Scott Zwilling Managing Principal

 

Purchase Price Analysis with Proposed PILOT
 

Appraised Value of Land

 

$3,000,000

Number of Units Appraisal is Based Upon 150
Appraised Value Per Unit $20,000
Appraised Land Value Per Unit $20,000
Number of Units if Surface Parking (no garage) 139
Total Value of Land if Sold with No Restrictions (garage, spaces to city, etc.) $2,780,000
Cost of Below Grade Garage (Hard and Soft Costs) (1) ($6,889,520)
Asphalt Cost if Surface Park (no garage) $200,000
Public Park Construction Cost ($500,000)
Value of Park Maintenance (2) ($100,000)
Value of Additional Units (3) $420,000
Value of Additional Rent on Garage Spaces (4) $562,000
Value of Ongoing Maintenance for BOE Below Grade Spaces (5) ($300,000)
 

Net Value of Land

 

($3,827,520)

Land Purchase Price Offered to Town ($1,625,000)
Net Cost of Land ($5,452,520)
Present Value of PILOT Benefit (10 yrs) @ 5% discount rate $4,569,476
Difference ($883,044)
  • 206 below grade spaces x $33,444.27 per space
  • $5,000 per year @ 5% cap rate
  • 160 units – 139 units = 21 additional units x $20,000/unit
  • 156 below grade parking spaces x $15/month ($50/month for garage – $35/month for surface) @ 5% cap rate
  • $15,000 in operating cost per year at a 5% cap rate

 

 Parking Count                                                                                                                

 

 

Public Street Parking on Sutton Avenue

# Spaces

9

Garage Spaces (units on Sutton Ave) 18
Below Grade Garage Spaces *** 156
Visitor Spaces 4
Total Residential Spaces 187
Board of Ed Surface Spaces 30
Board of Ed Below Grade Spaces *** 50
Total Non-Residential Spaces 80
*** Total Below Grade Spaces 206

 

MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED PER ZONING ***
# Units Min. Pkg Total Min. Spaces
Studio 8 1 8
1-Bed 102 1 102
2-Bed 44 1.25 55
3-Bed 6 1.5 9
Total 160 174

 

*** Based on TOD Overlay

2. Romano Brothers Proposal:

August 17, 2021

To: The Center School Property Selection Connnittee Attn: Ms. Karen Sportini
Economic and Connnunity Development Town of Stratford
2725 Main Street, Room 104
Stratford, CT 06615

Re: RFP #2022-01
Development of Town Owned Property
Stratford Center Transit Oriented Development Project Romano Brothers Builders, LLC

Dear Connnittee Members,

On behalf of Team Romano, we submit a revised proposal to address the items identified in the emails from Ms. Mary Dean to Mark Romano on July 26 and July 27, 2021. For reference, a copy of the emails are attached hereto. A Supplemental Executive Sunnnary and ten (10) copies of same with one (1) flash drive are also included with this letter. The Romano Team looks forward to meeting with the Connnittee on August 31, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in the Stratford Town Council chambers.

RFP #2022-01
Stratford Center TOD Project

Q Mark Romano
Romano Brothers Builders, LLC
6 Fransway
Shelton, CT 06484
(203) 650-4800

Romano Brothers Builders, LLC Revised Proposal
Supplemental Executive Summary

Revised Proposal Based Upon Comments from the Committee

Romano Brothers Builders, LLC (“Romano”) hereby submit this Supplemental Executive Summary in response to comments from the Committee. See comments attached as Exhibit A.

The Entity

Addressed in prior Executive Summary.

The Team

Addressed in prior Executive Summary.

Proposed Revised Purchase Price

Romano offers $1,540,000.00 to purchase the Property.

Housing Units

Romano Builders proposes to build a total of 154 housing units with a total of 196 bedrooms based upon a 3.6 acre parcel in the TOD zone. 20 of the units will be two-bedroom flats in four unit townhouses, and an additional 134 units in a single four-story building where 14 units will be studios.

The revised building footprint is 36,608 square feet; therefore, at 4 stories, it is 146,423 square feet. The bedroom count is as follows:

1. 2 studio / 21 one / 6 two
2. 4 studio / 25 one/ 6 two
3. 4 studio/ 26 one/ 5 two
4. 4 studio / 26 one/ 5 two

In total, 14 studio/ 98 one/ 22 two= 134 units/ 156 bedrooms requiring 140 spaces. Flats on Sutton, 20 units / 40 bedrooms requiring 25 spaces.

98 units are proposed to be one bedroom units and 22 units are proposed to be two bedroom units. The townhouses are proposed to face Sutton Avenue with 5 four-unit townhouses facing Sutton Avenue; two buildings to the left and three to the right of the proposed greenscaped park area (“Sutton Park”) that will be accessible to the public as well as to occupants of the development at no cost to the Town.

The townhouses and main building are designed to be in keeping with the neighborhood and nearby historical buildings, namely, the First Congregational Church of Stratford building located at 2301 Main Street. The motif from the original proposal will be in keeping with this revised proposal.

The four-story apartment building will also include a business center, a recreation room, and a fitness center.
Adjustments to the number of proposed units may be made; however, there may be a conesponding adjustment to the purchase price. See Revised Site Plan attached as Exhibit B.

Parking

It is proposed that a total of 260 units of parking be provided. See the following calculations:

A total of 245 spaces are required for the proposal, broken down as follows:

Board of Education:
• Surface Spaces 20
• Underground Spaces 60
Residential:
• Studio/one-bedroom units (112@ 1/unit) 112
• Two-bedroom units (42 @ 1.25/unit) 53
Total: 245 spaces
A total of 260 spaces has been provided as follows:
• Underground 18l
• Surface @BOE 20
• Surface @ garage entrance 8
• Along access drive 30
• At building entry plaza 21
Total: 260 spaces See Parking Plan attached as Exhibit C.

Ninety percent of the units above the at-grade parking will have a garage space available. It is likely that this would be more than adequate considering reduced car ownership in a T.0 .D. multifamily development. Therefore, assuming a 90% mixed-use or T.O.D. parking need for the multifamily building, the required below grade residential parking is 121 spaces. This combined with the 60 Board of Education spaces equals the total 181 underground parking spaces provided. The developer is prepared to assign 60 underground spaces for use by the Board of Education and will conform to the Town’s Zoning Regulations for the residential development with 15 excess spaces being provided.

Romano does not intend to seek compensation for the Town’s use of these spaces.
Maintenance and snow and ice clearing will be the responsibility of Romano.

Romano believes that the townhouses and greenscaping along the western edge of the proposed park will substantially screen any onsite above grade parking from the view of the surrounding neighborhood.

There is an increase in subtenanean parking which has an impact on the price Romano can offer for the property so that there is a corresponding adjustment to the proposed purchase price. See page one. Additionally, a tax abatement will be required, to cover the cost of the additional subtenanean parking spaces.

Affordable Units

Addressed in prior Executive Summary.

SUTTON PARK

An 80 x 120 foot public access park to be created and maintained by Romano at no cost to the Town.

Dog Park

If desired, Romano intends the inclusion of a dog park for use by tenants at no cost to the Town. A proposed location is shown on plans but this location may be changed.

Economic Impact

Addressed in prior Executive Summary.

MomDUSE

Team Romano does not believe that commercial use – retail, business, office or otherwise, will be successful on the subject Property. However, upon reflection, the Board of Education’s use of the property is, essentially, a mixed use of the property.

Tax Abatement

The increased underground parking greatly drives up the cost of the project. For this revised Proposal Romano requests the application of the tax abatement schedule as set forth in Section 191-11 of the Stratford Town Code entitled Incentive Programs, for cost of improvement,
$20,000,000.00 or greater.

This schedule is as follows:

During the period of construction, but not greater than eighteen (18) months, or such additional time as may be extended by the Tax Partnership Screening Committee, but not to exceed six (6) additional months. Given the scope of construction, although not anticipated, it is possible that additional time will be required, but see Development Time Line below, or (2) until the receipt of Certificate of Occupancy, whichever shall occur first: 100% exempt, then following such period of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy:

Year 1: up to 100% Exempt;
Year 2: up to 100% Exempt;
Year 3: up to 100% Exempt;
Year 4: up to 80% Exempt;
Year 5: up to 70% Exempt;
Year 6: up to 60% Exempt;
Year 7: up to 50% Exempt;
Year 8: up to 40% Exempt;
Year 9: up to 30% Exempt;
Year 10: up to 20% Exempt.

Traffic Flow

Addressed in prior Executive Summary.

Pedestrian Flow

Addressed in prior Executive Summary.

The TOD Zone

The Romano Proposal is consistent with the TOD zone requirements and will not require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Proposal will provide an alternative to the traditional single family home environment.

In addition, the Romano Proposal will lead to market growth in Stratford Center. It will be the redevelopment of an unutilized property. The Proposal will create an environment that encourages walking and bicycling as transit use, thereby reducing auto dependency.

The Romano Proposal will provide a range of housing options for people at different stages of life and will be consistent with enhancing the nearby streetscape. It will, of course, be within walking distance of the Stratford Train Station and the GBTA bus line.

Subcontractors

A. Addressed in prior Executive Summary.

Resources Required from the Town of Stratford

It is not anticipated that any resources will be required from the Town of Stratford other than that standard administrative services for constmction related activities. The Town of Stratford will not be involved financially in the project’s capital status. However, tax abatement, as set forth above will be required.

Development Time Line

The construction is proposed to be formed in a single phase. A conservative estimate for time is six (6) months for land use approvals; six (6) months for design, bidding and contracting; and one and a half (1½) yearn to build out.

Public Outreach

It is anticipated that the Romano team, during the land use approval phase, will plan and conduct at least two informational sessions for the public and local businesses.

 

 

Up In Smoke

Recreational Cannabis Sales on Hold

The Town of Stratford Planning Commission, at its January 18th meeting, voted to recommend a temporary moratorium on recreational cannabis sales. The issue will be sent to the Zoning Commission, who are expected to discuss the moratorium proposal during their January 26th meeting. If the Zoning Commission approves it will send a formal proposal back to the Planning Commission for review.

Stratford is allowed to have up to two facilities based on its population. Town Planner Susmitha Attota, noted that the Planning Commission has three options:

  1. To end the existing regulations;
  2. place a moratorium to determine how it evolves;
  3. or ban such facilities in Town with legitimate reasons.

James Olsen, a member of the Stratford Partnership for Youth and Families, which has historically worked to limit marijuana consumption among Stratford youth, said he favored placing the decision in the hands of Stratford voters. The CT bill allows a local referendum on whether or not to allow the sale of marijuana,” he said. “To qualify for the ballot, 10 percent of voters must sign a petition. So that’s another thing that could be done.”

Attota explained that the Zoning Commission is looking for Planning Commission input regarding logistical information such as impact and location. She added that it could be further explored in the Plan of Conservation Development (POCD) if members choose a moratorium.

Planning Commissioners O’Connor and Aurelia recommended seeking input from Town boards, departments, BOE, and local community groups as well as public hearings to determine the impact these facilities this would have on the Town. Commissioner Boyd seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

The Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) in an announcement posted on January 4th stated that it will begin accepting applications for certain adult-use cannabis establishment license types in 30 days, following the Social Equity Council’s final approval of technical assistance plans. The Department is also announcing the number of licenses that will be available for each adult-use cannabis establishment type in the first lottery round.

The process to become a cannabis store is not inexpensive.  It is unknown at this time if anyone in Stratford has expressed an interest in opening a Cannabis Store.  It also should be noted that studies to date have indicated that the sales of cannabis products would be lucrative for store owners as well of Stratford who would benefit from tax dollars.

  Non-Social Equity Fees Social Equity Fees
Name Lottery Provisional License Lottery Provisional License
Cultivator $ 1,000 $ 25,000 $ 75,000 $ 500 $ 12,500 $ 37,500
Micro-cultivator $ 250 $ 500 $ 1,000 $ 125 $ 250 $ 500
Retailer $ 500 $ 5,000 $ 25,000 $ 250 $ 2,500 $ 12,500
Product Manufacturer $ 750 $ 5,000 $ 25,000 $ 375 $ 2,500 $ 12,500
Food and Beverage $ 250 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 $ 125 $ 500 $ 2,500
Delivery/Transport $ 250 $ 1,000 $ 5,000 $ 125 $ 500 $ 2,500
Product Packager $ 500 $ 5,000 $ 25,000 $ 250 $ 2,500 $ 12,500
Hybrid $ 500 $ 5,000 $ 25,000 $ 250 $ 2,500 $ 12,500

 

The Greenway/Complete Streets Subcommittee of the Stratford Planning Commission

Special meeting on Wednesday October 6, 2021 via GoToMeeting

Discussion of Complete Streets Policy & Greenway Plans 
Chairman Harold Watson stated that contractors working on the road should be careful to leave the sites either blocked off or safe for cyclists. He stated that the State DOT maintains an accident log, and requested a member volunteer to organize such a log for Stratford.
Editor’s Note: Bikers Beware!!! Town and State Oversight Results in Accident
This discussion was precipitated by a member of the Housatonic Greenway and Complete Streets Committee in Stratford involved in a bike accident at Elm Street and Ferry Boulevard after paving the town contractors for the project didn’t put cones up indicating that the edges of the street was not level, instead having a 3 inch drop which propelled him off his bike and broke his jaw.

Chairman Watson noted that the Town of Stratford has a right to request Complete Streets on State-owned roads. He suggested creating a master list of roads being repaired within Town.

John Casey, Town Engineer, stated Mayor Hoydick’s office is the prime contact for DOT projects, adding the DOT does not usually involve the Town in their projects. Casey explained the Town’s Stratford Avenue project, and noted the long-term plans include a 5-foot bike path on Stratford Avenue.

George Perham questioned the definition of a pathway on a proposed greenway. Watson stated that it is a phased building of the greenway. He added the goal should be a 20-mile path in Town to develop a culture for cyclists.

Tom Dillon questioned if, when the Route 1 bridge on Barnum Ave. Ext. is replaced, there will be a bike path. Chairman Watso,n said it will as it is part of the Complete Streets project.

Casey stated there will be walkways on both sides. Attota explained that the DOT is reluctant to have bike lanes on high speed roads and intersections, and has rules and regulations for such.

Status of Projects
Attota explained the Phase 2 Complete Streets study will begin soon. CIP funding is available, and the MetroCOG board approved $2.5 million for implementation. The Town is awaiting DOT approval for the Phase 1 90% design. Construction for that is scheduled for April 2022. According to Attota, the preliminary design study for Phase 3 along Ferry Blvd. will cost approximately $50,000. The P&Z office will put it in their proposed budget for FY2023. Perham stated that a schematic design was already done. Attota explained that a preliminary design is needed next, but would be less intense workload than Phase 1.

The Town of Stratford Planning Commission

Conducted a special meeting on Monday October 4, 2021 via GoToMeeting

First discussion was the petition by the Stratford Economic Development Commission seeking to amend Section 7.1.7.2 of zoning regulations on outdoor dining.  Susmitha Attota, Town of Stratford Planning, explained that the proposal meets the POCD’s placemaking objectives. Maureen Whelan, Environmental Supervisor from the town Health Department, explained that the cmTent noise ordinance prohibits loud music being played between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7a.m. She noted that noise ordinance complaints are handled by both Health Department. and the Police Department.

Mary Dean, Economic Development, stated that Zoning. has been contacted with complaints by only a handful of residents. Harold Watson, Chairman, suggested that the Police Dept. be given decibel monitors.

Dean explained that the plan is to have various Town departments work with businesses regarding the noise levels.  Joseph Gerics stated that he did some research and found that neighboring communities do not allow it (outdoor dining with music). Ms. Dean replied that she called the Economic Development directors in those same communities and got a very different response: they are silent on it, but none prohibit it.

Jim Benson noted that the Economic Development Commission spent a great deal of time on this, and determined that a majority of restaurant owners in Town would like controlled entertainment in their establishments. Aurelia expressed concerns regarding the enforcement of noise ordinances.  Debra Lamberti noted that sometimes music is too loud in a restaurant for diners to converse.  Whelan noted noise monitors need to be checked at the address of the complainant – NOT the location of the restaurant.

Attota stated that the Planning & Zoning office maintains a log of telephone calls for enforcement related complaints.  Chairman Watson accepted a motion by Dan Senft to approve the proposal and send to Zoning.Commission a favorable recommendation with the condition that it be re-visited in one year. Lamberti seconded the motion, which carried 4-1, with Gerics opposed.

Petition of 24 SurfAvenue LLC seeking to amend the zoning regulations by creating a new Section 30 titled “Surf Avenue Housing Zone” (SAHZ) and seeking a change of zone for 24  Surf Avenue property from RM-1 to the proposed SAHZ.

Attota explained that this project is consistent with the objectives of the POCD. Attorney Tim Hollister, from 24 Surf Avenue LLC, gave a brief overview of the project, noting the property is not in a flood zone.  Attota stated she and Town Engineer John Casey questioned evacuation in case of flooding . Attorney Hollister discussed parking space allocation, with Lamberti stating the need for more parking spaces.  Aurelia questioned the project density and expressed parking concerns.  Chairman Watson suggested an expert be hired to determine density and parking. Per Mr. Rose, the building height is 50′. Upon discussion, Chairman Watson accepted a motion by Gerics to recommend to the zoning commission hire an expert regarding traffic, stormwater, and public safety. Aurelia seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Next on the agenda was a Petition by Bal Harbour, LLC and Bal Harbour, II LLC (a property management company from Bal Harbor, FL) seeking to amend Section 8 of zoning regulations 011 “Waterfront Business District” (WF).

Attorney Paul Sobel gave an overview of the project and parcels in waterfront (WF) zoning.  Attota explained that she, along with Planning & Zoning Administrator Jay Habansky, Enviromnental Conservation Superintendent Kelly Kerrigan and CT DEEP, question changing the distance of impervious area from 75 feet to 50 feet of coastal resources.

All agreed the current standards should remain. Per Attota, §5.3.2 gives more clarity on the layout of units. Anthony Salce stated in 2008 the building was designed to tie-in with the existing structure, adding the current plan does not extend beyond the existing pavement. Upon discussion, Mr. Watson accepted a motion by Gerics to send this application with a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Commission with the following conditions:

  • Reject the language changing buildable acre to 40,000 square feet
  • Reject the change of distance of impervious surfaces from coastal resources from 75-feet to 50-feet
  • Consider a 10% affordable housing component
  • Reject the language change in Section 3 that redefines “residential use” to “mixed use development with a residential use”
  • Minimize impacts to natural resources by considering the inclusion of zoning guidance by Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA), as indicated in the staff

Mr. Aurelia seconded the motion, which carried 4-0, with Mr. Senft absent for the vote.

Planning Commission Meeting

September 21st

Vessel Technologies, Inc. appeared before the Planning Commission requesting creation of a new housing designation, Honeyspot Housing Zone (HSHZ), an amendment that would change the parcel of land at 313 Honeyspot Road (and Lot 14) from RM-1 (two family districts) to HSHZ.

Vessel proposes to construct a three-story 15-unit affordable housing development as allowed by the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 8-30G.  According to Josh Levy, principal of Vessel, the Town Council has already given the nod to Vessel to develop this property, which is currently a municipal property.

According to Levy, the 15-units meets all POCD (Plans of Conservation Development) goals and objectives, and the Stratford housing plan.

“We are working to invent the technologies behind a 21st century housing economy. Our efforts are focused on better design, material selection and manufacturing processes. Our mission is to offer a housing alternative that is reliable, functional, durable, secure, accessible and affordable. We are developing close partnerships with landholders, such as municipalities, philanthropies, or private individuals, who share our vision and want to see their vacant land put to productive use. Our plan is to activate entrepreneurs within the communities we will serve, who will find opportunity in the jobs we will create in building and operating the Vessel system.”

Editor’s Note: The Vessel System US Patent Number 10,704,251, is construction using modular systems and methods for assembling multiunit buildings, and particularly to systems and methods wherein individual units are constructed from multiple vertically stacked modules.

Levy noted that Vessel has been working with the town for over a month on developing the site, and, must have approval by October 1st.  The 15-units will each be 525 square feet, 1 bedroom, and provide 1 parking space per unit.  There will be a deed restriction of 1 person or 1 couple per unit.

The Vessel proposal passed the Planning Commission by a vote of 3-1.

In other business:

Merritt 8 LLC went before the Planning Commission to amend Section 5.3 and 6.3 regarding residence apartments (3 or more multifamily housing units) in an Office Park Development (OPD) Zone.  Stratford presently has two sites listed as OPD, Merritt 8 building on Hawley Lane, and the Stratford Executive Park on Lordship Boulevard (which apparently is not viable at this time).

The Commission instructed Merritt 8 that in order to move into Zoning for approval they needed to add affordable housing to their proposal, as well as mixed use.

Their proposal passed unanimously.

Tabled until the next meeting was a general discussion on recreational cannabis, and a moratorium extension on methadone clinics.

Future of Stratford Analyzed

MetroCOG Drafts Regional Economic Development Strategy

By Rachel Rusnek

On September 15th the Metropolitan Council of Governments (MetroCOG), a regional planning organization serving Bridgeport, Easton, Fairfield, Monroe, Stratford and Trumbull, hosted a virtual meeting to discuss the proposed draft Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for the region.

Executive Director, Matt Fulda and Deputy Director, Patrick Carleton presented the draft Strategy to a small audience over Zoom. The CEDS, a plan for regional economic development, is required by the Economic Development Administration (EDA) for the region to be designated as an economic development district and become eligible for federal development grants. The strategy, updated every five years, includes an assessment of each municipality, and the region as a whole, and evaluates the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, trends, identifies existing or potential capital improvement projects and lays out a strategy for complementary and coordinated economic growth.  The assessment and report were developed in conjunction with RKG Associates, a Boston economic planning consultancy.

Identified weaknesses include:

  • the lack of a unified vision for the region,
  • lack of cooperation between municipalities,
  • and public perception.

The proximity to major markets, transportation and skilled workforce represented top strengths for the region.

A notable finding of the assessment is that the strongest job growth has been in those positions requiring minimal education. Since 2010 the growth of jobs requiring a high school diploma or less has grown by 16,700, while jobs requiring bachelor’s and post graduate degrees have declined by 9,300.

The analysis of Stratford identifies that compared to peers, we have considerable open/vacant land, amounting to approximately 2,747 acres. Within this available space,  a substantial portion includes the abandoned Army Engine Plant.

The CEDS pinpoints the Army Engine Plant as the most substantial development opportunity in the region. Meanwhile, the towns’ primary growth in recent years has been in the development of warehouses, distribution, and self-storage facilities. The assessment notes “While the town has a strong manufacturing base, this segment of the industrial marketplace has not been served by recent development…”.

The CEDS lays out six priorities for the region which include:

  • Organization and Coordination
  • Business Retention and Expansion
  • Business Recruitment and Attraction
  • Existing Asset Development
  • Economic Development Toolkit
  • Outreach, Communication, and Marketing

A few strategies identified to implement these recommendations include the development of a Public Private Partnership to increase private sector engagement, involving MetroCOG citizens in community outreach and implementation projects, issuing an annual business survey, developing industry groups and creating a business recruitment effort.

The research and assessment on the opportunities for the region, and specifically for Stratford, contained within the report are worthwhile, and give a glimpse into the state of our current economic standing and future opportunities.

Review the report and appendix at the MetroCOG site (https://ctmetro.org/regional-planning/economic-development/).

The report is open for public comment until September 30th. Comments and questions can be submitted via email to: mfulda@ctmetro.gov and pcarleton@ctmetro.gov

The People Speak

Town Council Meeting Public Comments

September 13th

The Stratford Town Council conducted a regular meeting on September 13th  at 8 p.m..  During the public comment portion of the meeting, (which begins at 6:30 p.m., and adjourns one hour before the regular meeting) speakers were:

Mark Hannon, President, Arts Alliance of Stratford, spoke to Council members about all upcoming events sponsored by the Arts Alliance.

Mitzi Antezzo, expressed her concern over the Town of Stratford mandating that developers vying for the Center School Redevelop contract provide underground parking.  Ms. Antezzo detailed the history of flooding in Stratford Center, as well as the recent flooding that occurred with Tropical Storm Ada (which brought 5 inches of rain to Stratford).  She wanted to know who was going to be responsible for flood damage when the buildings were complete; were the contractors going to include flood prevention in their plans.

Kathleen Callahan, shared her thoughts on the proposed Stratford use of the American Rescue Plan (ARP), a once-in-a-generation investment opportunity for our town. She believes that the use of the ARP requires community input to set priorities and a focus on racism as a public health crisis.  “Racism is a social determinant of health, causing inequity and disparate outcomes in many areas of life… While not a new situation, COVID-19 has highlighted this health divide with people of color in Connecticut bearing a disproportionate burden of illness and death.”

She pointed out that the Connecticut Council of Municipalities (CCM), the largest, nonpartisan organization of local leaders across the state, crafted a toolkit that provided guidance on how to best allocate this funding. They encourage expenditures that include addressing racial inequities and disproportionate harm by identifying and addressing pre-COVID barriers to growth.

CCM also recommends that local leaders convene all stakeholders in the community and build consensus about needs, resources, and priority-setting. Previously approved capital improvement and equipment may be key components of our local annual budgeting yet not necessarily the best use of these funds. I urge this body to not rush to allocate this money to existing priorities but rather to step back and examine the total picture of our communities’ needs. Indeed the CCM states that we should be intentionally planning our horizon for this funding through 2026.

ARP dollars are the Willy Wonka “golden ticket” – a gift from the federal government to help recover from the pandemic while investing in projects and people who have not been the focus before. We can not only recover but grow, when we change our perspective to include ideas that never make it to the decision table.

Note: Barbara Heimlich also expressed dissatisfaction over the proposed spending of ARP monies by the Town, as well as seeing no input, nor monies, spent on non-profits and small businesses impacted by COVID-19.

Jennifer Budai one of the issues that she brought up was that the Town Council, who are elected by residents and serve at our pleasure, were disingenuous in holding a public hearing that is not attended by all council members, the mayor and her staff, as well as other department heads.  No opportunity for feedback to comments.  She reminded all that it was a tradition to do so, and now that council meetings are once again in person, should be reinstated. She also weighed in on ARP and how there have been surveys coast to coast on what to do with monies, none of which Stratford seems to have mirrored.

Stephanie Philips voiced concern over the flooding in District 3, a chronic problem which has been overlooked.  She pointed out that most of the District sits in a flood plain; residents pay extra insurance for being in a flood plain, and after each heavy rainfall spend yet more money on pumping out basements.  She also noted that the water is so high that the police block off streets, which hampers the response of ambulances, fire and police.  She asked the Town Council to look into catch basins.

Linda Palermo requested that Stonybrook Housing be added to “affordable housing” listing, which would enable residents to get funding for upgrades and repairs.

Town Council Meeting Highlights:

Grants have been submitted and approved for:

  • Funding for the latest de-escalation techniques for the Stratford Police Department
  • Grant to acquire and install up to 240 smoke/CO alarms with a bed shaker device for residents who are hearing impaired or hearing disabled.
  • A grant through the Connecticut Department of Economic Development’s State Historic Preservation Office to hire a qualified professional to conduct a survey and capital needs assessment on the Sterling Homestead at 2225 Main Street.

Consolidated Edison Solutions Inc. was awarded the contract for five school solar photovoltaic projects to be installed at Bunnell, Stratford Academy/Johnson House/ Wooster, Chapel Street, Second Hill Lane.  The total amount is: $2,503,545.48.

Approval of a cost overrun of $10,914.41 for approved electrical service at West Broad/Linden for a revised total of $22,662.91.

Awarding Titan Enterprises Inc. for Juliet Low Park improvements in the amount of $63,800.

Editor’s Note: To see the projects that the Town of Stratford plans to spend our ARP monies on go to the Town of Stratford website.

Center School Redevelopment: Spirit

Round #2

Updated 10 Year Cash Flow Model

Unit Mix

After the latest changes to the property design, the table on the right highlights the 160-unit mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom apartments as well as 6 three-bedroom homes for rent.

Unit M

Studio

1 Bedroom 102
2 Bedroom 44 11
3 Bedroom Homes 6 1980 SF
Total Units 160 901 SF $

 

Project Budget

The Project Budget is inclusive of the changes from the original RFP submission, additional parking both below grade and on the ground level as well as adjusting the property orientation so that the main entrance faces East Broadway and lowering the traffic on Sutton Avenue.

Spirit KN are well financed and highly confident in its ability to capitalize this project. We are happy to discuss our financials with the Town of Stratford.

LTC $ Amount PSF $/Unit
SOURCES
Construction Debt 70% $28,234,719 $161 $176,467
Mezzanine Debt 9% $3,764,548 $21 $23,528
Equity 21% $8,339,469 $48 $52,122
TOTAL SOURCES $40,338,736 $230 $252,117
USES
Land ** $750,000 $4 $4,688
Acquisition Costs $550,000 $3 $3,438
Soft Costs $5,039,983 $29 $31,500
Hard Costs $30,810,963 $175 $192,569
Financing Costs $3,187,791 $18 $19,924
TOTAL USES *** $40,338,736 $230 $252,117

The current plan includes a below grade parking structure consisting of 206 spaces, of which 50 will be allocated to the Board of Education. The remaining 156 spaces will be rented to residents of Sutton Place. The previous plan had 198 below grade spaces, all of which were available for rent for residents of the building. As such, the difference equates to $25,200 in lost annual revenue (42 spaces at $50 per month) or approximately

$504,000 in reduced value. Additionally, the cost of the below grade structure has increased to $6.9M as a result of the increased parking count. As with Spirit KN’s previous submission, the goal of the proposed PILOT is to structure an abatement schedule that pays for the cost of the below grade garage plus the lost value of the parking on a net present value basis.

10 Year Cash Flow Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Rental Income

Market Rent

 

 

 

1,382,260

 

4,155,441

 

4,257,093

 

4,386,576

 

4,519,998

 

4,657,478

 

4,799,140

 

4,945,111

Gross Potential Rent 1,382,260 4,155,441 4,257,093 4,386,576 4,519,998 4,657,478 4,799,140 4,945,111
Loss to Lease (9,136) (56,397) (60,664) (62,509) (64,410) (66,369) (68,388) (70,468)
Concessions (101,510) (74,184) (40,442) (41,672) (42,940) (44,246) (45,592) (46,979)
Vacancy (773,202) (395,673) (212,855) (219,329) (226,000) (232,874) (239,957) (247,256)
Model Unit (8,388) (25,163) (25,163) (25,163) (25,163) (25,163) (25,163) (25,163)
Delinquency/Credit Loss (6,911) (20,777) (21,285) (21,933) (22,600) (23,287) (23,996) (24,726)
Total Rental Income 483,114 3,583,247 3,896,684 4,015,971 4,138,886 4,265,540 4,396,045 4,530,521
Other Income
Retail Income
Utility Income 4,935 30,664 32,991 33,815 34,661 35,527 36,416 37,326
Miscellaneous Income 54,967 248,321 262,668 269,235 275,966 282,865 289,937 297,185
Total Other Income 59,902 278,985 295,659 303,051 310,627 318,392 326,352 334,511
Effective Gross Income 543,016 3,862,232 4,192,343 4,319,022 4,449,513 4,583,932 4,722,398 4,865,032
Controllable Expenses
General & Administrative 20,315 61,453 62,989 64,564 66,178 67,832 69,528 71,266
Payroll & Benefits 115,947 350,739 359,507 368,495 377,707 387,150 396,829 406,749
Advertising & Marketing 22,120 66,913 68,586 70,300 72,058 73,859 75,706 77,599
Turnover 7,790 31,550 48,308 49,515 50,753 52,022 53,323
Repair and Maintenance 13,333 40,333 41,342 42,375 43,435 44,520 45,633 46,774
Contract Services 74,667 225,867 231,513 237,301 243,234 249,315 255,547 261,936
Total Controllable Expenses 246,382 753,094 795,487 831,343 852,127 873,430 895,266 917,647
Non-Controllable
Property Management 24,000 106,211 115,289 118,773 122,362 126,058 129,866 133,788
Utilities 41,100 79,330 76,735 78,533 80,376 82,266 84,202 86,187
Insurance 21,333 64,533 66,147 67,800 69,495 71,233 73,014 74,839
Property Taxes 4,051 52,808 104,342 168,103 226,647 287,263
Total Non-Controllable Expenses 86,433 250,075 262,221 317,914 376,575 447,660 513,728 582,078
Total Operating Expenses 332,815 1,003,169 1,057,708 1,149,258 1,228,702 1,321,090 1,408,994 1,499,725
Net Operating Income $ – $ – $ 210,201 $ 2,859,063 $ 3,134,635 $ 3,169,764 $ 3,220,811 $ 3,262,842 $ 3,313,404 $ 3,365,306
Calendar Year Full Tax Amount Year of Tax Incentive

Agreement

% of Taxes Phased In  

Tax Savings

Abated Taxes to Pay
2024 904,585 Year 1 0% 904,585
2025 937,782 Year 2 0% 937,782
2026 954,835 Year 3 0% 954,835
2027 972,198 Year 4 10% 874,979 97,220
2028 989,877 Year 5 15% 841,396 148,482
2029 1,088,260 Year 6 15% 925,021 163,239
2030 1,108,049 Year 7 20% 886,440 221,610
2031 1,128,199 Year 8 25% 846,149 282,050
2032 1,148,714 Year 9 30% 804,100 344,614
2033 1,169,603 Year 10 35% 760,242 409,361
2034 1,339,730 Year 11 40% 803,838 535,892
2035 1,364,092 Year 12 45% 750,251 613,841
2036 1,388,897 Year 13 50% 694,449 694,449
2037 1,414,153 Year 14 60% 565,661 848,492
2038 1,439,869 Year 15 70% 431,961 1,007,908
2039 1,643,755 Year 16 80% 328,751 1,315,004
2040 1,673,645 Year 17 90% 167,365 1,506,281
2041 1,704,079 Year 18 100% 1,704,079

Center School Redevelopment: Romano Brothers Builders Proposal

Round #2

Romano offers $1,540,000.00 to purchase the Property.

Housing Units

Romano Builders proposes to build a total of 154 housing units with a total of 196 bedrooms based upon a 3.6 acre parcel in the TOD zone.

20 of the units will be two-bedroom flats in four unit townhouses, and an additional 134 units in a single four-story building where 14 units will be studios.  The revised building footprint is 36,608 square feet; therefore, at 4 stories, it is 146,423 square feet.

In total, 14 studio/ 98 one bedroom/ 22 two bedroom = 134 units/ 156 bedrooms requiring 140 parking spaces. Flats on Sutton, 20 units / 40 bedrooms requiring 25 spaces.

The townhouses are proposed to face Sutton Avenue with 5 four-unit townhouses; two buildings to the left and three to the right of the proposed greenscaped park area (“Sutton Park”) that will be accessible to the public as well as to occupants of the development at no cost to the Town.

The townhouses and main building are designed to be in keeping with the neighborhood and nearby historical buildings, namely, the First Congregational Church of Stratford building located at 2301 Main Street. The motif from the original proposal will be in keeping with this revised proposal.

The four-story apartment building will also include a business center, a recreation room, and a fitness center.

Adjustments to the number of proposed units may be made; however, there may be a corresponding adjustment to the purchase price.

Parking

It is proposed that a total of 260 units of parking be provided. A total of 245 spaces are required for the proposal, broken down as follows:

Board of Education:

  • Surface Spaces 20
  • Underground Spaces 60

Residential:

  • Studio/one-bedroom units (112@ 1/unit) 112
  • Two-bedroom units (42 @ 1.25/unit) 53

Total:  245 spaces

A total of 260 spaces has been provided as follows:

  • Underground 18l
  • Surface @BOE 20
  • Surface @ garage entrance 8
  • Along access drive 30
  • At building entry plaza 21

Total:  260 spaces

Ninety percent of the units above the at-grade parking will have a garage space available. It is likely that this would be more than adequate considering reduced car ownership in a T.0 .D. multifamily development. assuming a 90% mixed-use or T.O.D. parking need for the multifamily building, the required below grade residential parking is 121 spaces. This combined with the 60 Board of Education spaces equals the total 181 underground parking spaces provided. The developer is prepared to assign 60 underground spaces for use by the Board of Education and will conform to the Town’s Zoning Regulations for the residential development with 15 excess spaces being provided.

Romano does not intend to seek compensation for the Town’s use of these spaces.

Maintenance and snow and ice clearing will be the responsibility of Romano Brothers.

Romano believes that the townhouses and greenscaping along the western edge of the proposed park will substantially screen any onsite above grade parking from the view of the surrounding neighborhood.

There is an increase in subtenanean parking which has an impact on the price Romano can offer for the property so that there is a corresponding adjustment to the proposed purchase price. Additionally, a tax abatement will be required, to cover the cost of the additional subterranean parking spaces.

Sutton Park

An 80 x 120 foot public access park to be created and maintained by Romano at no cost to the Town.

Dog Park

If desired, Romano intends the inclusion of a dog park for use by tenants at no cost to the Town. A proposed location is shown on plans but this location may be changed.

Mixed Use

Romano does not believe that commercial use – retail, business, office or otherwise, will be successful on the Property. However, the Board of Education’s use of the property is, essentially, a mixed use of the property.

Tax Abatement

The increased underground parking greatly drives up the cost of the project. For this revised Proposal Romano requests the application of the tax abatement schedule as set forth in Section 191-11 of the Stratford Town Code entitled Incentive Programs, for cost of improvement, $20,000,000.00 or greater.

Section 191-11 of the Stratford Town Code

This schedule is as follows:

During the period of construction, but not greater than eighteen (18) months, or such additional time as may be extended by the Tax Partnership Screening Committee, but not to exceed six (6) additional months. Given the scope of construction, although not anticipated, it is possible that additional time will be required, but see Development Time Line below, or (2) until the receipt of Certificate of Occupancy, whichever shall occur first: 100% exempt, then following such period of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy:

Year 1: up to 100% Exempt;

Year 2: up to 100% Exempt;

Year 3: up to 100% Exempt;

Year 4: up to 80% Exempt;

Year 5: up to 70% Exempt;

Year 6: up to 60% Exempt;

Year 7: up to 50% Exempt;

Year 8: up to 40% Exempt;

Year 9: up to 30% Exempt;

Year 10: up to 20% Exempt.

Tod

The Romano Proposal is consistent with the TOD zone requirements and will not require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Proposal will provide an alternative to the traditional single family home environment.

In addition, the Romano Proposal will lead to market growth in Stratford Center. It will be the redevelopment of an unutilized property. The Proposal will create an environment that encourages walking and bicycling as transit use, thereby reducing auto dependency.

The Romano Proposal will provide a range of housing options for people at different stages of life and will be consistent with enhancing the nearby streetscape. It will be within walking distance of the Stratford Train Station and the GBTA bus line.

Resources Required from the Town of Stratford

It is not anticipated that any resources will be required from the Town of Stratford other than that standard administrative services for construction related activities. The Town of Stratford will not be involved financially in the project’s capital status. However, tax abatement will be required.

Development Time Line

The construction is proposed to be formed in a single phase. A conservative estimate for time is six (6) months for land use approvals; six (6) months for design, bidding and contracting; and one and a half (1½) yearn to build out.

Public Outreach

It is anticipated that the Romano team, during the land use approval phase, will plan and conduct at least two informational sessions for the public and local businesses.

Center Street School Redevelopment Pro Forma for Click here

 

Center School Redevelopment – 2nd Round of Interviews

Don’t’ Forget!

Two of the four developers who responded to the Town’s Request for Proposals for the Center School Redevelopment Project (RFP #2022-1) have been invited back for second interviews.

At this time, the two developers will present modified versions of their original proposals, incorporating the requests of the Center School Property Selection Committee.

The presentations will take place in Town Hall Council Chambers on Tuesday, August 31st. Romano Brothers Builders will present at 9:00 a.m. and Spirit Investment Partners/Kaali-Nagy Properties will present at 10:30 a.m.

The presentations will be videotaped and posted to the Town website.