Tenants Displaced, Again, From 66 Norton

Even though Norton Street’s city-shuttered ​“New Jack City” has been reborn as the upscale ​“Norton Pointe Apartments,” tenants find themselves yet again exiled to hotel bedrooms — waiting for the landlord to finish repairs, and for the city to sign off on the building’s safety.

That’s the latest chapter in the years-long saga of 66 Norton, a 40-unit apartment complex located between Chapel Street and Edgewood Avenue.

The five-story, century-old building has spent the past three years and four months unoccupied.

That’s because, in February 2018, the city Building Department issued an emergency order to vacate the then-low-income-apartment complex after a routine city inspection and subsequent structural analysis revealed that the building was no longer safe to inhabit.

Eighty tenants had just 45 minutes to pack their essential belongings and leave the building, and many spent the next few weeks living out of area motels as the building’s former management, legal aid attorneys, and the city’s Livable City Initiative worked to provide permanent relocation assistance. Problems at the location were severe and ongoing enough that it had earned the nickname ​“New Jack City.”

Years later and now under new ownership, the rehabbed building — rebranded as ​“Norton Pointe Apartments” — was supposed to reopen this month.

But it remains empty, and embroiled in a new controversy.

What caused this latest kerfuffle? Depends whom you ask.

According to city building safety officials, the new landlord — Brooklyn-based Michael Zolty — dragged his feet in requesting city inspections, hired an engineer who initially signed off on a structurally unsafe rear fire escape, and prematurely started renting out rooms and collecting money from tenants well before he had a certificate of occupancy in hand.

According to Zolty and the building’s realtor, local landlord Mendy Paris, city inspectors have been difficult to get in touch with for months, have treated with disrespect a landlord who says he’s investing millions of dollars into gut-renovating a notoriously dangerous apartment complex, and have pressured an independent engineer to change his assessment of the rear fire escape to incorporate unnecessary, expensive, and time-intensive fixes.

Wherever the truth lies in that debate, a few facts are for certain:

• A construction crew is currently at work rebuilding the fire escape behind 66 Norton St.

• The city still needs to inspect and sign off on the safety of the building’s emergency egresses, as well as its smoke alarms and electrical hook-ups, before issuing a certificate of occupancy.

ª And nearly a dozen tenants who had hoped to move into the renovated apartment building on June 1 — and who had already paid security deposits and first month’s rents — are living instead out of hotel rooms downtown and in Shelton or with friends and family, waiting for permission to finally move into their shiny new Norton Street digs.

“They jumped the gun in trying to lease these apartments,” city Building Official Jim Turcio told the Independent. ​“Usually you don’t move into a house until it’s completed.” In this case, he said, 66 Norton St. is close, but not yet ready to be occupied.

“Norton Pointe,” Still Empty

The latest chapter in 66 Norton’s history dates back to December 2019, when Zolty’s holding company 66 Norton LLC purchased the complex for $1.46 million.

City building permit records, online real estate listings by Paris, and interviews with Zolty indicate that the new landlord has been busy over the past year and a half renovating the building and all of its apartments, including new bathrooms, floors, kitchens, elevators, electric wiring and plumbing.

In separate interviews, Zolty said and Turcio confirmed that the core structural concerns that led to sagging floors, ceiling leaks, rooting wood, and the city’s shutdown of the building more than three years ago have been addressed.

“They’re close,” Turcio said on Wednesday about how far 66 Norton remains from winning final city permission to allow people to live there again.

But not there yet.

Nevertheless, back in March, Zolty and Paris hung a banner outside of the building touting the renaissance of ​“Norton Pointe Apartments,” which offered ​“Luxury Living at Affordable Prices”.

They also started listing the apartments on various rental websites as available for between $1,295 and $1,695 a month.

Two and a half months later, that ​“Norton Pointe” banner has been taken down from the side of the building.

The sole ​“For Rent” Paris Realty lawn sign on site is tucked away at back of a fenced-in alcove, barely visible from the sidewalk. (Rental websites like Apartments.com, however, still boast about plenty of ​“NEW Luxury Renovated Apartment Homes” at 66 Norton St. available to be rented.)

And taped to the building’s front entrance hangings the message: ​“DANGER: This building is unsafe and its use or occupancy has been prohibited by the Building Official.”

Fire Escape Flip Flop

The catalyst for this latest 66 Norton flare-up was the building’s rear fire escape.

On Nov. 3, 2020, Enfield-based engineer Charles Rinaldi inspected that winding, iron egress and, later that same day, filed a report with the city’s Building Department.

“The purpose of the inspection was to determine the structural adequacy of the fire escape,” Rinaldi wrote in a letter to Turcio. ​“My findings are as follows:

“The steel stair treads and stringers have all been replaced. The new components have been welded in place. A few other deteriorated areas have been repaired with welded steel plates. All of the steel has been painted. In my opinion the rear fire escape is now structurally sound. If you need further clarification please call me.”

And that was that.

On June 3 of this year, seven months to the day after issuing his first sign-off on that back fire escape, Rinaldi formally withdrew that initial document and submitted to the city Building Department a new, detailed, three-page assessment of the back emergency egress.

This letter was directed not to Turcio, but to city Deputy Fire Marshal Jennifer Forslund.

“Over the past few days I inspected the rear fire escape of the building at the above address,” Rinaldi wrote. ​“The purpose of the inspection was to determine the condition of the various components of the fire escape and to recommend repairs/replacements where necessary. My previous report dated November 3, 2020 is hereby retracted.”

The new report lists the following findings:

• On the first floor of the rear fire escape, ​“Some of these beams have holes due to severe rust. Most were improperly reinforced with damaged steel angels. Some are severely rusted. The steel channels have severe rust and some holes. In light of the poor condition of this steel framing I recommend that all of the 1st level framing be completely replaced.”

• On the second floor of the rear fire escape, ​“The beam supporting the top of the stair stringers is deteriorated. Remove and replace with a C7x9.8 with welded connections.”

• On the third level, ​“The beam supporting the SE end of the stairway has a hole in the web. Make a repair by welding a 3/8” plate over the hole with the plate extending 6? beyond the hole at each end with the plate width such that it comes within a 1/2” of the beam flanges.”

• One floor above that, ​“The 4th floor [of the rear fire escape] has a significant sag at the NW door. The steel channel member is deteriorated and a steel angle supports the floor. I recommend leaving the steel channel but removing the steel angle support, jacking up the floor to the proper level, and installing a new 3x3x1/4 steel angle, level and tight to the steel beams to provide support.”

• On the fifth, ​“The vinyl ceiling soffit is loose.”

• ​“And at all levels of the fire scale, make sure that the pin attachment to the wall is cemented into the wall using hydraulic cement, locate all rusty areas devoid of paint and sandblast, prime, and paint the areas, and at all interior stairway columns, check the connection to the supporting beam.

“The steal stair treads and stringers have all been recently replaced,” Rinaldi concluded. ​“The new components have been welded in place. Almost all of the steel has been painted.

“In my opinion, after these repairs have been properly done, the rear fire escape will be structurally sound to support a 100 lb. live load. If you need further clarification please contact me.”

During a Wednesday afternoon visit to 66 Norton, this reporter found a dozen construction workers busy rebuilding the rear fire escape from the ground floor up.

“We’re replacing the decking. Everything is new,” said Peter John, who appeared to be overseeing Wednesday’s work crew.

How long might it take for them to finish their work on the rear fire escape?

“Maybe a month,” John replied.

Landlord, Realtor: City Communication Breakdown To Blame

So. How do you get from having a one-page sign off in November to a three-page detailed list of repairs to be made the following June, both written by the same engineer? What happened in between?

According to Zolty and Paris, the blame lies at the feet of the city.

“The city has been extremely difficult to communicate with at all ends, the building department, the fire department, everyone,” Zolty told the Independent on Wednesday. ​“The city has not been communicating well.”

Paris said the same in a separate interview: ​“The lack of communication from multiple departments at the City of New Haven led us to this point.”

Both pointed to the gap in time between the submission of Rinaldi’s sign-off letter in November 2020 and a city inspection that took place on June 1 that resulted in Rinaldi withdrawing his earlier letter and issuing a new, detailed set of recommendations.

“Since November, no one bothered to look,” Zolty said. ​“Where was the city since November? We were left out to dry.”

Zolty said that he never heard back from the city after the November 2020 letter was submitted. That the building inspector assigned to 66 Norton left the city for a new job in the spring, leading to a communication breakdown between himself and the Building Department.

And, he said, on the very same day that tenants were scheduled to move in on June 1, Deputy Fire Marshal Forslund ​“shows up for the first time” and ​“questions the integrity” of what Zolty described as a ​“structurally stable fire escape.”

“She wanted X, Y and Z,” he said. ​“So I told [the engineer], ​‘Let’s go ahead and make the repairs. I can’t fight with the city.”

“He was pressured” to change the report, Paris claimed about Rinaldi feeling the heat from Forslund to withdraw his initial sign-off and put forward a new list of recommendations.

“The city is at blame. It’s not the landlords,” Zolty insisted. ​“It’s extremely frustrating. It’s terrible.”

Paris said that Zolty ​“took the worst building in the City of New Haven” and has turned it into a shining new residence akin to the Audubon or the Corsair ​“with a really nice, diverse tenant base.”

And yet, the building remains empty. And prospective tenants are holed up at hotels, waiting to move in.

“There’s absolutely a problem here with staffing in the City of New Haven,” Paris said. ​“This is not in our control.”

Did Rinaldi feel like Forslund pressured him into changing his report from a one-page sign-off to a three-page list of serious fixes that need to be made?

“I don’t think I want to answer that,” Rinaldi told the Independent Wednesday.

He did say that he stands by his initially assessment of the back fire escape as structurally sound. ​“I felt that just because something has a hole in it doesn’t mean it can’t support the load,” he said.

He said the city’s Fire Department is ​“very particular.”

After hearing the concerns and recommendations passed along by Forslund, ​“I decided to be more aggressive” in identifying problem spots and ordering repairs, he said.

He said that the requested repairs listed in the June 3 letter he submitted to the city will ensure decades of good health for the back fire escape. ​“We wanted to keep them satisfied and consider the long-term” life of that emergency egress. ​“I decided to be more aggressive and look at the real long-term viability of the structure and fix all the things before they got worse.”

“It is better to make repairs” than not to, Rinaldi conceded. So he withdrew his November report, and issued a new one in June.

City: Routine Inspection Revealed Fire Escape Wasn’t Safe

City officials convey a different version of what led to this point.

Turcio, Forslund, and city spokesperson Kyle Buda explained that city inspectors didn’t just show up out of the blue on June 1 to issue a last-minute set of nit-picking recommendations about the back fire escape.

Rather, they said — and building permit and inspection records show — that city inspectors have been visiting the property for months, reviewing and providing feedback on everything from electrical hook-ups to plumbing lines to core structural matters.

Why didn’t the city take a look at the back fire escape in particular between November and June?

“We weren’t called for inspections” on that matter, Turcio said. ​“Reading the original report, we assumed everything was fixed. The engineer is responsible for inspecting” initially and, based on the November report, everything sounded like it was in good order.

“I thought it was repaired back in November.”

“In the middle of a pandemic, we did 61 inspections” at the site, urcio said.

Buda said that the city’s building and fire departments do not conduct random inspections of every aspect of a building under construction, especially when the city has a report by a certified, independent engineer claiming that a part of the building is sound.

“When somebody wants to obtain a certificate of occupancy, it’s up to them to obtain the proper inspections,” he said.

The city discovered problems with the back fire escape during a June 1 final, routine inspection of all of the building’s fire safety equipment by city Life, Safety and Compliance Officer Frank Filardo.

This, Buda said, was the final walk-through of the building that city inspectors always do before issuing a certificate of occupancy. It’s one of the last step in the inspection process, and does involve a comprehensive review of a structure that the landlord claims is done and ready to be rented.

In this case, Filrado was looking at a host of fire code-related matters: smoke detectors, flashing lights, alarms, and fire escapes.

That’s when Filardo noticed a host of problems with the back fire escape and called in his boss, Deputy Fire Marshal Forslund, Buda said.

“This back fire escape was not structurally safe. Her employee could not pass that,” Buda said.

“She initially thought the building inspector had the wrong address,” Buda said about Forslund’s initial reaction. Why? Because the back fire escape was in such poor shape, there’s no way that any engineer could have said that it was good to go.

So, after taking a look at the back fire escape after being called in by the city’s life, safety and compliance officer doing a routine final inspection, Forslund issued a host of recommendations for the fire escape to be fixed.

“This situation would have been much worse if the city had not stepped in,” Buda said.

Turcio said that the rear fire escape isn’t the only part of the building that still needs a final inspection and sign-off before residents can move in.

“They still haven’t passed all the electrical” inspections, he said. Only two of the 40 units have been cleared so far on that front.

“They’re close,” Turcio reiterated. ​“The rear exit has to be rebuilt. The fire alarm was in shambles, and they’re redoing those alarms.” And they still need final sign offs on the building’s other fire escapes, and on the electrical for the remaining units.

Turcio praised Forslund for doing her job in making sure that a part of the building that was not safe is adequately repaired before tenants move in.

Tenants Stuck In Limbo

Meanwhile, tenants who had hoped to move into 66 Norton already are stuck in limbo — and in hotel rooms.

Paris told the Independent that 11 prospective residents were scheduled to move into 66 Norton on June 1. Because the building remains without a certificate of occupancy, Paris and Zolty said, they booked rooms for those tenants at the Courtyard Marriott downtown and at a Hyatt in Shelton.

Zolty said that seven prospective 66 Norton residents are currently living in hotel rooms. The others have found interim accommodations on their own.

The Independent spoke with two separate tenants who were planning on moving into 66 Norton on June 1.

Both said they have already paid first month’s rent and security deposit for their respective apartments. Both said they showed up along with nearly a dozen other people on June 1, with moving vans, hoping to move in on June 1, only to be rebuffed.

Both asked to remain anonymous to talk candidly about how frustrating and perplexing the experience has been — and about how they remain hopeful, but uncertain, about when they’ll be able to move into apartments they’ve already paid for.

One prospective tenant is a 21-year-old student at Southern Connecticut State University who said they are currently living with their roommate out of a room at the Courtyard Marriott, paid for by the landlord.

They sat in their car outside of 66 Norton on Wednesday with their mom, who had driven up from their family’s home in Queens.

They said they had already paid the landlord more than $5,000 for their new three-bedroom apartment: $1,675 for first month’s rent, the rest for security deposit. On June 1, they and their roommates were able to move their furniture and other belongings into the 66 Norton apartment. Meanwhile, they’ve been living out of the Courtyard Marriott.

“I just don’t understand,” they said. ​“How could they tell us we could move in” when we couldn’t?

Originally they were going to live on the building’s third floor, the prospective tenant said. Then, soon before the June 1 expected move-in date, the realtor told them the third floor wasn’t ready, and they’d have to live on the second floor instead.

The prospective tenant said the last they heard from the realtor, they might be able to move in on Friday. Based on the Independent’s interviews with city officials, the landlord, and the workers behind 66 Norton, that date seems premature — again.

“It’s frustrating,” the tenant said. They said they could have stayed in their previous apartment in Hamden until August, but decided to break that lease early because they thought the 66 Norton apartment was going to be available in June.

Another tenant said that they also signed a lease for a separate three-bedroom apartment at 66 Norton. Their initial move-in date was May 1, they told the Independent.

“Then I was told, ​‘Sorry, the occupancy certificate didn’t come through, move in date pushed to June 1.’”

That worked for them, as their lease on their previous apartment ended May 31.

So they said they signed a revised lease.

“There were at least a dozen of us renters who showed up with moving trucks for June 1 to be told we can’t get a key,” they said.

“I have paid the deposit and first month’s rent for an apartment that I can’t even access.”

They too said that the realtor told them they’d be able to move in on Friday.

And they too are staying at a hotel, but on their own dime, in part because they don’t want to have anything to do with the realtor and landlord that left them in this spot, the said — and they didn’t trust that the realtor had actually booked a hotel room for them in Shelton, after an initial miscommunication about a potential hotel room for them in West Haven.

“I was exhausted on a Sunday night with work in the morning. I needed sleep and after a week of lies/ I couldn’t risk not getting a room,” they said about why they’re paying for a hotel room elsewhere out of their own pocket. ​“Thank God for credit cards. I am not in any of those hotels. I don’t trust Paris Realty so I will stay out of the way.”