Ansonia Aldermen this month gave a developer a 60-day extension on a contract to redevelop two city-owned downtown buildings.
Last month the Aldermen voted unanimously to approve an agreement with Copper City Development spelling out a timeline for the redevelopment of 497 E. Main St. and 153 Main St., known respectively as the Ansonia Technology Park and the Palmer Building.
The agreement called on Copper City Development, owned by developer Jerry Nocerino and accountant Charles Smith, to research environmental, physical condition and economic conditions at the buildings by Nov. 3.
But a lawyer representing the company asked for an extension.
The developers envision a 95-apartment complex with a microbrewery, stores, and office space at the properties.
The city has been trying to get someone to redevelop the city-owned buildings for years.
Aldermen discussed the matter behind closed doors during their regular meeting Nov. 10, which is allowed by the state’s freedom of information law because the officials were discussing a real estate deal.
They then voted unanimously to give the company a 60-day extension.
Because of the extension, other deadlines in the agreement — for instance, a site plan that was to be presented to city officials by Dec. 28 — will now be pushed back two months as well.
The city’s corporation counsel, John Marini, said afterward that the developers remain committed to the project, which calls for the company to invest $9 million in the property.
He said the developers needed the extension to complete environmental studies at the properties.
“They have some environmental studies that they’d like to complete that they anticipate are going to go a little long,” Marini said. “They only asked for 30 days, but given the fact that it’s the holiday season and timeframes can be tough to meet for all the land use boards and all the approvals they have to get, we figured we’d give them 60.
“Honestly, that’s a more realistic expectation, especially if you want to do it right,” Marini said.
The redevelopment of the property has been tricky. Click here to read a previous Valley Indy story looking at the properties’ troubled history.
