DPW documents: No historic damage to be done by Rowayton Avenue reconstruction

NORWALK, Conn. – No historic properties will be affected by the Rowayton Avenue reconstruction contract recently approved by the Norwalk Common Council, the State Historic Preservation Office said in documents provided by Department of Public Works Director Hal Alvord.

A complete review of the area between Caroline Court and  Arnold Lane was mandatory under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) according to an email sent from Scott A. Roberts of the Connecticut Department of Transportation to Alvord and other DPW officials on Jan. 14.

There will be no significant effect on the environment. While there are “relatively high densities of 19th century domestic artifacts” near Belmont Place, the pervasive ground disturbance of the area means that the archaeological value of the site has been invalidated, the email said.

“We have documents from the state historical preservation office and the DOT (Connecticut Department of Transportation) that all of the historical reviews that were required were done. In fact, we did archaeological excavations in the area,” Alvord said recently. He provided the documents last week. They are attached below.

DPW Rowayton Ave. 2_0001_NEW


3 responses to “DPW documents: No historic damage to be done by Rowayton Avenue reconstruction”

  1. Suzanne

    How much did all of this historic review by the State cost? And is it really germane to the overall objection for this unneeded project in the first place? Are all those acronyms in the e-mail signifying the amount of monies owed now by Norwalk to the State if the project is not completed? While, of course as is the case with many a development project in Norwalk, the “horse has left the barn” no matter the public requests or objections. The town will pretty much do what it wants anyway.

  2. Jlightfield

    Shouldn’t DPW have copied the historical commission on this correspondence?

  3. Mike Mushak

    Hmmmm, DPW communicate with city commissions or the public? How silly of you JL!

Leave a Reply

Recent Comments