Dangerous Buildings, Board of Review

BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES OF THE MARCH 10, 2009 SPECIAL MEETING Committee members present: Gary Schnip, Richard Caron, Andy Zeeman and James Quarto and Jonathan Jacaruso Others present: Jennifer Gottlieb, James Troeger, Chief Kenneth Scandariato and Yvette Ysordia Members not present: Sofee Noblick The meeting was called to order at 5:35. It was determined there was a quorum. 1. Do Not Enter List Chief Scandariato addressed the members of the board about the "Do Not Enter" list. He explained that the fire department routinely assesses unoccupied buildings because of their physical condition. They inspect the buildings, research their histories as to owners and structure and those actions can result in a building being put on the list because it is deemed not safe enough for firemen to go into it. If there is a fire at a property that is on the list, they fight the fire from the outside. 196 Yantic Street was then discussed. Jonathan Jacaruso stated it would be on the agenda for the last time at the next council meeting. 1 He also stated that at the last Council meeting, somebody questioned why it hadn't been taken down already if it is so dangerous. Chief Scandariato stated that he felt it could collapse at any time. Gary Schnip stated that a lien could be put on the property for the amount the city spends to make the property safe. There was discussion about whether the overhang was still there and the Chief stated he would check it out. It was stated that the condo owners have been complaining about the amount of debris falling and accumulating near units bordering the property and there is a serious concern with egress from the area in case of fire. Jonathan Jacaruso stated that somebody needed to be at the council meeting to explain the history of the building and the need for the request. Chief Scandariato went on to explain that the "Do Not Enter" list was fluid and constantly changing. He stated that after he sends out letters to the owners, he tries to work with them to make the building safe. Gary Schnip asked if the Board should notify them of any buildings they might feel should be on the list and the Chief said yes. He said the building department also does that and that the fire department and building department work well together. Gary stated that part of the Heritage Discovery building upstairs from NCDC 2 would not be safe due to hazardous conditions on the unoccupied levels. Other buildings such as the Ponemah Mill, Reid and Hughes, 27 Terminal Way and the Fairhaven were discussed. Gary Schnip asked the Chief to forward updated lists to the Board. Jonathan Jacaruso stated that there are two resolutions on the next council agenda; one regarding 21 West Thames Street and the other regarding 751 North Main Street. 2. 26 Shipping Street Jennifer Gottlieb asked to clarify some issues with the development of this property. She stated that she was surprised about the controversy over what was being done with the funds for the roof because the Board had cosigned for those funds. She stated the property is owned by the city and although different arms of the city are involved in the development of the property, it is the City's project. She stated that community updates are required as part of the Community Participation Plan required by the federal government and discussed the proposal posted on the city's website and the informational meetings to be held. She also stated that the Board of Review and the RDA receive communications on grants, proposals, 3 progress, etc. regarding the property. She stated that she hoped that everyone had the same goals for the property and could work together towards those goals. The Board asked her what they were supposed to be doing and she stated that the City will take into consideration any suggestions or advice the Board may have on the project but other than that, the Board didn't need to do anything. Jim Troeger stated that he did not feel the Board was aware that the roof grant specifically stated what was to be done. He thought that the money would be obtained and then it would be decided what would be done. Jennifer then discussed the grant money she wanted to apply for regarding the masonry work. She stated that future grants may be available for environmental cleanup but if she can get the money for the masonry now, she is going to apply because you have to take the money when you can get it. She also stated that asking for smaller amounts tend to increase the chances of being approved for available funds and that there is a lot of competition for the grants. Rich Caron agreed with that statement. Jennifer also stated that the proposal for the demolitions did not include removing the windows. She stated she spoke to Alan Bergren about filing a small request from the Sachem Fund to secure the building. She 4 stated it was needed to keep out trespassers and to prevent a possible fire. She also stated the only responsibility the City had to trespassers regarding liability was to not set any traps. If money from the Sachem fund could be obtained, a rented chain link fence would be installed around the perimeter of the property and the windows would be boarded up. She stated that she looked into putting metal over the windows but it was too expensive. She also stated that with regard to the clerestories, the architect said they were nice elements and said if it wasn't too costly to save them and there was enough money, they should keep them. She said that the bid process included an alternate to reconstruct the clerestories. She also stated that if there is money left over from a grant, you need to ask permission to use it towards something other than what was applied for and they can refuse your request. Andy Zeeman stated that if the funds are available, Jennifer should apply for masonry restoration funds. Jennifer also stated that the building was not designated as historic but could be. She stated if it were designated as such, it could restrict things but it could also have tax benefits. She stated that the City would not apply for that status without doing a cost benefit analysis. Jennifer stated the cleanup on 5 the property would be done first and then the roof. She asked about the Board co-signing for the funds for the masonry. Gary questioned whether the engineer’s report stated the masonry was bad and Jennifer pointed out that it did say that in the report. Jennifer told Gary he could call the engineer, Gary Ferrari of CLA and speak to him about it. She stated it was a good time to apply for funds because new entitlement communities could cause the funds to dry up. Jim Quarto asked why hazardous material remediation couldn't be done a little at a time. Jennifer stated it was too costly to have a good chance of getting funded, given competition for grant funds. Rich Caron made a motion to write a letter in support of applying for money from the Sachem Fund to secure the property and put painted plywood on the windows. Jim Quarto seconded the motion. All were in favor. Public Comments: An attachment containing public comments was sent to Jonathan Jacaruso from Kathleen Murphy to be entered as public record. A copy was distributed to the members to read and will be attached to the minutes. A motion was made to adjourn by Jim Quarto and was 6 seconded by Andy Zeeman. All were in favor and the meeting adjourned at 7:15. 7 Public Comments Re. 26 Shipping Street from Kathleen Murphy to be recorded/distributed at the Special Meeting. scheduled for 3/10/09 I would like to ask that serious consideration should be given regarding the following relevant to the cleanup and marketing of the contaminated site located at #26 Shipping Street: 1. Capping of the ground contamination site(s) via removal of some contaminated soil and then the placement of new soil in equivalent amount deemed necessary to maintain the appropriate soil level being this location is in a flood plain. - I question the viability of capping this area. How can the contaminated sediment truly be guaranteed as stabilized given the fact that this is in a flood plain? I would like to again express that no cap is 100% guaranteed effective and given the potential future use of this area if it is possibly cleaned-up to market it, there should be no question of possible danger to people, animals or the natural environment relative to the shoreline due to leaching contaminants. - The cost of removing contaminated soil and appropriate safeguarding of such must be fully disclosed. What I have heard to date about the cleanup and the possible costs to accomplish such is vague at best. The fact that there may be additional money that can be applied for to fully bring this site to the point whereby potential developers can get financing (i.e. no known contamination concerns) is questionable, as well. - Continual monitoring of the capped location and appropriate documentation should be mandatory to protect all. 2. Shipping Street #26 is the only piece of property in that area which is legitimately available for Norwich to market. I heard mention the possibility of eventually taking other properties in that location via eminent domain and I must rush to quickly state that such an approach should be the last thing for consideration regarding sincere development of that area. The use of eminent domain should be considered a slippery slope. The many years that have passed since New London took over Fort Trumbull under the guise of economic development purposes to add what was expected major private development projects to that city’s tax roles has proven to be a horrible experience for both the city and its many citizens. To this day, successful development is stymied in that area. Quality, honest business practices usually bring successful outcomes in timely fashion. That approach is what should be supported and encouraged here in Norwich by our City Officials. Eminent domain action should not be a consideration here. 3. At this point in time, this site may be very problematic and costly for Norwich from the perspective of bringing it safely to sound marketability status within a reasonable timeframe and with a sensible financial outlay, notwithstanding any environment safety issues. Such an endeavor should be closely scrutinized by all those who have the expertise to review the course of action and qualify advantages and disadvantages 8  for doing so, especially given this very difficult economic period in our city and our country. Sincerely, Kathleen L. Murphy Norwich CT 9