Groton — At least two legislators have been inundated with inquiries from residents for and against the Mystic Education Center proposal, and one town councilor says she is withdrawing her support for the project.

Respler Homes, chosen as the developer for the vacant, state-owned site, has proposed a mixed-use village that includes apartments, the preservation of the main Mystic Oral School building with office and commercial spaces, and the potential renovation of the Pratt Building for recreational use by the town.

The Planning and Zoning Commission recently came to a consensus that it would not create a floating zone that would provide a path for the redevelopment at its current scale. Instead, it's up to the developer to submit an application to the commission.

While it's a decision for local officials, state Sen. Heather Somers, R-Groton, said she has heard from hundreds of residents who do not support the proposal at its current size.

State Rep. Christine Conley, D-Groton, said she has heard from residents who like the proposed development because they are looking for more property on the tax rolls, more housing options for people and families to move to Groton and the renovation of the pool and other public spaces. She also has heard from immediate neighbors who are concerned about the proposal, including its density, its impact on traffic and how water and sewer services would be provided.

Legislators weigh in

Conley said that when the town and the state were looking at proposals, she publicly supported a smaller proposal. She thought Respler Homes' original proposal was too dense for the area. She appreciates that the commission recently clarified that it will not change the site’s zoning to allow for the density called for in the initial proposal.

She said she has not seen a new proposal to take a stance on it. But she said her role as a legislator is to assist in problems that come up, such as how to deal with traffic and how to handle the cleanup of the property.

State Rep. Joe de la Cruz, D-Groton, said that he’s “100% for the project” but he's sensitive to neighbors' concerns and understands that they need to be brought into the discussions and the project needs to be sized right. He said he thinks there could be a compromise, and it’s far too valuable a piece of land to leave it untouched.

He also pointed out that it seems vacant properties on one side of town tend to get developed, whereas properties on the other side of town seem to become open space or a garden, like the former Noank School. “It’s a fairness question to me a little bit,” he said.

He said he thinks the development would provide the type of housing that millennials like and help businesses, with people being able to take an Uber or perhaps a shuttle bus to downtown Mystic.

He said if left undeveloped, the property could become like Seaside in Waterford.

“I think people really need to start thinking in those terms: that this could be a brownfield in 20 years, and I think now’s the time,” he said.

Somers said it is not legislators' role to interfere with a decision made by the town's leadership, but she does have serious concerns. She said she is concerned about the proposed size of the development, the developer and his background and about environmental issues on the site.

Jeffrey Respler, the managing member of Respler Homes LLC, had pleaded guilty in 2004 in New York to four counts of fifth-degree conspiracy, a Class A misdemeanor charge, when he was the head of a plumbing company. An attorney representing several Groton residents sent a letter to the town about the charges.

The city of New York Department of Investigation alleges that Respler had paid bribes to two New York City employees, paid an individual to use a plumbing license in false documents and filed statements that "falsely indicated he was paying his workers the appropriate wages for the hours they worked." There also was an alleged "fraudulent real estate transaction" between him and the plumbing union.

Respler has denied the accusations and said his payments to workers, the real estate transaction and his company's relationship with the plumber were proper, and that a company employee was giving loans to city employees that Respler did not know about. But Respler said he pleaded guilty because he was running out of money and was told the investigation would continue.

Somers said she has reached out to the state Department of Economic and Community Development, which has a purchase and sale agreement with Respler, and the state Department of Administrative Services, which had a maintenance agreement with Respler that was not renewed, for information and will continue to talk to them.

She said the decision for the redevelopment is among three parties: the town, the state and Respler.

She said people have told her that they tried to address their issues about the development with the Town Council, but feel the council is not listening to them. She said she admires the Planning and Zoning Commission for its recent decision.

"I've been contacted by many, many individuals, and I have encouraged them to contact their town councilors and local town leaders," she said.

Town Councilor calls for 'pause'

In 2019, a selection committee with both state and town representatives chose Respler Homes as the preferred developer for the property following a request for proposals process.

Last year, the Town Council approved a development agreement with Respler Homes. The nine councilors, all Democrats, also expressed their support for the project in a March commentary in The Day.

But Councilor Portia Bordelon said she no longer supports the project.

Bordelon said that when she first joined the council, the process had started and she was learning about it along the way. She decided to withdraw her support because a lot was “not adding up.” When the developer’s past criminal charges surfaced, she said she realized the developers were not being properly vetted and a criminal background check should be part of the process. She emphasized that a criminal background should not exclude a developer, but the town should know about it and not learn about it from constituents.

Bordelon also thinks the process should have involved nearby residents sooner. "I really believe that people should be brought around the table," she said.

She thinks it’s time to take “a pause” and hold the developer accountable for deadlines. She encouraged her fellow councilors to speak publicly and think about withdrawing their support.

Other town councilors said the town has a contract with the developer, with the ball now in his court to submit an application for planning and zoning review.

The Town Council wouldn't be able to vote to exit the agreement without sufficient cause, per the agreement, Town Manager John Burt said.

He said the town is looking at and discussing its request for proposals process and vetting.

Councilor Lian Obrey said it’s now up to Respler to return to the town with drawings of the proposed project. She said responsibility also lies with the state, which has an agreement to sell the property to the developer for $1, provided certain conditions are met. The agreement was extended in the spring until November 2022.

“The state owns the property, so we’re just in a holding pattern,” Obrey said. “I don’t think right now is an appropriate time to make a decision.”

As far as the developer’s prior conviction, she said: “I don’t want to be swayed by someone digging into somebody’s past.”

Town Mayor Patrice Granatosky said the town has a contract with the developer, but that’s all she can say at this point. “We need to mind what our attorney has advised us in this matter.”

During a May Town Council meeting in which the council received public comments about the Mystic Education Center, Town Attorney Eric Callahan advised the council to not respond that night to the comments due to potential legal ramifications.

Councilor Conrad Heede also said he could not comment on whether he currently supports or opposes the project, but said the council was directed by voters four years ago to put the vacant properties back on the tax rolls. The proposal has since gone through the process, with the Planning and Zoning Commission essentially putting an end to the project on its original scale.

“At this point, I think the neighborhood has spoken, and the town will have to do a 'wait and see,' and see what the state and Respler come up with and what Planning and Zoning (Commission) will approve, if anything, and go from there,” he said.

k.drelich@theday.com