View of the clear cutting on the corner of Kennedy Ave and Rose Street done by ILO.ENTERPRISES LLC. The developer plans to build condos at the location of the green abandoned building in the photo (located on Bells Lane).
07.30.11 WRITE-UP HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH NEW INFORMATION (at the end of the post).
I received a number of emails from people wanting to know more information regarding who's responsible for the horrible clear-cutting of trees on the corner of Kennedy Ave and Rose Street.
For those who are out of the loop, here's a little video of the land in question…
The name of the developer responsible for this situation is ILO.ENTERPRISES LLC. The developer is in the process of building a four unit condo on at the site of the green building in the above photograph (located on Bells Lane) and has filed an application for a "BRT-type" seven year residential tax deferral for the property. A city council ad-hoc committee was recently established to look into the matter.
June 2011 City Council Minutes:
14 - COMMUNICATION - Deferral of Assessment Increase - 64 Bells Lane Council Member Seabury requested referral to an ad hoc with Corporation Counsel Director of Finance, Director of Planning and Tax Assessor. Mayor Boughton so ordered and appointed Council Members Trombetta, Stanley and Visconti to the committee.
The developer's property line DOES NOT include the area that was stripped; as far as I can tell, the property that was clear-cutted is owned by the city.
VISION APPRAISALS MAP: (Developer property labeled in yellow; area clear-cutted is between Bells Lane and Kennedy Ave).
To make matters worse, just as with the case with the now infamous BRT-Hospital Ave development water runoff disaster, there appears to be no proper sedimentation controls established at the location, which could result water and debris running onto Kennedy Ave and Rose Street.
Here's what happened when BRT didn't install proper sedimentation controls after they clear cutter the land on Hospital Ave…
BRT development on Hospital Ave (lack of proper sedimentation controls are labeled in blue).
Since City Hall is closed on Fridays, I'll have to wait till next week to talk to the Zoning Enforcement department about the situation but I do know that members of the city council are aware of the situation…
…developing.
UPDATE 07.30.11: The rabbit hole goes deeper...
Not only is the land in question CITY OWNED PROPERTY, on July 6th ILO Enterprises, LLC wrote a letter of inquiry to the city council regarding the possible purchase of the land.
City Council August 2011 agenda; Item 10 (pdf file):
Here's lies the problem...since the land is still the ownership of the city (a.k.a. the taxpayers of the city of Danbury), the developer had no right in tampering with the PUBLIC'S LAND.
Since this item is on the August City Council agenda, an ad-hoc committee still needs to be established to look into the matter. Also (and MOST IMPORTANT), because of State House Bill No. 5729 (introduced by State Rep. Joe Taborsak back in 2007 and eventually signed into law by former Gov. Jodi Rell), any selling of public land by a municipality would require a public hearing where residents would be provided an opportunity to have their say on the matter.
REP. TABORSAK HAILS PASSAGE OF CITY LAND SALES LEGISLATION
State Representative Joseph Taborsak (D-Danbury), hailed passage of legislation he introduced that will require municipalities to provide notice and hearing before voting on the sale, lease or transfer of municipally-owned property. “House Bill No. 5729 provides for greater protection of publicly-owned open space, parks and playgrounds, while insuring that the public will have their voice heard on land sales that might affect their neighborhoods,” Taborsak said.
“I am very pleased to see this bill pass the House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority. This is a very important step for this legislation and I am optimistic that it will get out of Senate successfully,” Rep. Taborsak stated.
This legislation was in part a result of outcry from neighbors in the Bear Mountain area of Danbury who were unaware that the Danbury Common Council tried to sell a piece of land which would have impacted their neighborhood and another situation involving Teryville Park land.
Danbury’s lawmakers Bob Godfrey (District 110) and Jason Barlett (District 2) co-sponsored and supported the bill.
The council and the citizens of Danbury were not given their opportunity to speak in favor or in opposition in the selling of the now disturbed land. I don't know about you, but I don't think what the developer did was right and the city's zoning enforcement department should investigate this matter ASAP.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
