New Haven Independent

A suspicious lack of building permits on 18 Cottage St. is the next in a series of red flags surrounding the sale of Margaret Amrich’s East Rock estate by attorney Gabriel H. Cusanelli.

The question hovering over the sale is: Was a fund for “crippled children” shortchanged when Cusanelli, appointed as executor of Amrich’s will, sold the home to business partners Brancati and Mark Perez just a month after dissolving their business alliance, PCB Ventures, LLC?

That question (detailed in this article) has drawn concern from Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the Community Foundation of Greater New Haven, which directs the fund for “crippled children.”

Recent revelations put the former members of PCB Ventures in a tough place. P and B, Perez and Brancati, bought the home for $250,000 on April 12, 2006 “” a sale the city has deemed “not at arm’s length”. They have now put it on the market for $379,900.

How do the former members of PCB Ventures justify seeking to make $129,900 profit on a home whose sale was supposed to go towards the “crippled children’s fund,” not investors’ pockets?

Asked this question last week, realtor Robert Sacco, who sold the home to Brancati and Perez, suggested the investors had fixed the place up. Hearing that the price had shot up by over 50 percent since the time he sold it to them one year prior, he said: “That’s normal for investors. It’s not unusual for them to buy [homes], fix them up and flip them.”

Indeed, records show Sal Brancati took out a $33,000 construction loan on Oct. 25, 2006, for the two-family home, which Sacco says needed a new roof, oil cleanup in the basement and repair due to water damage.

No Permits

If the house was indeed fixed up, where are the building permits?

Asked this question, city Zoning Administrator Frank Gargiulo searched the filing cabinets at the Hall of Records for permits on 18 Cottage St. He came back empty-handed, except for two faded index cards from projects long ago. One permit was taken out in 1916 to frame a porch, the other in 1965 to repair fire damage to a garage.

Since then? Not a single building permit on the house, reported Gargiulo. Acting Tax Assessor Dave Ambrose said there were no records of remodeling in tax assessment records.

City officials found the absence of building permits fishy.

“It’s unlikely that you could take out $30,000 to do work and not [be required to] get a building permit,” said Gargiulo. “You’d be hard pressed to spend that much money and not need a permit.”

City Livable City Initiative (LCI) chief Andrew Rizzo had the same reaction: “I do doubt that” they could have spent $33,000 on construction work without needing a permit to do so, he said. “If you put in a new bathroom, you need a permit. If you put in a new kitchen, you need a permit. If you put on a new roof, you need a permit. Even siding, you need a permit.”

Rizzo said he would “look into” whether building laws had been violated.

Damned If You Do…

The absence of permits puts the former PCB trio in a tight spot: If Brancati and Perez did fix up the home, they most likely violated city law by avoiding the permitting process.

If they didn’t fix up the home, their former business partner, attorney Cusanelli (pictured), will have to explain how the home has apparently shot up in value by 50 percent in one year, without major rehab. The house is on the market for 150 percent of the price he sold it for just one year ago, when, as executor of the widow’s will, he was directed to give the home, in its full value, to a fund for “crippled children.”

Brancati did not return phone calls Monday. Perez could not be reached.

To read more on the Cottage Street sale, see these previous Independent stories, listed in chronological order below:

• “‘Crippled Children’ Shortchanged?”
• “AG Investigating Cottage St. Deal”
• “City: Deal Was ‘Not Honest’”