Developer seeks approval for 82,924‑square‑foot phase 3 at Hartford Mall; commission continues review

SJC Ventures and CBL Properties presented detailed phase‑3 redevelopment plans for the Hartford Mall site to the Bel Air Planning Commission on June 5. The proposal covers roughly 10 acres and would demolish the former Macy’s building and add 82,924 square feet of retail, restaurant and grocery uses organized into multiple buildings.

Christopher Mudd, attorney for SJC Ventures, told the commission SJC is the contract purchaser of the Macy’s parcel and described a phased redevelopment strategy that envisions five buildings on the 10‑acre parcel: a 35,684‑square‑foot grocery anchor (Building 100), and four smaller retail/restaurant buildings (buildings 200, 300, 600 and 700) with programmed outdoor dining plazas. Mudd said SJC’s plan is intended to knit the new development into the town’s broader mixed‑use vision and to attract high‑end grocery and restaurant tenants.

Kevin Small of the Planning Department reviewed a lengthy staff report identifying technical conditions and code requirements. Small summarized that the overall mixed‑use ratio would remain compliant with prior approvals and town policy: after demolition and replacement, the mall will retain a commercial percentage (58.2% per the staff math) above the minimum required. Small flagged site‑plan details that the applicant must address before final approval: pedestrian connections that now terminate at landscape islands with no receiving sidewalks; refuse/recycling enclosures in the middle of parking fields that initially lacked required screening; minor adjustments to interior planting and utility locations to preserve trees; and the width of a principal north‑south drive aisle (originally proposed at 30 feet) where staff suggested narrowing to discourage speeding and cut‑through traffic.

Traffic Concepts project manager Mark Keeley presented the traffic study and told the commission his team found capacity at the eight intersections studied and adequate queuing at left‑turn bays, but he said the analysis would be revised to reflect the grocery tenant and then resubmitted to State Highway Administration and county reviewers. Keeley told the commission, "The study findings are that there's available capacity at all 8 intersections, and there's adequate queuing at left turn bays." He and the developer’s team said coordination with state and county traffic reviewers is ongoing.

Applicants provided renderings, elevations and material boards showing a coordinated palette of smooth stucco, decorative block, metal panels and storefront glazing. Tom Miner and Caitlin Pierce of Frederick Ward Associates described revisions made to address staff red‑line comments, including reduced drive‑aisle width (from 30 to 28 feet in a revised plan), reconfigured parking islands to add interior planting, and added curbing and landscaping around a central refuse enclosure so it can be properly screened. The team said they had begun discussions with DPW and the town engineer and acknowledged additional engineering details would follow.

Commissioners and staff pressed the applicant on several recurring themes: where pedestrian crosswalks currently end at landscape islands without receiving sidewalks; whether refuse enclosures could be relocated or more effectively screened so dining areas are not adjacent to service activity; the final placement of grease traps and the need for accessible service areas that do not require trucks to maneuver in constrained ways; and tree survivability for proposed interior landscaping islands (commissioners suggested larger soil volume or other tree‑support systems when islands are tight to parking stalls). Commissioners also asked applicants to explore traffic calming measures for the central spine road, including raised crosswalks or other elements to calm speeds.

Multiple members of the public and two town advisory groups spoke. The Economic and Community Development Commission provided a written letter of unanimous support for the proposal, calling it a ‘‘transformational’’ redevelopment that would revitalize the aging mall, create jobs and increase tax revenues. Several residents and local businesspeople spoke in favor, citing job creation and the benefit of activating a large, underused property; a few asked for careful attention to landscaping and pedestrian amenities. A nearby property owner, Wayne Goddard, said he supported the shared wider sidewalk idea to improve pedestrian connectivity between parcels.

Commissioners agreed the project is conceptually promising but that additional detailed revisions and documentation were necessary before a final determination. Planning staff asked for an updated traffic study reflecting the grocery tenant, refined pedestrian connections and crosswalk details, utility adjustments to preserve street trees and expanded screening/detailing of refuse enclosures. Commissioner Phil (surname not read in motion block) moved to continue the application to allow the applicant to address the staff comments; the motion was seconded and the commission set a follow‑up submission deadline and continued the public hearing to July 17 to allow time for the revised submittal and reviews.

The commission did not grant final site‑plan approval on June 5; the application remains under review pending submission of revised engineering, landscape, refuse‑screening details and an updated traffic analysis required by county and state reviewers.