To the Editor:
Before any final decision is made by the Zoning Board to allow the applicant to convert the former industrial site to a residential development, it would behoove Mayor Simmons to consult the city’s legal counsel about compliance with state and federal laws pertinent to brownfield remediation and to contamination of inland waterways that empty into Long Island Sound. Not many years ago the site’s neighbor, Innis Arden Golf Club, sued Pitney Bowes, former occupant of the site, alleging that PB contaminated a pond on its golf course with PCBs. If I could easily find the federal court rulings online, documenting the hazardous materials found on the site, so could the applicants and/or their lawyers, and they should have brought that case to the attention of the Planning Board. Stamford wouldn’t want to face an ordeal like Stratford’s in dealing with the repercussions of the Raymark Industries case, when the public wasn’t informed of contamination of that industrial site before it was converted to other uses, including residential. If payouts of legal settlements started straining Stamford’s coffers, it wouldn’t be a NIMBY thing anymore — all of the city’s residents would be affected.
As an octogenarian whose father was killed in a Barry Place factory in 1943, I wish to correct repeated references to that building as a “commercial” building in the drainage study done for the applicants by D’Andrea engineers, included with their submissions to the Planning Board. I wondered if the misnomer was a deliberate attempt to mislead the board members into thinking that their project would benefit from SB 1444, due to take effect Oct. 1. But the bill, “An Act Concerning the Conversion of Commercial Real Property for Residential Use,” specifically states that factories and warehouses—both of which it was used for — are not “commercial” buildings. The building referred to should have been described as an “industrial” building.
In the applicants’ submissions, under “Land Use” there’s a printed document entitled “Scorecard Rating” with fields to fill in with check marks—I assume provided by the city to the applicant. For “Land Use” category, maximum points is 17; points achieved is 1. Under Elements– “Brownfields (removes or safely encapsulates contamination” – Points achieved is 0. Also left blank is the field asking for report on any hazardous materials found in the demolition debris when the building was demolished to make way for the new skating rink. Did any Planning Board member notice the omissions and query attorney Michael Cacace about them when he made his presentation?
According to Angela Carella’s Sept. 1 article, member Bill Levin asked “whether large housing developments are still commercially viable.” He asked the applicant to speak to that. Mr. Cacace said, in part, “The delays are because of rising interest rates and the cost of construction, not less demand.” But mortgage lenders are also concerned about contamination issues. If Mr. Levin had more information about the site, he could’ve made more of an argument.
Because of the mistakes and omissions in the applicants’ submissions, the Planning Board was not sufficiently informed, and their decision should be vacated.
I have emailed Land Use Bureau Chief Ralph Blessing, Mayor Simmons and other city officials in more detail, with links to pertinent documents.
Lorraine Zygmunt
Stamford, CT
Lorraine Zygmunt is a retired real estate agent who has lived for the past twenty years, as well as part of her childhood, in Waterside.