Norwalk: Briggs Says Fund Demolition Inspector

by turfgrrl

September 18th, 2007 · 32 Comments

Tags: In the News · Norwalk

32 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: Briggs Says Fund Demolition Inspector”

• 1 Mr Greenpeace // Sep 18, 2007 at 11:27 am

  maybe when the inspector is not busy he can make owners of buidings like the green house on west street board up,,a crack house is not what we should be showing as visitors and tourists come off the highway.

  The building has posed a danger since the gas pipe rupture and then it was the city who said to board it up what 4 weeks ago,,shortage on plywood in Norwalk? I’m thinking of the firemen that would search it for homeless in case of a fire , or kids in a nonsecured building in the middle of a city,,is trouble ,,it was arogance on the owner towards the city, I’d make the occupancy permit wait till after lunch the things we as a city can do to make people pay for poor judgement.

  maybe he can help oversee asbestos removal , and oil tank removal from demolition sites his job just got bigger, now we are looking for more than one degree right?

  He can check for cracked foudations everytime lajoies has an explosian on old homes and also the chimmneys.

  so if he wants to suggest anything we simply help him up another step and those should be no more than what 7 3/4 of an inch high? maybe he knows buildings codes if he does its a plus wouldn’t you say? i could be wrong on the step.

  Should colonial fencing made out of plastic be used on a historical site? what does that have to do with it? They have it at Sagamore Hill and the asnwer is nothing to do with it.

  Ok so Walter is going in some direction so lets give him some room a boot scraper on everyones granite porch is an incentive to vote isn’t it?

• 2 Anonymous // Sep 18, 2007 at 12:14 pm

  I would say it’s more of an effort than “Not worth as much as my ‘73 Buick” Moccia is making…

• 3 Anonymous // Sep 18, 2007 at 2:43 pm

  What effort have we seen here? A press conference and a half baked idea by a guy who is out of touch? Moccia at least has a handle on the way the process works.

• 4 here we go again // Sep 18, 2007 at 4:34 pm

  half baked idea? , while Moccia knows how it works on this but not everything else so what do we do settle for or try someone else?

  nice to have a choice isn’t it?

  sounds like we are having problems in South Norwalk again just came home to blocked off streets and its not high tide?

• 5 anon // Sep 18, 2007 at 5:52 pm

  Briggs is at least bringing up a subject that should have been addressed by Moccia in regard to 93 East Avenue—Moccia likes to say that 93 East Ave. is private property and the city can’t do anything about it. But, Moccia conveniently forgets to mention that he, Moccia, went out of his way to verbally trash 93 East Avenue, comparing it to a worthless car, then Moccia replaced the historic commission people who were trying to preserve the structure with people who agreed with him as soon as he had the opportunity, and then, of course, his administration has a very cozy friendship with the Inn owners. Moccia’s point would have been a lot more compelling if he had truly played an even-handed game with this wonderful piece of Norwalk history but he didn’t. He handled it horribly and then he let another beautiful structure get torn down right across from City Hall—don’t you think that developer figured he had a friend across the street who wouldn’t put up too much of a stink!

• 6 ANonymous // Sep 18, 2007 at 5:53 pm

  Yes, that is a wonderful idea Mr. Briggs has. Let’s waste more taxpayer money by paying for a position to stop someone from tearing down a worn out building and putting up a new one with a higher tax assessment that would lead to more tax contributions to the city. All for the benefit of a few dozen people who care about the issue out of the 100,000 city residents.

• 7 nwlknative // Sep 18, 2007 at 10:08 pm

  People seem to forget that this whole deal with 93 East Avenue started with the Knopp administration. Why didn’t then Mayor Knopp do something about it? The Inn was willing to work with the City back then.

• 8 Anonymous // Sep 18, 2007 at 10:20 pm

  Alex Knopp blew smoke up everyone’s ass and did nothing for preserving Norwalk’s history except for showing up at press conferences. I defy anyone here to point to an actual change in any Norwalk regulation that did anything about actually funding or enforcing anything to do with historical preservation.

• 9 David Brown // Sep 18, 2007 at 11:15 pm

  Speaking of our pasts being torn down, I had a chance to drive by the South Norwalk railroad station yesterday only to see one of the oldest buildings in South Norwalk being leveled by a bulldozer. I forget what the name of the building was, but I thought I remembered in the news last year that someone was going to rehab it and put in office condos. Good use of a building that is right near the railroad station. Go out and take your pictures of Norwalk if you want to remember it as it was when you lived here. I would hate to think it was out of town investors without any connection to Norwalk as it used to be knocking these old buildings down only to make a fast buck!

• 10 Anonymous // Sep 19, 2007 at 7:21 am

  That’s the Diane Knitwear building, a potential buyer from Stamford wanted to acquire it for an antique mall but for some reason I remember hearing that the current owner wanted to raze it for another parking lot.

• 11 indiga // Sep 19, 2007 at 7:54 am

  93 East Avenues started wtih Esposito and the ZBA that granted the Inn a variance later ruled illegal –twice (Judge Black; CT Superior Cout, 2006). It stands only because the Inn appealed and re-appealed the ruling until Dr. Stember (the abutting neighbor) gave up and settled. The current ZBA and Zoning signed off on the settlement (as our blog mistress, I’m sure, remembers)in 2006. The City could have taken some action at the point since they were party to it. At this point, however, the City has no official role. For whatever reason, the Moccia administration chose to settle with the Inn as well.

• 12 MGeake // Sep 19, 2007 at 8:07 am

  Mr. Greenpeace, we need your expertise here: Diane Knitwear was contaminated with, among other things, mercury, yet they’ve just bulldozed it down and carted it away. Correct me if I’m wrong — shouldn’t a bit more care have been taken here???

• 13 Anonymous // Sep 19, 2007 at 10:47 am

  11 Indigna, You have been proven to be a wrong before on this blog concerning the applications for historical districts for Camp street and Golden hill,and the Mayor’s actions when you outright lied. about the Mayor and you are lying again. No need to try to detail all your mistatements, about the only thing accurate in your distortions is the address of 93.

• 14 Mr Greenpeace // Sep 19, 2007 at 11:44 am

  #12 I have found the easiest fastest way to get anything done is to call the top of the order and not the bottom. I am thinking of making a emergency response itinerary for the city residents.

  Let take for instance fire at the junk yard call the regional office of the EPA in Boston emegency response hotline, they take the call and the concerns be it toxic smoke or water runnoff into the river.

  They in return call the state of conn to get the ball rolling in yesterdays case no one from Norwalk called anyone simply let the ball drop.These calls are to be made asap and not when they get time , this should be a simple policy and not a we will see how bad it gets or is.

  The children sitting in traffic on the busses get to inhale the toxins before they go home ironically this is what happened.One my kids said burning paint how nice cancer in a couple of years I have more kids not to worry.

  why do you think I write like this?

  when they get home we have no system to tell local housing memebers to have residents shut the windows fluff fires from shredders are toxic.

  http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2003/93490.pdf

  the above link shows what go on when shredders explode whn the courts deal with it.

  So getting back to my make believe world the state who has responders come to Norwalk asap with a response crew.

  http://www.glrppr.org/hubs/PrintPage.cfm?hub=506&subsec=11&nav=1

  the above link is why shredders need to be carefully watched by local depts in our case my gut says the state will be the ones who make sure the children are taking care of.

  What about the firemen were they decontaminated on the site or did they wear their quick hitch home?

  so why didn’t we read this in the news papers?

  A photographer from the Hour wrote the story not to blame him he has an editor, The Advocate did well they reminded us another incident in the past involving the shredder so if we can ask nicely for a follow up if there are any fines or problems or recomondations the EPA or state has it would only help the residents , it simply makes us all rest comfortably the right thing is being done behind the fense. I honestly trust Jon Nickersons reporting before I trust city hall or any city dept looking into it they are not trained and do not have the background to keep us safe all the time.

  The building you mention #12 well today I rode over no worker was wearing any respiratory protection at all , so if there was any toxins or particle dust factors involved they contaminated their own workers. The water being applied was from a garden hose I would of though a two inch line from the hydrant or a booster hose 1 1/2 hose would of been used but I’m not the insector or city overseerer which I didn’t see so again who knows.

  Call the EPA response line tell them the building was on their haz mat list and its being torn down did they write it off the list becasue all suspected chemicals and concrerns have been addressed or met eiether way there is a paper trail ..

  start at the top they will call the state and if anyone in the city knows anything well lets listen to them how they handle a question thats what we pay tem for to protect us,,

  stick with the EPA the response line may not call a team in but they direct you to the right people,,

  millan-Ramos gerardo of the Boston EPA was more than helpful on Oyster park Norwalk is his area, shame no news papers talked to him about Oyster park he is the one in charge for the EPA on that site, all he has been given recntly on Norwalk up to the Advocates article was the thread from the blog comments which he found amazing because no one had contacted him about the site,,again his words were :the site needs to be revisited, and its not a priority because no drinking water supply is effected by the park”

  so if your wondering about who to call save some time call the EPA they are there to help, and they know what goes on in cities and towns accross the country poorly trained officials who are not or should be responsible for our childrens safety at times.

  Not saying we don’t have professional but stick to what you know and do good and this subject lacks expertise all over the country not just Norwalk.

  ok sentance s structure and spelling is lacking but so what I’m is a hury and I have no editor to help me out.

• 15 anon // Sep 19, 2007 at 2:18 pm

  #6, you sound like a man with little taste, so perhaps a motel to replace a gracious home steeped in history would be a good exchange to you.

• 16 turfgrrl // Sep 19, 2007 at 3:31 pm

  indiga: Why did you say that, “The current ZBA and Zoning signed off on the settlement (as our blog mistress, I’m sure, remembers)in 2006.” the ZC, I can’t speak for ZBA, wasn’t a party to the suit. The party who brought the suit settled, and that would be the adjacent property owner. So if a private party settles a suit, what do you expect the City to do? Explain, and what is the legal standard for it?

  As far as I know the city had no role in the suit form the start.

• 17 ANonymous // Sep 19, 2007 at 4:40 pm

  I do think that a nice motel would look better than a worn down old house falling apart, and think it would bring more tax revenue into the city also.

• 18 Mr Greenpeace // Sep 19, 2007 at 5:33 pm

  why not close down the junk yard and build there the tax revenue there would be substantial would it?

  you wouldn’t have to worry about hight restrictions cars in the past were 4 stories so why not apartments?

• 19 indiga // Sep 19, 2007 at 9:53 pm

  TG — OK, so you weren’t there. But the ZC was involved as was the ZBA. Indiga does not lie…

  JULY 19, 2006
  As revised to August 1, 2006

  ATTENDANCE: Robert Keyes, Acting Chairman; Andrea Light, Karen Spencer,
  James White; Larry Bentley, Patrick Shields, Corrine Weston (7:15 pm)

  STAFF: Michael Greene, Planning and Zoning Director, Michael Wrinn,
  Planning and Zoning Assisant Director

  OTHERS: Attorney Robert Maslan; Attorney David Waters, Lepofsky,
  Lepofsky and Lang; Mr. Raymond Sullivan, The Sullivan Group;
  Tod Bryant, Norwalk Preservation Trust President; Christine
  Abraham, West Main Street Neighborhood Association; Al
  Raymond, James Girardi

  I. CALL TO ORDER

  Chairman Keyes called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

  II. ROLL CALL

  Mr. Greene called the roll and announced there was a quorum.

  III. EXECUTIVE SESSION

  ** CHAIRMAN KEYES MOVED TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE DISCUSSION THE PENDING LITIGATION REGARDING #15-01SP/#31-01 CAM - NORWALK INN AND CONFERENCE CENTER, 99 EAST AVENUE.
  ** MS. LIGHT SECONDED.
  ** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

  The Commissioners, Mr. Greene, Mr. Wrinn and Attorney Maslan entered into Executive Session at 7:06 p.m. and reconvened into Public Session at 7:40 p.m.

  ** MS. LIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT REGARDING THE PENDING LITIGATION OF NORWALK INN VS. THE NORWALK ZONING COMMISSION WITH TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AS DETERMINED BY STAFF.
  ** MR. SHIELDS SECONDED.
  ** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

• 20 indiga // Sep 19, 2007 at 9:59 pm

  ANd this is the ZBA session — although the Inn is not mentioned by name, I think you can check it out with any of the ZBA members. The meeting was not properly cited per FOI, but all that got was a reprimand from the State and a promise to do better from P&Z.

  Special Meeting – July 20, 2006
  Present: Anne Carbone, Chair; Gordon Tully, Secretary; Taylor Strubinger; James Feigenbaum; Tony Lopez; Dawn DelGreco; Rick Lowenthal

  Staff: Mike Greene, Director of Planning and Zoning; Michael Wrinn, Assistant Director of Planning and Zoning; Aline Rochefort, Zoning Inspector; Erin Leonard, Acting Deputy Zoning Inspector; Sarah Rettger, Conservation Assistant

  Others: Bob Maslan, Law Department; Peter Nolin, Law Department; Robert Koch, Norwalk Hour

  CALL TO ORDER

  Ms. Carbone called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.

  ROLL CALL

  EXECUTIVE SESSION

  Mr. Strubinger made a motion to go into executive session.

  Ms. DelGreco seconded the motion.

  The motion passed unanimously.

  The meeting went into executive session at 7:33 PM.

  Mr. Tully recused himself from the executive session.

  ACTION

  The public meeting resumed at 8:30 PM.

  Mr. Strubinger moved to accept the proposed settlement.

  Mr. Lopez seconded the motion.

  Ms. Carbone asked for discussion.

  Mr. Strubinger said that he thought the negotiated settlement would produce a better result than previous hearings and discussion within the board, so he considered it a win.

  The motion passed with one opposed (Ms. Carbone).

  The meeting recessed at 8:35 PM.

  The meeting resumed at 8:37 PM.

  Mr. Feigenbaum announced that he would be leaving the board in August to pursue other opportunities. He left the meeting.

  Attorney Maslan explained that since he was appointed Assistant Corporation Counsel in March, he has been meeting the members of the different land use committees and organizing special meetings to discuss procedure and jurisdiction issues.

  Attorney Nolin reminded the board members that the Corporation Counsel serves as a lawyer for the City and its boards, and members of the Law Department are available to answer any questions.

  Attorney Maslan reviewed the different types of applications the board faces, and the degree of discretion each type of application allows. He explained that it is important to include in the record anything that the board may use to influence its judgment, because courts generally overturn decisions only when the record does not substantiate the board’s actions.

  Mr. Tully and Mr. Lowenthal asked about the board’s ability to determine the credibility of an expert. Attorney Maslow explained that they could demonstrate the expert evaluations had been improperly carried out. Mr. Greene pointed out that the board can request evaluations from the City’s experts, such as traffic engineers, in order to compare the results.

  Attorney Maslan reviewed the zone changes and regulation amendments that are decided by the Planning Commission and Zoning Commission, and the wetlands applications decided by the Conservation Commission.

  Attorney Maslan explained that purpose of a zoning variance is to grant relief if zoning regulations create an extraordinary hardship on a specific property due to a unique situation. He said that the board also hears appeals of the decisions of Zoning Enforcement Officers, and has the job of determining whether a violation exists.

  Attorney Maslan also discussed the special permits that may be heard by the board. Mr. Greene explained that previously, the Zoning Enforcement Officer was responsible for issuing special permits, but it was decided to give that role to the board in order to make the process more open to the public and representative of an appointed board.

  There was a discussion of how to determine intent, such as in cases where a merger of two lots is proposed. Attorney Maslan offered a number of examples and reminded the board that they were free to ask him for a written opinion in specific cases. He also provided several examples of hardship.

  Attorney Maslan explained that a zoning variance is a change in an existing zoning regulation as it pertains to a specific lot because the owner faces a hardship. Instead of becoming a nonconforming lot, the lot conforms to zoning regulations under the variance.

  Attorney Maslan and Mr. Greene reminded board members that they should ask all questions to staff members and avoid discussing applications with non-board members in order to avoid potential problems. They also told board members that any information obtained outside a public hearing must be shared with the applicant. Mr. Greene said that staff could share any necessary information with the applicant.

  There was a discussion of site visits by board members. Attorney Maslan said that all site visits must be completed before a public hearing is closed, and that no more than two members should visit together, in order to avoid a quorum.

  Mr. Tully asked how economic considerations should affect their decisions. Attorney Maslan explained that the relief afforded by the variance should be the minimum adjustment necessary to do justice.

  There was a discussion of self-created hardships and how to determine the minimum adjustment necessary to do justice.

  The board members then discussed the issue of conflicts of interest. Attorney Maslan reminded them that board members are required to recuse themselves from discussions of any application in which they have a personal or financial interest, and are also not permitted to appear before this or any other board as a representative of another group, such as a neighborhood association.

  Ms. DelGreco asked if board members were prohibited from attending meetings of other boards. Attorney Maslan said it was allowed, but he did not recommend it, because different information is presented to each board.

  The board members discussed the procedure for recusing themselves and when the appearance of conflict should lead to a recusal.

  ADJOURNMENT

  The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 PM.

  .

• 21 anonymous // Sep 19, 2007 at 10:26 pm

  Indiga, have you volunteered for any comissions? you would be good!

• 22 turfgrrl // Sep 19, 2007 at 10:28 pm

  indiga: Hrmm. If the ZC was being sued it would have to be because we either approved something to be built or not to be built. Zoning regulations concern what can be built on a property, not what can be demolished. And yes, it looks ZC had some special meeting concerning litigation settlement, and in looking at the date, I was in London.

• 23 indiga // Sep 19, 2007 at 10:40 pm

  Right on. The suit was about zoning and variances. Had nothing to do with demoltion or history. So city was involved and (I believe) Zoning and/or ZBA could have said no. But I also understand that no one ’splained that to them.

• 24 David Brown // Sep 19, 2007 at 10:51 pm

  #10 - I’m reminded of an old Joni Mitchell song “We paved over paradise to make more parking lots”. Well, maybe the Diane Knitware building wasn’t paradise, but it, along with the Penmar Label building that stands next to it were comforting reminders of what Norwalk used look like during the turmultuous times of outside investors knocking down Norwalk to build larger buildings to make themselves rich.

• 25 turfgrrl // Sep 19, 2007 at 10:58 pm

  indiga: The ZC would say no to what? The ZC can’t change its mind about an approval or rejection after the fact. Kind of like the Supreme Court can’t re-decide a case. Whatever the ZC voted on last year was done so with the usual judicious application of our regulations.

• 26 Shorefront Neighbor // Sep 19, 2007 at 11:12 pm

  David it seems that the developer in this case plans on parking lots.

• 27 indiga // Sep 19, 2007 at 11:16 pm

  TG– I don’t believe the ZC ruling was struck down by the courts so ZC was just rubber-stamping. The ZBA rulling, however, was struck down by the courts, so it would make sense that they would have the option to vote “no” to a settlement that, in essence, makes them a party to upholding an illegal variance. But it is getting pretty deep in this swamp at this point I think. Should we call in the alligators…er, I mean…lawyers? In any case, I think both ZBA and ZC were owed more information about their options and the case than they got from Nolin and Norwalk’s legal eagles.

• 28 turfgrrl // Sep 20, 2007 at 7:51 am

  indiga: Hey– the ZC is not one of those rubber-stamping boards. Look over at the BOE. But yeah we are deep in the swamp on this one, but, Norwalk’s legal eagles have provided everything we have ever asked for, so characterizing that department as not providing info is incorrect. Government is what we all make of it, and that means “we the people” are just as accountable for events. Ask not why government failed to do something; ask what you can do to make government more responsive.

• 29 indiga // Sep 20, 2007 at 9:38 am

  No offense meant to Zoning…or ZBA. Both are doing a great job. I meant rubber-stamp in a non-pejorative way — that the settlement was a more or less routine matter for ZC. ZBA, however, should have been told the ruling by the Superior Court so that they could be better informed about what they were voting to accept. (Maybe ZC should have been given the full hsitory as well but don;t know what the law requires) I wasn’t at the ZBA (because the meeting was improperly cited and the public did not know about it) so can’t give a first hand account of what took place. I am going by hearsay. (When it’s speculation, I’ll say so — to satisfy my anonymous nemesis)

• 30 longtimer // Sep 20, 2007 at 2:40 pm

  Indiga do you think that the hiring of a demolition inspector will improve the demolition process? Is that really the issue here? It seems to me that you want to stop the permitting process before it happens, not after it has been issued.

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply