The zoning board last week said ‘yes’ to a rezoning of the former MassMutual site, allowing it to become a mixed-use development.
ENFIELD, CT — The vacant site once home to a major Enfield employer officially received new life last week when the zoning board approved a zone change, helping a new development planned there.
Following a public hearing Sept. 25 that did show opposition, the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved a zone change, paving the way for redevelopment of the former MassMutual Insurance Co. campus at 85 and 100 Bright Meadow Blvd., Enfield.
Plans tentatively call for a mix of residential apartments, housing units, and some commercial development at the site.
In 2018, MassMutual announced it was leaving Enfield, something finalized in 2021 when the insurance giant left town, with 2,500 jobs there consolidated to Springfield, Mass.
Since then, the 65-acre site has sat mostly vacant, outside of a small daycare center there.
Specifically, 100 Bright Meadows Associates LLC out of Branford, which purchased the site last May, was seeking a zone change from “business regional” to “special development district.”
That zone change was approved, marking a major hurdle cleared for the project.
This change allows the applicant to then subdivide and redevelop the site into commercial and residential uses.
Currently, the campus has three large office buildings and a parking garage on site. A small daycare occupies a small building on the site.
Should the PZC OK subsequent permit applications to actually develop the site, Bright Meadows has plans to build apartments, housing lots, and commercial space.
Among the details unveiled by Bright Meadows:
• Transform the three office buildings into 178 apartment units.
• Commercial space on the first floor of one of the buildings.
• Interior common areas for residents, such as a clubhouse and pool.
• Construction of a fourth building that would add 129 units of apartment space.
• Transforming the large parking lots on site into a “residential common interest community” containing 157 more units of housing.
Representatives of the developer attended the Sept. 25 PZC meeting to present their case to zoning officials, who said the redevelopment project is a good use for the site.
Enfield Director of Planning Laurie Whitten said apartments and commercial development in that area are in line with the Enfield Plan of Conservation and Development.
She added that the proposed use also fits the criteria for the new special design district zone as well.
“There are a number of things that are required for the PZC to consider when doing a rezone,” Whitten said at the meeting. “I would say that the biggest thing is that the proposal meets the plan of conservation and development.”
Zoning board member Walter J. Kruzel said the town’s development plan calls for reusing existing buildings, something planned for this project.
He said the capacity in residents would be much smaller than when it was an insurance campus.
“Like our POCD says, we want to re-use existing buildings instead of letting them sit there and, literally, have them rotting away,” Kruzel said.
“And, thank you, Covid, for doing away with office space. It’s not going to come back. You’re not going to get a manufacturer to come in there to build anything. It’s not set up for that. This is the only purpose for this. It meets a need for our growing population and, hopefully, brings more people to Enfield.”
Some residents did offer input on the proposal during the late-night hearing, most having concerns about the community impacts.
Enfield resident Susan Sorrow, who lives across the street from the site, expressed concern about traffic, public services, and the affordability of the town taking on so many new residents.
Sorrow specifically cited worries regarding the impact on the local fire department and funding it.
“I am one of those people. You can actually see my house on that map,” Sorrow said, pointing to the developer’s map of the site. “And I heartily disagree with a lot of your perceptions.”
She said she was “100 percent” against a zoning change, adding that a better use of the site was medical offices and services.