New thought: Maybe Norwalk Council’s Planning Committee could cover the entire city?

Norwalk Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Tim Sheehan, left, chats with the Common Council Planning Committee recently.
Norwalk Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Tim Sheehan, left, chats with the Common Council Planning Committee recently.

NORWALK, Conn. – Odd, a former Norwalk Zoning Commission chairwoman said, that the Common Council’s Planning Committee is by its nature focused only on the urban core when it should be planning for the entire city.

“(The Planning Committee) is not staffed by the city planning department, but rather the Redevelopment Agency! In other words the City doesn’t look at Rowayton, East Norwalk, West Norwalk, most of South Norwalk etc. in any of its meetings. (RDA Executive Director) Tim Sheehan even thinks this is a bad conflict since often the Redevelopment Agency brings plans and projects to the City for approval and yet there is no staff there from the City to vet and protect the city,” Jackie Lightfield said in a comment left on Nancy On Norwalk. “No other city in CT operates like this.”

While Sheehan didn’t confirm that Monday, Planning Committee Chairman Doug Hempstead, when asked about the situation, said it was an interesting question that no one has asked before.

“There’s some merit to that. I’m saying that because over the years the urban core has been our focus,” Hempstead said. “You have to go back to the ’50’s after the great flood and the deterioration of South Norwalk in the ’60’s. So the Planning Committee probably got married way before my time more to the Redevelopment Agency because that’s where the focus was on trying to improve the areas or get the areas economically going, vs. the suburban corridor was happening all by itself.”

Lightfield described this observation last week as a revelation brought on by a year working as the executive director of the Stamford Partnership, a nonprofit civic alliance group, where she could see how another municipal government works. She suggested asking Sheehan about the conflict of interest inherent in the mixing of a governmental body charged with planning with a non-city employee working for an independent agency.

“I leave that to the Planning Committee to determine,” Sheehan said.

The Redevelopment Agency was created by the Planning Committee in 1950 in accordance with state statutes, which gave legislative bodies the ability to create such an entity, Sheehan said.

“By city code, the Redevelopment Agency is an administrative department of the city of Norwalk. So this notion that the independence of the Redevelopment Agency from the city is this wide gulf is more fiction than fact,” Sheehan said.

But, he said, “We have no operating budget through the city, so payroll for the Redevelopment Agency isn’t paid by the city and the ultimate issue on that is if the employees of the Redevelopment Agency are not employees of the city of Norwalk. The same is true for the Norwalk Housing Authority and other authorities.”

The Redevelopment Agency office is in City Hall and pays no rent, nor does it contribute any money toward utilities.

“The Redevelopment Agency came into City Hall at the request of the city,” Sheehan said. That was when the old Norwalk High School was remodeled and became City Hall, he said. The Redevelopment Agency had been on South Main Street.

Surprised by the question Monday, Hempstead suggested that maybe Senior Planner Dori Wilson or Assistant Planning and Zoning Director Mike Wrinn could be assigned to the Planning Committee.

“It’s interesting with all the studies that we have done, the connectivity and all of those kinds of things, we’re still pretty focused on the town core. Do you bring in the town planner as part of the staff person? I don’t know, I’ve been here so long and it’s always been the Redevelopment Agency,” Hempstead said. “I wonder. I don’t know, I have to give that some thought because nobody has asked that question. The zoning gets to be an issue, you’ve got to make sure that kind you stay away from certain things, but planning – the Planning Commission, we had a joint meeting years ago. … The Master Plan we kind of work together.”

The Master Plan became a bone of contention last week when NoN reported that Planning and Zoning Director Mike Greene had earlier dismissed it as a collection of ideas, something done to comply with state laws, not to be taken too seriously.

The money has been focused on the urban area and Community Block Development Grants come through the Redevelopment Agency, Hempstead said. There’s not much planning to be done in some areas of the city, he said.

Three or four years ago there was talk of creating an economic development corporation, he said.

“The Redevelopment Agency kind of did one on its own without any authority so they got backed out of it,” Hempstead said. “A lot of communities expand it over a wider area creating an economic development corporation, which has a larger body of members. And then you can take in the Main Avenue corridors, the New Canaan Avenue corridors that kind of get left out of the mix.”


22 responses to “New thought: Maybe Norwalk Council’s Planning Committee could cover the entire city?”

  1. Yankee Clipper

    Could you confirm NON but didn’t Stamford shut down its Redevelopment Agency? Who are these Redevelopment Agencies accountable to?

  2. Nora King

    It is time for Norwalk to hire a Planning Director. We need to radically overhaul P and Z. Most cities have scaled back redevelopment agencies, or agencies that handle certain projects or areas. We need to do a national search and bring in a senior level person that can establish city planning and then overhaul our current zoning regulations. We did a great National Search for our superintendent of schools and it has produced great results for Norwalk. It is way past the time for our Planning and Zoning to go through a radical overhaul.

  3. Bruce Kimmel

    I agree, and this discussion is long overdue. Currently, the Zoning Commission is going in one direction, Redevelopment/Planning Committee in another, and I’m not sure what the Planning Commission, which is staffed by Redevelopment, does — apart from weigh in on the capital budget. We just hired a full time marketing director, which is good. Now we need to spend a little money and hire a full time PLANNER to head our P&Z department. The money will be well spent.

  4. anon

    @Kimmel, bringing up the new full-time marketing director, ‘snatched’ from 20 years on the job in small-town Newtown, doesn’t inspire confidence.

  5. Taxpayer Fatigue

    Putting the P&Z department as staff to the Planning Committee is a small step in the right direction, but this move alone will fix nothing. Until we have qualified, credentialed staff in the P&Z department, minor structural changes aren’t going to make a difference. We need a comprehensive, external, unbiased review of the City’s Planning, Zoning and Redevelopment functions, that includes review of both process, city staff, and the commissions that are involved.

  6. Joe

    “Now we need to spend a little money …”

    He’s probably real tight with his own money.

  7. Lisa Thomson

    The neighborhoods deserve representation in planning & zoning given that they represent 89% of the tax base. Time to get out of the Concert Hall Crisis mode of operation.

  8. Michael McGuire

    The time is now to implement this policy. I would encourage the Common Council to create a position that has oversight of NPA, P&Z, RDA, Econ Development and DPW to align all those authorities’ skills, needs and requirements to execute the still to be determined vision for Norwalk.

    For too long Norwalk’s department heads have been walking out of step with one-another relative to the bigger picture and we tax payers have suffered because of this.

    This position should not be a political appointment in any way, shape, or fashion as we are still suffering under that ill-conceived format decades later. A great example is the NPA (created under the Knopp Administration) which continues to be a major impediment to attracting business and customers to Norwalk.

    Finally, thank you NoN for being the spotlight and creating a venue for concerned citizens to help create a great Norwalk. You have given a voice to the people and its clear our elected leaders are listening.

  9. Bill Nightingale, Jr

    Thank you NON. I have been pointing out the conflicts of having the Redevelopment Agency as staff to Planning Committee for years.

    Whatever the Redevelopment Agency (NRA) has accomplished it does not come close to justifying it as a stand alone, quasi government and marginally accountable entity.

    The NRA should be abolished, their $10mm slush fund returned to taxpayers, and some sort of accountable panel or commission established in its place. Until there are major changes at the Redevelopment Agency Norwalk will remain vulnerable to tax payer rip offs like making 95/7 an enterprise zone (giving it property tax abatements) to set up the “selected developer” to flip it to a mall developer; to giving away the Isaac Street parking lot as an equity incentive to deadbeat POKO before he has even started the project (maybe I can see this as a carrot upon completion but that was poorly executed by the NRA).

    I could go on about the bad advice the NRA gave regarding 95/7, Waypont loans, the millions of dollars they tried to transfer to a secretive 501-C3, the 310 Ely Avenue apartment speculation gone bad, Globe Theater, the 40% affordable housing now planned by Poko (redistribution rather than redevelopment), 80 Fair Street apartments surrounded by self storage units and the loans they make to people and then try to write off but I will save that for another time.

  10. dianelauricella

    “New Idea” is actually an old idea brought to various government bodies over the years by myself, Bill Nightingale, John Hamlin, Matt Miklave, Mike Mushak and others that fell upon deaf ears…until now perhaps. This happening after several Zoning blunders involving misplaced enforcement, Conn. Ave. Big Box Central, 2 Nearwater, the Mosque, BJ”s, etc..
    Take a look at the City Organizational Chart, found on the City Website http://www.norwalkct.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1365
    Much of this discussion deserves a comprehensive review of land use management throughout the City Organizational Chart, for there are many entities that influence and affect each other.
    Requests for a realignment and overhaul of staff functions occurred for years during Operating Budget public hearings as well as the Master Plan series of public hearings during the Knopp and Moccia administrations. Operating Budget talks are just beginning, and that is where staff funding should be scrutinized right now.
    Historically, the Council Planning Committee has looked at the entire City needs, especially during its review of the Master Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) for the last two updates. There is nothing legally barring this Committee from requesting other staff resources and on occasion they have. Over at least the last 20 years,
    I have observed that, dependent upon who is its Chair, and who is on the Committee, there is either a lot of innovation or very little and staff respond and advise to the degree that they are asked.
    In addition, I think the time has come for charter and ordinance change review about the structure of government needed to offer a comprehensive management of our City.
    It is important to know the history of the Redevelopment Agency and the pros and cons of the splitting of the Planning Commission from the Zoning Commission. At times, the fault has not been with the structure but with the management of the Commissions and policies due to politics, staff or political will to take proactive initiatives. Other times, the structure has proven too burdensome to all and in some cases leaving the “silo” mentality to thrive.
    Yes, there is a need for a different staffing approach, but why should the taxpayer have to be weighed down by some of the current staff as well? During these early stages of the new budget take a look at wholesale reform and reinvention. Combining some departments into a new entity that reflects modern planning principles, such as a Land Use and Development Department or Bureau.
    Consider for this year, after review of how other more successful cities organize their land use management, combining the Redevelopment Agency with the P & Z Departments into a new entity…Then consider possibly defunding some of the existing staff positions and looking for staff in new categories, giving existing staff a chance to try out with no guarantees. Staff that have kept up with modern land use practices and credentials will be welcome in a new department. The Mayor can recommend and the Council Finance Committee can defund certain entities and staff to make way for new alignment.
    And the Council Planning Committee is not the only entity in need of staff and mission review. For example, look at the staffing and structure of the Planning Commission, often ignoring its responsibility of helping Zoning implement the Master Plan of Conservation and Development and amending the document as new land use practices emerge. The Zoning Commission needs overhaul as well and luckily some Commissioners see the wisdom in change.

  11. Bill Nightingale, Jr

    California and Jerry Brown got it right by dissolving all redevelopment agencies…

    “” Gov. Jerry Brown hailed the court’s ruling, saying that it “validates a key component of the state budget and guarantees more than $1 billion of ongoing funding for schools and public safety.”

    Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky also applauded the court’s decision, saying the agencies long ago stopped being a catalyst to reinvigorate blighted neighborhoods.

    “Unfortunately, over the years it evolved into a honey pot that was tapped to underwrite billions of dollars worth of commercial and other for- profit projects that had nothing to do with reversing blight, but everything to do with subsidizing private real estate ventures that otherwise made no economic sense,” Yaroslavsky said. “”

  12. jlightfield

    Before we get too far along the get rid of the Redevelopment Agency here, let’s be clear, The Agency does good work and is right to focus on its parcels for development. It does not, however, replace the City’s obligation to create city-wide plans, and studies to develop sound economic development policy and land use policy.
    The Agency did in 2009 (thereabouts) put forth a new entity called the Norwalk Economic Development Corp, which the Common Council and the Planning Committee rejected. This was a mistake then. Just as the continued staffing of the City’s planning committee is still staffed by the Redevelopment Agency. This conflict is not new, was raised in committee meetings of that time period and I believe the Council people on the committee at that time stated they were against replacing the Agency as staff.
    The Agency, to its credit has pointed out this conflict, particularly when it comes to presenting the Redevelopment Agency’s projects to the City. They cannot possibly advise the Council on the issues or problems with a project that they produced. You only need look at the LDAs for POKO and 95/7 to see the results of not having a functioning check and balance to policy review.

  13. Victor Cavallo

    Bruce: that you, as a Councilman, are unsure of what the Planning Commission does is revealing of what the Council, in general, is woefully unaware of.
    How many council members know that the any City contract for services in excess of $10,000 MUST be submitted to the Planning Commission?
    “Charter §1-376: “No project, undertaking, contract or expenditure involving a total cost to the City of Norwalk of $10,000 or more, even though funds have been provided for by the Board of Estimate and Taxation, shall be made, commenced or contracted for until such project, undertaking or contract has been submitted to the Commission and considered by it with relation to the general plan and has been approved in accordance with the foregoing provisions of §§ 1-366 to 1-374. This section shall not apply to bond issues, notes, temporary or refunding loans or payments of the same or interest thereon, or to the regular annual departmental budgets.”
    During my six years on the Planning Commission, I have seen NOT ONE submission by the Council of a contract involving the sum specified… NOT ONE! And those contracts for which the Mayor has been authorized to enter have been numerous.

    How many council members know that the Council MUST submit its capital budget request to the Planning Commission on or before January 1 of each year?
    “Code §30-5: “On or before the first day of January in each year, the Common Council and the head of each department, board and agency shall submit to the Planning Commission and the Comptroller a detailed estimate of all capital projects, as defined in § 30-4, which, in the judgment of the Common Council and such head of department, should be undertaken within the five succeeding fiscal years. These estimates shall be known as “estimates for capital projects” and shall be in such form as the Comptroller shall prescribe. These estimates shall be public records and shall be open for inspection at all reasonable time.”
    During my six years on the Planning Commission I have seen NOT ONE submission by the Council to the Planning Commission of a detailed estimate of capital projects, never mind that it should be submitted before January 1 of each year.
    Besides the capital budget, the Planning Commission approves subdivision plans and conducts statutory C.G.S. §8-24 reviews of land use:
    C.G.S § 8-24 : “No municipal agency or legislative body shall (1) locate, accept, abandon, widen, narrow or extend any street, bridge, parkway or other public way, (2) locate, relocate, substantially improve, acquire land for, abandon, sell or lease any airport, park, playground, school or other municipally owned property or public building, (3) locate or extend any public housing, development, redevelopment or urban renewal project, or (4) locate or extend public utilities and terminals for water, sewerage, light, power, transit and other purposes, until the proposal to take such action has been referred to the commission for a report…”
    Did I see a submission to the Commission of the lease renewal to the Maritime Aquarium? No, I didn’t.
    The Council needs to get itself up to speed as to the Planning Commission’s important role in municipal governance. Then perhaps the Council’s inclination to be dismissive of the Commission’s role -as you’ve exemplified here- could be tempered. As when you said here: “I’m not sure what the Planning Commission, which is staffed by Redevelopment, does — apart from weigh in on the capital budget.”
    And, Bruce: we’re not staffed by re-development.

    Code §79-6A “…All employees of the Planning and Zoning Commission on the effective date of this chapter shall be employees of the Zoning Commission. Said Zoning Commission shall provide such staff support as necessary to the Planning Commission.”

  14. Mike Mushak

    I agree with almost all the great points being made here by all the commenters. . Mr. Cavallo, your post is truly enlightening. Please don’t forget the Planning Commission’s main responsibility as described on the city website:
    ” Planning and coordinating the physical, social, and economic development of the city in accordance with the city charter, city code, and state statutes.”

    I have stated publicly many times now that I see little evidence of the PC actually doing any of this. Why doesn’t the PC coordinate the physical, social, and economic development of Norwalk? If you hav eevidenmce of this, please share it with the rest of us. I think it would be hard to miss actually if it was happening, and judging by what I see as a professional landscape architect when I drive around Norwalk, there is actually little “planning and coordinating” of much of anything.
    And don’t forget this major responsibility of the PC as described in the City Charter, which I never see any evidence of:

    (Sp. Laws 1947, No. 214, § 9.)
    The Commission shall have power to promote public interest in and understanding of the plan and may publish copies of any report and may employ other means of publicity. The Commission shall recommend to public officials programs for public improvements and the financing thereof. It shall be part of its duties to consult and advise with public officials and organizations and citizens with relation to the carrying out of the plan. The Commission shall have the right to accept and use gifts of public benefit for the exercise of its functions. All public officials shall, upon request, furnish the Commission, within a reasonable time, such available information as it may require in its work.
    Finally, the State General Statutes for Planning Commissions, which Norwalk’s Charter must follow, say the following below, which is not the same as P and Z Director Mike Greene’s loose interpretation of the Master Plan (he says the MP is advisory only, dismissing its “broader significance” language in same paragraph, including its “controlling” aspect of “municipal improvements”. Greene incorrectly extends to the entire Master Plan the “merely advisory to zoning” reference, which applies only to specific references to where the MP “designates appropriate uses”. Here is the paragraph in its entirety from the CT General Statutes:
    “Master plan controlling as to municipal improvements, merely advisory as to zoning. 154 C. 202. Cited. Id., 472. Plan of development is of broader significance than zoning and two terms are not interchangeable. Planning connotes systematic development of municipality to promote general welfare and prosperity of its people, while zoning is concerned primarily with use of property. 155 C. 669. Recommendation in plan of development, pursuant to section, designating appropriate uses for various areas in town is merely advisory and does not bind zoning commission.”
    Mr, Cavallo, as a sitting Planning Commissioner, perhaps you can request from Mike Greene a detailed explanation of why he recently misinterpreted to the BET the “broader significance” of Norwalk’s Master Plan of Conservation and Development, as described in the CT Statutes copied above, and why he misrepresented our entire Master Plan as “advisory only” when that only applies to a small portion of it as it relates to zoning.
    Wouldn’t it seem that a public official would try to call something “advisory only” to specifically diminish its “broader significance” to Norwalk “to promote general welfare and prosperity of its people”? And why on earth would any public official want to do that with something so integral to our city’s future that it is enshrined in our General Statutes for every city in CT to follow? Why? To do less hard work of actual planning perhaps?


  15. Victor Cavallo

    Mr. Mushak: It’s well settled case law that, generally, the Master Plan is advisory and not mandatory. In my opinion, Mike Greene’s opinion is consistent with Connecticut law.
    The Commission exercises its planning function through periodic development and adoption of the Master Plan (statutorily required every ten years), its review of capital budget requests (“…public improvements and the financing thereof…”), its §8-24 review of municipal improvements- whether presented by the Redevelopment Agency or otherwise- and any other agenda item that may come before it, such as subdivisions or supplemental capital budget requests by the Mayor. We routinely request “…such available information as (we) may require in (our) work” and when we determine that more information is necessary, we routinely defer decisions pending receipt of the information. We don’t have a budget or staff to “promote public interest in and understanding of the plan…” As I noted previously, per the Code it’s the Zoning Commission that graces us with any staff and support. We do have the ability to retain experts incident to the development and revision of the Plan, but we don’t have any form of marketing staff to “promote” it. We don’t have staff, nor do we have any procedures in place to, as you desire, “coordinate the physical, social, and economic development of Norwalk.” There is no way to compel our public officials to allow us to intervene in the exercise of their duties with a view toward this type of advisory coordination. And even when intervention is required by our Charter – such as with expenditures greater than $10,000- we have no mechanism to enforce what is routinely being ignored.
    In many cases, we’re long on goals but short on authority.
    As I see it, it’s decidedly up to the Council to fix any systemic problems you may take issue with. Perhaps a task force might be in order to make recommendations to the Council for needed reforms.

  16. Mike Mushak

    Thank you for your response, Mr. Cavallo. I think the “systemic” problems of our dysfunctional planning, zoning, and redevelopment process are way beyond the capabilities and limited skills and knowledge of a volunteer task force, noatter how well intentioned, and I think it is time we seek expert help through a full outside professional operational audit by a qualified municipal planning firm. Anything less will likely be just adding lipstick to a pig to borrow Sarah Palin’s famous phrase.
    I also do not agree with you about the CT case law supporting the Master Plan as fully “advisory only”. The paragraph from the General Statutes that I copied above is the actual case law list, and you should read it again carefully to see that the advisory description is ONLY applicable to specific parts of the Master Plan that relate directly to zoning, and that in general the Master Plan is “controlling” (opposite of advisory) over all municipal improvements, and has “broader significance” to “promote general welfare and prosperity of its people”. That is the case law, and it seems to contradict what you are saying.
    Also, you complain that other departments aren’t submitting their contracts and budgets properly to the PC. That is a great point, and one that you would think the staff to the PC, Mike Greene, would have solved long ago by making an issue out of it and fixing it. That’s what good managers do. But yet again, we have clear evidence as you have so well presented in your first post above that Mike Greene isn’t doing his job that we are paying him $165,000 a year and giving him 2 full months if paid vacation to do. Also, request his professional qualifications since you are a Planning Commissioner and are entitled to know. He has kept them a secret for decades. Why?
    It is clear that all the serious problems related to our broken P and Z Department that are now bring discussed publicly, finally, thanks to NON, are ALL related to the limited skills and knowledge, including lack of management abilities and motivation of Mike Greene. Fix that problem, and you can begin to fix everything else. Keep him, and watch enormous amounts of time and energy get wasted. I am certainly not alone in this strong opinion, trust me.

  17. John E. Tobin

    @jlightfield The Planning Committee of the Common Council back in 2010 did force the NRA to reverse transfer of all assets and personnel to the newly formed Norwalk Economic Development Corp (NEDC), however it was not because the idea was a bad one, but rather because of the way the NRA went about forming the new entity.
    The NRA first had the NEDC on its agenda in May of 2009, they tabled the item until the middle of July. In July of 2009 they discussed the item in Executive Session for a half hour. They then came out of Executive Session and discussed the item publicly for 5 minutes, then proceed to vote for the formation of NEDC. They then went back into Executive Session and to discuss evaluation of employees of the NRA.
    In August of 2009 they once again went back into Executive Session for 15 minutes to discuss the NEDC. In September of 2009 they went into Executive Session to discuss under Old Business “501(c)3 Non-Profit”, I assume this was discussion of the NEDC. In December of 2009 they went into Executive Session for 23 minutes to discuss the NEDC Capitalization and Organization. When they came out of Executive Session they proceeded to vote for a “grant” in the amount of $4,000,000.00 to the NEDC as well as two other “agreement” documents. All of this was done with only one comment from one commissioner about being excited about the new venture.
    In February 2010 at the NRA meeting it was noted that the NRA had an over $4,000,000.00 deficit and that since the NEDC was now a private corporation they would adjourn the NRA meeting and hold the NEDC meetings in private.
    In June of 2010, the NEDC had a agenda item to approve the general terms associated with technical services to a company called CitiPlan Inc. This company was formed in May of 2010 by the former Assistant Director of the NRA.
    All of this was done according to approved minutes with only 5 minutes of open public discussion. The meeting in July of 2010 when the Planning Committee had substantial discussions about the NEDC are the only minutes of the 2010 Planning Committee that are not available on the city website.
    All 15 Common Council members, the Mayor and the Corporation Counsel forced the NRA to undo what was done. I was not then and am not now opposed to a restructuring of the NRA, but it has to be done properly and not behind closed doors. The mistake would have been for the Common Council back in 2010 to ignore what was going on instead of applying due pressure to reverse the insanity.

  18. Bill Nightingale, Jr

    Thank you John Tobin. Finally someone bringing this to attention other than me. I however still think it is one of many reasons the NRA should be abolished.

    BTW, ditto on many of the above comments about the Planning Commission for the Conservation Commission of which I am a commissioner. A shortcoming is that we never meet as the Conservation Commission but only as the inland wetland agency.

  19. jlightfield

    @john Tobin, thanks for clarifying the timeline. It still doesn’t change the fact the the Redevelopment Agency is not a city department which should generally fall under the same characteristics as the Norwalk Housing Authority or the currently bankrupt NEON. All three have received city funds and seats on the governing boards.
    The Common Council “suddenly” took interest in the creation of the EDC but apparently had little interest in the North Walk entity that is the quasi lending entity for subsidized housing.
    Just because the Common Council grants funds to an entity doesn’t mean they get to micromanage its operations or spin-offs. And most importantly most economic development orgs are not always government centric.

  20. jlightfield

    Whoops. I need to clarify a sentence above. The Norwalk Redevellopment, Housing Authority and NEON have all received city funds. They also all provide seats on their boards to the City.

  21. diane lauricella

    Good and interesting NON discussion, especially that of Mushak and Cavallo!
    I am happy folks are connecting with actual City Charter and State Statute language, some of which may need amendment after a thorough review of same and City Org chart.

    Quick question: Related to the issues mentioned about bypassing the PC for purchases over $10,000 as well as possible violation of state law regarding the POCD:

    Where was Finance Department Director Hamilton and his staff after all these years?

    Where was the past law department staff about department staff following City Charter and state laws?

    This again speaks to (lack of) a consistent, fair code and regulatory enforcement system….hopefully a future discussion item on NON! n:

  22. Yankee Clipper

    This comment was disallowed for violating our comment policy.

Leave a Reply

Recent Comments