Seeking clarity from Zoning Board
To the editor:
“Save Our Boatyard” is a group of citizens who have been challenging the destruction of the large, economically viable, regional boatyard here in Stamford since 2012. Of more concern to us than the loss of the boatyard and the hundreds of jobs and businesses now gone has been the ease with which laws, regulations, and agreements have been ignored or broken by state and local government to facilitate the needs of a private developer.
We recently asked the Stamford Zoning Board to discuss, at a public hearing, a situation that we feel has put them in violation of state law, their own zoning certificate (for application 215-03 for the replacement boatyard), the city’s Harbor Management Plan and Condition 7 of the General Development Plan in place.
The zoning certificate contains clear language that the replacement boatyard at Davenport Landing as well as the support facility at 205 Magee Ave. must be continuously and fully operational to avoid an adverse impact pursuant to General Statute 22a-92 (b) (1) (G).
The Zoning Board has granted two extensions to the developer to put off work at the Magee Avenue site contrary to the zoning certificate they issued. Condition 7 of the G.D.P. was an agreement between the city and former developer Antares granting extra building north of the hurricane barrier in return for keeping the boatyard and the jobs and businesses it supported in continuous operation. It was this condition, applauded by the State Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. at the time that caused the Zoning Board to issue a cease-and-desist order for the former boatyard property after the boatyard was razed. In spite of this, the Zoning Board has issued certificates for more work (the first phase of dock building) to take place at the site.
Save Our Boatyard wrote to Zoning Board Chairman David Stein and its members requesting a discussion of these matters by the board at a public hearing take place. The discussion turned out to be a dissertation by Land Use Chairman Ralph Blessing of where the Zoning Board currently stood.
There was almost no discussion among those present of the material we presented. A further request for clarity has been denied. We do not feel obliged, as yet, to resort to lawyers, the Connecticut Attorney General, or others who are responsible for law enforcement. We are still trying to understand how this developer so consistently evades the effects of laws the rest of us are obligated to obey. It is understood that politics is involved here, but “serving at the pleasure of the mayor” should not be a reason to break with laws, regulations, or due process. We deserve better and should be able to get clear answers in transparency from those in government who are supposed to work for us.