YourCT.com header image 2
← Norwalk: Finance Committee of the BOE Norwalk: Corda, Kimmel & Moccia Spar →

Norwalk: Red Brick Building Awaits Demolition


by turfgrrl


May 3rd, 2007 · 65 Comments

The red brick building next to the SoNo Train station once was a thriving factory. In many towns throughout the country these types of buildings are brought back to life through redevelopment. It seems in Norwalk though, it is a long uphill battle to keep former factories from being demolished. And so for the building at 85 Martin Luther King Drive, a permit for demolition has been filed, and the clock on the 90 days has started. Wednesday night, the Historical Commission held a meeting about the building. The Hour reports:

Norwalk preservationists voiced their opinions that a developer should save the building — a brick structure located at 85 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. adjacent to the South Norwalk train station. It appeared on insurance maps as early as 1884 and was once used for the manufacture of hats.

“This building is pretty solid,” Tod Bryant, president of the Norwalk Preservation Trust, said as he pointed to color photographs. “It’s actually a beautiful building. If somebody wanted to, they could open up these bricked-in arched windows.”
The building is owned by 85 Martin Luther King Blvd. LLC and the demolition permit was signed by Charles Schemera. The permit was filed March 8, but a 90-day demolition delay has stayed the building’s demise to at least June 6.

A potential developer not looking to knock this building down did attend the hearing: Drew Clark owned the Stamford Antique Center before it burned down in the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co. fire a year ago in Stamford’s South End.

“It’s going to take extensive renovation, but I have people who are prepared to do it,” Clark said, adding: “We hope to have Norwalk be the antiques destination on the East Coast.”

The South Norwalk building has 44,000 square-feet of space preservationists said would be well suited for retail or mixed-use development.

It’s odd that a developer would choose to demolish a building without putting forth any plans on what will replace it. But the tax implications of having empty buildings encourages developers to do just that. That is why empty lots sit where buildings once were while the pace of grandiose redevelopment plans wax and wane.

source: The Hour, Preservationists urge old factory be saved, By PATRICK R. LINSEY, May 3, 2007

Tags: History · In the News · Norwalk

65 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: Red Brick Building Awaits Demolition”


Pages: [1] 2 » Show All



  • 1 Preserve or Perish // May 3, 2007 at 11:25 am

    Wow, what a choice for Norwalk. A parking lot or an antiques center. I wonder which option would help start a trend of cleaning up that end of South Norwalk?

    In other news, State Senator Bob Duff (Bad Bob! Bad, bad Bob!) released this bit of information:

    “Hartford - State Senator Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) today praised the state House of Representatives for its unanimous passage of legislation to give municipalities the option of increasing their demolition delay provisions from 90 to 180 days. Senator Duff urged Governor M. Jodi Rell to act quickly on the bill, which has already received the state Senate’s unanimous approval by consent.

    “The extended timeframe gives a better chance to find solutions that don’t involve demolition,” said Senator Duff. “Demolition is costly. It creates a large amount of material waste and requires a large amount of energy. Whenever we can find a solution to demolition, whether it’s preservation of a structure or incorporating historical landmarks into a new development, we’re eliminating the negatives of demolition and adding to our cultural artifacts at the same time.”

    Municipalities currently give parties the option of delaying demolition of historical buildings and landmarks for 90 days so that agreements to potentially save structures can be sought. Substitute Senate Bill 618 would give municipalities the option of extending their delay to 180 days in order to give parties more time to find a mutually beneficial solution.

    “Across the country, developers are finding that historical structures offer unique opportunities to think out of the box and put existing buildings to new uses, be it through creating affordable housing opportunities or adding to the cultural significance of a new development. Extending the demolition delay will give developers more time to work with preservationists and historical societies to explore these options,” Senator Duff added.

    The legislation is supported by the Norwalk Historical Commission, the Norwalk Preservation Trust, the Redding Planning Commission, and the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservations. It also received unanimous approval from the General Assembly’s Planning and Development Committee.”

    Wonder what The Dick and Peter show down at City Hall will make of that?

  • 2 anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    Why wasn’t the mayor at the public hearing last night? Where is redevelopment in this? It’s just this inaction on the part of the administration that solidifies Norwalk’s position as the “hole in the donut”. And, of course, the Historical Commission — while still being able to hold pubic hearings — can’t even write letters or make any decisons about “private historic properties.” What a shame that no one in City Hall has a glimmer of an understanding how preservation can add value to the City. Why are the Mayor(and Nolin) so against ALL preservation?

  • 3 anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Well this is what happens in Norwalk. Most people who write on this blog are constantly bashing the people who are trying to make a difference and save some of these buildings. You may not agree with the preservationists approach, but instead of criticizing them and bashing them for pure sport, you should be pushing the city government to get involved and support saving at least some of the remaining historic character of this town. But, here goes, this building is most likely lost. Hope you are all happy with another empty lot or yet another tacky strip mall in Norwalk. Just look at the site where it was so important for the owner to tear down the Rogers-Ritch-Merritt house - what is there today? An empty, overgrown, trash-filled weedy lot. You reap what you sow. Congratulations to you all.

  • 4 Anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    What defeatist burn all bridges attitudes on display here. City Hall is not the place to start. People who buy properties for development are. It’s called private public partnerships. But all too often its attack the people first instead of working with redevelopment to attract preservation minded developers. Look at how Brooklyn does it.

  • 5 indiga // May 3, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    Agreed no. 4. It’s private-public partnerships that work. So, as was asked earlier, why wasn’t the mayor at the public hearing last night? Why wasn’t redevelopment? The owner may have identified himself and been willing to talk if the key city players had demonstrated interest. A buyer willing to retain, restore, and make the buidling a viable business was there, willing to talk if the city had demonstrated interest. The HC and NPT did their job to get the “private” side to the table and get citizen input. But the private-public partnership only works if the “public” (as represented by city officials) cares enough to show up and show interest. The HC can’t do anything because it does not have the authority.

  • 6 Anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    Deafitist? I don’t think so. Let’s just call things for what they really are. Once again the facts are being distorted, a buyer who wants to keep the building has been found with a terrific use that would be good for Norwalk. Has redevelopment been involved, the mayor? Anyone from the city trying to take a leadership position other than the embattled, under-funded and under-supported Historical Commission? No.

    It’s too bad that this developer didn’t engage in a dialog last night at the public hearing sharing his concerns about the building, what his plans may be…instead he shirked away from the meeting as quickly as possible without saying a word.

    I hope this developer has fully thought through the process he is going to have to go through to get his plans approved, particularly if variances are involved because the dedicated people who are trying (yes, some times a bit haphazardly and sometimes ineffectively) to save what’s left of this town’s historic character will be at every meeting scrutinizing his plans.

  • 7 Anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 1:28 pm

    More threats, more half truths. How long has that building been sitting there number 6? So you found a buyer after someone else bought the building. Apparently, it never occurs to you that maybe, once again, you missed the boat because you were too busy alienating the very agencies that could be worked with. Scrutinize all you want. but complaining doesn’t get results. Action does.

  • 8 anon // May 3, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    Bob Duff once again offers a useless feel good line for his “extensive” list of accomplishments. Demolition permits are granted by the municipality, not the state, and there was nothing preventing a municipality from crafting an waiting period of whatever length they choose. They already had that option through their own city code process.

  • 9 indiga // May 3, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    Couldn’t agree more, number 7. It’s a great town; preservation working with development can make it even better. If there’s alienation, it’s not because preservationists haven’t been extending themselves to work with everyone — and anyone — who can help. You can’t save everything and you can’t turn back the clock. But that’s not even part of the dialogue. The real dialogue is how to align the best of our history with the best possible development. Care to talk instead of blame? Care to have an open mind? This is a great oportunity to preserve and get good business down to that part of SONO. But preservationists can’t do it without the city stepping up and showing some committment to a good, pro-business outcome.

  • 10 Pesky the Dem // May 3, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    Ah, the trolls have emerged from their dens. Sleeping late today?

  • 11 watchful // May 3, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    As long as Ann Carbonne taints the ZBA with her presence, developers will appeal every ruling on the grounds that she has a quid pro quo motive.

  • 12 indiga // May 3, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    Just a clarification of fact for number 8. This change gives municipalities the option of delatying demolitions for up to 180 days form the previous limit of 90. Municipalities cannot (and have never been able to) delay demoltions for longer than is allowed under State enabling statutes.

  • 13 turfgrrl // May 3, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    Ok guys, while I suspect sniping at each other increases my site traffic, I’d rather you use the space to hash out ideas and issues. I know, boring to some, but Indiga is right, talk about how to make things better.

    Has anyone set up a meeting with the building owner to discuss options? Has anyone met with redevelopment and Tad Diesel to put together a guide to preserving buildings in Norwalk. There are simple things like who to contact, what resources are available, how long things take, that can help not just developers but people who interact with developers.

    Call it information evangelization.

  • 14 anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    Yes, number 7, it is all the preservationists fault for everything bad happening in Norwalk. Yet instead of coming out and getting involved yourselves and trying to have a constructive dialog, you’d rather just sit around and bash everyone who is trying to make a difference and then pat yourselves on the back as to how above it all you are. And then, you pretend to care and bemoan the loss of this building and blame it on someone else.

  • 15 indiga // May 3, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    Seems to me redevelopment and the Mayor are key players. Historical Commission has the information about all the contacts — building owner and possible buyer. NPT has talked to both. Buyer willing; owner not willing to examine options. Sees no need. This is where the city could be a real help. The owner doesn’t HAVE to listen to anyone and can do as he pleases with his property, but he’s more likely to think about options if “officials” are interested in preservation as well as “citizens”.

  • 16 Anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    Your best cheerleader is the person who chairs the planning committee of the common council. Until the Republicans sweep out the Democratic majority there, the Mayor has no power to do anything. So ask yourself if that person has been effective, have they guided redevelopment into looking at preservation? Does that person champion preservation throughout the city? The Mayor might want to do many things, but without a majority vote that won’t happen.

  • 17 Jen // May 3, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    No. 16 The Repubs are planning a sweep of the council- however, this is not going to happen. In fact, you could lose some seats

  • 18 Anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    One example, probably the only example that seems to be working well, is the creation of the Wall Sreet Hisotric District. Redevelopment is working with the Historical Commission and the Developers to create the District. I believe redevelopment is funding the work to complete the Historic Buildings Survey. One of the benefits of having the district is that the buildings will then be eligible for tax credits to fix them up. The Historic Commmission has also submitted a couple other neighborhoods for the State Register as well which will make the tax credits available for the home owners.

    A survey should be done of all the buildings in town - I think it was done once in the 70’s - just needs to be updated, but it costs money and requires funding and support.

  • 19 anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    To 16 and 17…The “democratic majority” on the council is in name only since half the democrats always vote with the republicans. I’m tired of all of them….maybe we need a green party slate…(that is a joke, btw).

  • 20 Anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    No 19, it’s more like the Republicans vote with the Democratic side. Most of the votes are unanimous. Unless someone starts playing politcs, like having Democrats vote against union contracts to stir up trouble. Notice that ever since Kevin Poruban got put back on the council there’s been nothing but internal turmoil on the Democratic side. Makes you wonder doesn’t it.

  • 21 Old Blue Meanie // May 3, 2007 at 5:37 pm

    If they’re voting against the kind of union contract that’s keeping Soo Gunn in place as (non)curator of the Norwalk Museum, maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

  • 22 indythinker // May 3, 2007 at 5:53 pm

    To jen, somehow I think you are a bit off balance in your views of the upcoming election. The republicans will not lose any seats and it looks as if they will gain some with the antics on the other side. You shouldn’t ask Galen Wells for pointers when you post here. If she wants to sweep the council with Democrats this time around, she should seriously resign because she is a huge part of the problem. As far as Kevin Peruban goes, he’s done nothing but cause dissension since he returned and he should not be allowed to run again. But hey, if Galen steps down and lets a competant successor run the party, maybe they’ll retain a couple seats. There are very few of us Indy’s that plan on voting for the 5 outers they just have no interest in this city, only personal agenda’s.

  • 23 turfgrrl // May 3, 2007 at 9:50 pm

    Getting back to the factory … can someone explain how:

    1. Stamford-based 85 Martin Luther King LLC, which purchased the former Diane Knitwear hat factory in November.

    2. Paid only $640,000 for it.

    3. Bought it from Judi Lepofsky, in Madison, Wis. Lepofsky who inherited the factory after her mother died in 1999, and her grandparents purchased the factory in the 1930s, Diane Knitwear, a hat and textile maker, took over the entire building.

    4. Yet Tod Bryant said he had talked with Charles Schemera of 85 Martin Luther King LLC, who told him developers had shown interest in buying the former factory.

    So what is going here. Why is 85 Martin Luther King LLC filing to demo the building? Does it make it more sell-able? More valuable? Does this reduce the contaminant liability? Why would they buy a building and then not develop it themselves?

  • 24 Jen // May 4, 2007 at 8:19 am

    Indythinker 22 -

    The local Repubs are starting to show why- Washington and Hartford have turn them out of office.

    Moccia will not have a coat tail effect because he has not done anything. However, he did write a plan to cut 14 teachers. In fact, he will have a very tough time getting re -elected. No fire trucks to ride on- this year.

    The Historical People will be this year’s fire fighters.

    There is no way- that the Dems are heading for a sweep.

    A voter thinking George Bush,former Republican House and Senate , and Larry Cafero( who voted against women rights) = no thanks.

    Hey Repubs and Indy’s keep talking sweep ” give Democratic voters a reason to come out” If they do- your Republican mayor and council people are toast.

  • 25 anonymous // May 4, 2007 at 8:32 am

    Jen you are really deluded. At the end of the day, Norwalk voters spoke volumes about which side of the eductional issue they are on. Corda scare tactics are just not working. Everyone sees that declining enrollments don’t justtify hiring more teachers. Everyone sees that more money is needed to deal with the city roads, traffic and storm water drainage. Everyone, dems, republicans, indys and those who don’t bother, all agree that they are tired of all the bickering over things that don’t mean anything except to the party members, which are a minority of the voters. The Democrats and Republicans will fight over voters who’d rather vote for someone else. If a third party slate comes together, it’s because of the lost opportunity for this government to work for Norwalk instead of bicker over irrelevant stuff.

  • 26 Old Blue Meanie // May 4, 2007 at 9:16 am

    Agreed, #25. Sadly, Norwalk’s historical heritage won’t be part of the next election. What will be? All the things Moccia ran on last time (Responsive Government!) but hasn’t made any progress with - the firefighters’ contract (wow, lot of progress on that one) and reducing crime (hmm, wasn’t there another gang-related murder in South Norwalk just a few weeks ago, in broad daylight?).

    Flooding? Bet that’s the big issue. Quality of life for a small group of Norwalkers but high visibility. Time to stop blaming previous mayors for TODAY’S problems.

    Also time to stop taking credit for previous administration’s initiatives, like redevelopment.

    Oh, yeah, where’s all the state and federal aid that Dickie the Mooch promised he would get the city? His trips to Washington with hat in hand haven’t resulted in much, have they? Not to mention trying to get FEMA to rescue him from what is a municipal infrastruture problem, not a federal one.

    If Moccia gets reelected it will be due to voter apathy, the Dems’ bickering and his glad-handing personality.

  • 27 Watchdog // May 4, 2007 at 9:30 am

    Say what you will, but those are the very things, OBM, that get a mayor elected! Like DUH! Care to be a perfect specimen and run? You wouldn’t dare. Not for that salary. Qualified people are working in the business sector.

  • 28 ENrwlker // May 4, 2007 at 9:32 am

    OBM - “Time to stop blaming previous mayors for TODAY’S problems. Also time to stop taking credit for previous administration’s initiatives, like redevelopment.”

    Please send that memo to former Mayor Knopp, who did both of these non-stop for 4 years …

  • 29 OBM // May 4, 2007 at 9:52 am

    ENrwlker - Is that the best you can do? Your post is proof of the mindset I referred to. Moccia minions can’t point to much so they continually blame Knopp. The old Republican trick of making enough noise so that the message is lost in the distraction.

    I’m no great Knopp fan so don’t think what I have to say about Moccia comes from any great loyalty to Alex, but I gotta say after 14 years of the do-nothing Esposito regime, what Knopp got done in his 4-year tenure was a badly-needed change. He even got stuck with the property reval that Esposito put off for so long. Good riddance to Frank et al.

    Watchdog - DUH! You sound like that’s acceptable criteria for mayoral elections because that’s the way it’s been. I thought I was cynical, but you got me by a few points, I think.

  • 30 savit // May 4, 2007 at 10:15 am

    Turfgirl…good questions. The owner appears to have had an offer from the guy who wants to rehab it for an antiques center. You never know with real estate deals, but it looked like a good offer from a proft point of view…yet the owner will not sell. NPT has spoken to the owner and — while initiailly he was very talkative about the budling, all its problems, the area, etc. etc. — he has now become close-mouthed. That’s his right of course. He’s udner no obligation to share his plans with NPT or any other citizen’s group. Only thing mentioned was tear it down and leave it vacant — maybe storing some contractor vehicles on it. Is that true? Who knows, Is it a negotiating ploy? But negotiating for what? It’s a mystery…NPT will keep talking (or trying to).

  • 31 Jen // May 4, 2007 at 10:43 am

    Anon 25 Do you respect other people opinions? My response is to the claim that Democrats will be swept out of office. All I can say is dont bet the farm on a sweep by Democrats or RePUBLICANS.

    Moccia is a nice man- but he has not done anything! Name one thing a voter could say WOW- IMPRESSIVE. He is hoping that Alex Knopp runs so he (Moccia) could say “at least I am not Alex”.

    If, Alex does not run - then he is trouble.

    oh, yea shame on Larry Cafero- maybe Lex Paulson will beat him next time.

  • 32 Anonymous // May 4, 2007 at 10:54 am

    Lex Paulson claims to represent the “common man”.
    Who paid his Yale tuition?

  • 33 Jen // May 4, 2007 at 11:17 am

    Anon 32 Ok, I will go to the gutter with you.

    Larry “Beacon Bits” Cafero is a do nothing politican. It is time to give him the boot!

    The voters of the 142 deserve better.

  • 34 ENrwlker // May 4, 2007 at 11:47 am

    OBM — in my post above I didn’t blame Knopp for anything (I’d need multiple pages to list his failures). I simply pointed out that if politicians shouldn’t ‘blame previous mayors for today’s problems or take credit credit for previous administration’s initiatives, like redevelopment’, then that ‘rule’ should be applied to all of them, not just Republicans. The “mindset” here seems to be yours …

  • 35 Old Blue Meanie // May 4, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Funny how the only politician you referred to was Knopp. Your bias is too obvious, so rationalizing after the statement by claiming that you are including “all politicians” is a bit disingenuous…

  • 36 ENrwlker // May 4, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    OBM — this is so weak. You’re obviously anti-Moccia, so I responded by balancing that with a reference to Knopp. So my “bias” is treating both sides the same, while your “non-bias” is to only apply your rule to Republicans? You need to study basic logic …

  • 37 Anonymous // May 4, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    There ya go agin… your response seems to be focused on obscuring the point. I’m not going to engage in a debate over the meaning of the word “is” with you.

    Tell me where you treat both sides the same? You only mention Knopp. As far as “non-bias” goes, I never claimed that I wasn’t biased.

    Politicians, as far as I’m concerned, leave voters only choices between the lesser of two evils. The lesser in this case was replaced by the greater but I’m not going be a cheerleader for anyone, and that includes Alex Knopp.

  • 38 Watchdog // May 4, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    #29 OBM - well… isn’t that the way? There are no qualifications for mayor, only the desire to serve and the willingness to ride the vehicle (political party) with the most gas. The nature of the position is to fulfill the IOU’s that helped with the campaign process.
    But.. you know this.

    Hey, if we’re lucky to have a few decent mayors along the way, we can consider ourselves fortunate. I can name a few, but that’s not the point.

  • 39 anonymous // May 4, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    well…so much for ideas to save the knitwear building…

  • 40 MGeake // May 4, 2007 at 7:57 pm

    It’s no secret that the Second Taxing District had been interested in the Diane Knitwear property in the past, and we have spent a considerable sum on environmental studies. Since we have actually had to fight in court to preserve the contents of these studies as the property of the district taxpayers and not subject to FOI, I’m not at liberty to disclose them here. But I have read the twenty or so pounds of reports and know more than a little about this property.

    I just want those fighting to preserve this building as an antique shop to answer one question: Out of whose pocket do you expect the considerable cost of cleaning up the toxic waste in this building to come? It will cost far more than the property would be worth — in dollar terms — after the clean-up.

  • 41 anonymous // May 4, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    To 40: I guess it will be a nice parking lot then. That will add a lot of ambience to the area.

    I’m a second district taxpayer - I’d like to see the studies. Not sure why we’d spend our tax dollars fighting to not disclose the information - we are the public.

  • 42 turfgrrl // May 4, 2007 at 9:24 pm

    mgeake: Why fight FOI? I’m not understanding the issue at all. I would think that environmental studies would be part of any DEP report right?

  • 43 turfgrrl // May 4, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    savit:Thanks for answering. Maybe the property owner wants to retain an interest in the creating value for the property. Has the buyer approached them regarding a partnership that would include saving the building, remediating it, and adding additional features like retail?

  • 44 MGeake // May 4, 2007 at 9:41 pm

    The simple answer to disclosure is that the Second Taxing District has not formally abandoned its interest in that property, so this information could conceivably have value in some future negotiation.

  • 45 turfgrrl // May 4, 2007 at 9:54 pm

    mgeake: That would make sense to some degree, but as a taxing district aren’t you a public governmental entity? How does a taxing district avoid FOI requirements?

  • 46 MGeake // May 4, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    Not everything is subject to FOI. Information gathered in anticipation of a contract negotiation is exempt to protect the governmental entity’s interest in that negotiation.

    The Second Taxing District gathered this information for use in preparing what we thought was a very generous offer to Mrs. Lepofsky. That a third party was willing to purchase the property without performing its own due dilligence — its own environmental study — is something we had no part of. But the change in ownership alone did nothing to change our rights.

  • 47 savit // May 5, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    to mgeake — my impression from the public hearing was that the prospective buyer was aware of the potential environmental clean up problems and had figured that in. I could be wrong, but I did not hear any mention of anything being born by Norwalk taxpayers. Didn’t redevelopment look for “brownfields money”? Whart about 2nd taxing district? How was the environmental cleanup dunded for the police starion handled? That must have been some sort of grant, right?

  • 48 anonymous // May 5, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    I hear that the Second Taxing District also wants to demolish this building. Whatever their plans are, they should decide now if they are going to take action so this deal can progress.
    The current buyer will be responsible for any remediation so no tax money from either the City or the Second District would be spent. The new use would not only add visitors to Norwalk but would also increase our tax base.

  • 49 chutzpah plus // May 6, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    Are we going to let pass without comment the Norwalk Inn’s intent not to pay taxes on 93 East Avenue because it is derelict (Sunday’s Hour) when it is their lack of maintenance that caused the problem? Sort of like the classic story of the adolescent who murdered his parents throwing himself on the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan.

  • 50 anonymous // May 6, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    Can’t do that, its their responsibility to maintain the tax payments. However, it is costing them I am sure a pretty fortune to not be able to use their own property. The longer the delays the longer this property will deteriorated and become a huge eyesore to the community.

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All