New Haven Independent

posted by: Fairhavener on July 24, 2012  3:43pm

Great! They can wave to the dirt bike gangs getting their 50mph joyrides on Grand Avenue and sidewalks in the MIDDLE of each and every work day! Until someone important gets injured (say a business client, developer, etc) we’ll keep having to up with those marauders each day here in Fair Haven.

posted by: meta on July 24, 2012  4:28pm

I love the building too and am so glad to see real progress being made on its rehab. Good luck to all on this noble endeavor!

posted by: anonymous on July 24, 2012  5:35pm

Fairhaven: The City is redoing that entire stretch of Grand Avenue this summer, using big bucks from the Feds. They had a chance to finally address the speed issue that you mention, which keeps business clients, employers, and residents away, and they didn’t.

It’s great to see the building preserved for office uses - we need a lot more stories like this in New Haven. It’s happening far less often than it could.

posted by: Wildwest on July 24, 2012  7:08pm

Sold for one dollar huh? I would have bought it for 10,000 bucks in a split second.

I’m happy something is being done to it anyways.

posted by: Stephen Harris on July 24, 2012  8:18pm

I hope this takes off. It will fill in a dead spot and be good for the city.

I also hope that the Mr. Amodio makes sure new tenants get the proper zoning and building approvals and permits. While still with the City I researched the zoning and building records for Erector Square and, as of July 7, 2010, there were 99 business located there but only 2 had permits.

Even developers Kelly Murphy likes need to get permits. It’s not that hard a thing to do and it does generate a little bit of revenue. Oh, and it also ensures that renovations are done to code.

posted by: DEZ on July 24, 2012  10:34pm

As for the traffic calming on Grand Avenue, I hope its slightly better than the hideous display of “pretend-almost-far-from-real” asphalt stamping that was done in front of Fair Haven Middle School.  What a ridiculous waste of time, as obviously no real effort went into THAT design.  But hey, they’re only Fair Haven kids.  (that’s sarcasm peeps)  Safety for our children isn’t metered out with on-grade markings in a roadway which wouldn’t calm a tricycle.  What happened to the raised islands?  Absolutely p-a-t-h-e-t-i-c!

posted by: Proud New Havener on July 25, 2012  9:03am

Hi Stephen Harris,

The 99 number is incorrect. The only way you could reach that number is if you counted every artist’s studio as a business, which most are not (by any stretch of the imagination).

Having said that, what permits do you think the tenants should apply for and where can we find more information?

Thanks

posted by: anonymous on July 25, 2012  10:41am

DEZ - Agreed. What a huge waste of money, opportunity, and years and years of citizens’ time. Hundreds of Fair Haven residents came out to design that, and the City engineers essentially ignored them.  Edwards Street is nice, but City Hall has watered down the traffic calming in other parts of the city, including what is proposed for Route 34, making it next to meaningless.

posted by: streever on July 25, 2012  12:42pm

@ Proud New Havener
Mr Harris was a city planner who did extensive research and has demonstrated honesty and integrity on many occasions—it is hard to accept your blanket assertion without some data to back it up.

I agree with Mr Harris—proper permits and applications should be used by everyone.

posted by: Proud New Havener on July 25, 2012  2:03pm

Cool down Streever, this isn’t about honesty or integrity—calling something a business suddenly opens you up to being taxed by the city for your equipment (property). Most of those artist studios straddle the line between what you would call a hobby and a small business. Making art can be very expensive in money and time, and many artists receive little to no monetary return for their artwork. Blanketing them with additional taxes just seems like an uninspired way to raise revenue that would hurt already struggling artists.

But then again, I am not a city planner—Mr. Harris, can you tell me more about business permits and which artists you include in your 99 count?

posted by: streever on July 25, 2012  2:48pm

@Proud New Havener
I’m cool! The weather isn’t, but I’m totally cool.

Zoning isn’t concerned with taxation—it is about what type of use it is. If you sleep there, residential. It is important to have proper use defined and permits filled for a ton of reasons.

If the taxation system on artists is unfair, then that should be reworked.

posted by: GMG on July 25, 2012  3:26pm

Thanks for this article. I pass by this building nearly every day, and since I moved here over a year ago I’ve been trying to figure out what it’s called, what its function was, and what it will be made into for future use. It’s a great building and I wish the best to the developers. As a Fair Haven resident, I see this as a great step. Keep going and making things better! I’m with you! (A few guys on noisy motorcycles won’t kill commerce—-they’re just having fun!)

posted by: Stephen Harris on July 25, 2012  7:00pm

@ streever,

Thank you for the kind words.

@ Proud New Havener,

Some background. A request was made for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance by an attorney. This is a fairly routine document in which a property is researched to see if the land, use, structure(s) comply with the zoning regulations. It is most often requested when refinancing, buying or selling property. The matter was researched and the document mailed to the attorney July 7, 2010. It was cc’d to the Building Official as well.

After the research was concluded it was discovered that the buildings were in compliance because they pre-existed current zoning and that the parcel comformed to zoning.

The problem was almost all the uses were nonconforming. The zoning for this property was industrial which doesn’t permit any of the uses (except the few that had a paper trail). The owner and/or tenants should have applied for Use Variances. There was no evidence of that in the zoning files.

The number of 99 was arrived at by walking through the building and counting names on doors (and some spaces didn’t have names but were being used). Absent a floor plan listing tenant spaces it is logical to assume that each name is a business. One name for one space equals a business.

Additionally, building permits are required to renovate buildings. Again, there was no evidence of permits being issued. Renovation that is not to code is both illegal and potentially dangerous.

The acting Zoning Administrator (remember the City eliminated that position), who was cc’d and presumably received a copy of the CZC, should have issued a Cease and Desist to force the owner/tenants into compliance. I don’t know why that never happened. I think it’s obvious the City needs a full time dedicated Zoning Administrator. It’s not a job that can be moonlighted or split up among several people.

The cure for such a significant breech of process and fairness would have been either a Use Variance for the entire building or a zone change.

My time with the city ended February 17, 2011. Between the date of the CZC on July 7, 2010 and February 17, 2011 no action was taken by either the City or the owner to solve this problem.

posted by: Proud New Havener on July 25, 2012  9:27pm

Hi Streever, I’d like to hear what Mr. Harris has to say. I too believe we should abide by the law. Which artists are included in the 99 count and what permits do they need?

posted by: Proud New Havener on July 26, 2012  10:14am

Hi Mr. Harris, it looks like my previous response got caught in the lag.

I understand how you got the 99 count now, and although I think you made the assumption innocently, I think you should use a term other than business. Artists are wary of being grouped with businesses because then they are put on the tax radar and may get assessed for property like kilns, lathes, et cetera, when they are not businesses and make little to no money off their art.

Given the recent tax assessment fiasco, I think that that is entirely understandable. In fact, I have a friend who started a small business that did not do well and stopped over a decade ago. He received a tax bill for over $30,000 this last year, because, apparently, it was still listed somewhere as a business, and the tax collector just made an assumption about what businesses make and sent him the bill—despite not having any sales of any kind for many many years. The issue was resolved, but it did require time and money—things that not everyone has.

Therefore, it should be clear why some artists wish to guard their non-business status and might bristle when city officials (even former city officials) make statements that indicate otherwise.

Having said that, I am unclear as to what variances an artist might need. In fact, given some of the processes involved in making art, industrial zoning seems most appropriate.