Comments on: Norwalk: Briggs Says Fund Demolition Inspector

By: indiga

indiga — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:15:38 +0000

The demolition of 124 East Avenue points not so much to a flaw in the current demolition ordinace as it does to the lack of zoning incentives to preserve. The de facto demoltion of 93 East Avenue points to the need for a policy on demoltion by neglect of significant structures. We could also use some stiffer definitions and protections for those areas of town that we really want to preserve.

A preservation plan has been presented to P&Z but has not yet moved beyond that. Also, NPT is applying for a grant to update the historic resource inventory. That should help — just have to do it quick before the houses worth saving are all gone.

By: Mr Greenpeace

Mr Greenpeace — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:52:28 +0000

what about the green house that was supposed to be boarded up on west ave..things like this only shows the best side of Norwalk when visitors get off the exit and drive by a house with target practice windows and a front door open for children to enter and get hurt,,a nice crack house shows the elegance of our city..

makes you wonder if there was an inspector would he have time in between responsibilities to do his job?

Norwalk is on the move , problem is they seem to be only be in reverse at times why is that?

By: longtimer

longtimer — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:40:09 +0000

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.

By: indiga

indiga — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:38:13 +0000

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)

By: turfgrrl

turfgrrl — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:51:06 +0000

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.

By: indiga

indiga — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:16:54 +0000

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.

By: Shorefront Neighbor

Shorefront Neighbor — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:12:05 +0000

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

By: turfgrrl

turfgrrl — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:58:19 +0000

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.

By: David Brown

David Brown — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:51:29 +0000

#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.

By: indiga

indiga — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:40:39 +0000

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.