by Thomas Breen | Sep 9, 2022 11:21 am
(16) Comments | Post a Comment | E-mail the Author
Posted to: City Hall, West Hills, Housing
The empty lot at 27 Valley Pl. North today ...
City of New Haven photo
... and in wake of March 5 blaze.
A fire engulfed and destroyed a World War II-era single-family house on the far west side of town in March, leaving the building in such a dangerous state of disarray that the city hired a contractor to demolish it one month later.
This week, the Board of Alders closed the loop on at least one chapter of that now-houseless West Hills property’s history, when local legislators voted unanimously to approve spending $62,585 to cover the cost of tearing down the building.
Alders took that vote Tuesday night during the latest bimonthly meeting of the full Board of Alders, which was held in the Aldermanic Chamber on the second floor of City Hall.
They voted unanimously in support of an order “ approving a request of the purchasing agent on behalf of the Office of Building Inspection and Enforcement for emergency procurements in the amount of $62,585.00 for the emergency demolition of 27 Valley Place North,” to quote from the title of the order itself.
Tuesday night's Board of Alders meeting.
“ This emergency demolition and securing of site was approved by my office to be in the best interest of the City of New Haven,” city Purchasing Agent Michael Fumiatti wrote in a letter to Board of Alders President Tyisha Walker-Myers on June 6 as he called on the board to approve the emergency expenditure.
“ The home was destroyed by a fire … [and] it was demolished to protect nearby homes and residents,” East Rock Alder and City Services and Environmental Policy (CSEP ) Committee Chair Anna Festa said from the floor of the Aldermanic Chamber Tuesday night as she urged her colleagues to support the item.
Tuesday’s vote itself was not controversial. And the sum spent on demolishing the house at 27 Valley Pl. North relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of the city budget. At look at the chain of events in this case over the past six months — from the date of the fire on March 5 to the building’s demolition on April 12 to the aldermanic committee hearing on the emergency demolition on July 7 to the Building Department’s placing of a lien on the property on Aug. 3 to the alders’ approval of the emergency teardown expenditure on Sept. 6 — is nevertheless instructive of how city government responds when a fire so badly damages a home, and when the owner can’t afford to demolish the structure himself.
The now-vacant 0.14-acre property that sits on a one-block cul-de-sac in the shadow of West Rock Park is owned by Daniel Zweeres. That’s the same part of the city where the federal government constructed roughly 300 wood-frame, single- and two-family houses in 1942 to accommodate families “ working in New Haven-area World War II defense industries.”
According to the city’s online land records database, while Zweeres has owned that property only since 1995, members of his family have owned it dating back many decades before that. The city assessor’s database states that the single-family house that once stood on that site was built in 1940.
Zweeres could not be reached for comment by the publication time of this article.
pic.twitter.com/6pf0lQTG41
At 2:07 a.m. on March 5, @NewHavenFire, the “ unofficial New Haven Fire” Twitter account, started posting about the West Hills blaze.
“ Fire location 26 Valley Place North. 2nd Alarm called on arrival by Eng 15,” the first Tweed tweet read, initially getting the house’s street number wrong.
“ Main Fire Building fully involved w/ exposure problems,” read the next Tweet, at 2:08 a.m.
“ Companies onscene for the 2nd Alarm on Box 1501 Eng 15, 6, 9, 8, 4 Tk 4, 1 Res 1 SOC 1 Eu 3 Car 32, 34, 38, 39, 83,” they posted at 2:22 a.m.
At 3:57 a.m., @NewHavenFire posted a seven-second video of the Valley Place North fire, its last post of the night.
The video shows the single-family house fully ablaze, as sparklers and fireworks sound from the edge of the property.
The March 2022 edition of the Connecticut Fire Photographers Associations monthly newsletter, meanwhile, provided further insight on the challenges faced by firefighters that night as they sought to put out the Valley Place North blaze.
That write-up also states that the sole occupant of the house-on-fire was able to escape before firefighters arrived.
The relevant section of that newsletter reads in full: “ 03/05/22 2nd alarm New Haven, CT 27 Valley Pl. No. dwelling fire — Engine Company Fifteen arrived reporting a fully involved, private dwelling with exposures. A second alarm was immediately transmitted due to the radiant heat impinging on the number two side exposure. Companies were hampered by wires down, fireworks going off, and the dwelling being overgrown with trees. Multiple hand lines were stretched and operated to darken down the heavy body of fire. The sole occupant of the house was able to self extricate prior to the fire department’s arrival. The fire took about an hour to bring under control. The home was a total loss. No one was injured and the New Haven FMO is investigating.”
Asked on Thursday about the fire department’s investigation into the source of the March 5 blaze at 27 Valley Pl. North, Assistant Fire Chief Justin McCarthy told the Independent that, “ due to the significant fire and structural damage, the fire was closed with a cause of ‘ undetermined’ by the investigator.” That means, he said, that the investigator could not “ isolate a cause to 100%.”
City of New Haven photos
27 Valley Pl. North after the March 5 fire.
According to the city land records database, on March 11, six days after the fire, the city sent a “ notice of imminent danger” and demolition order to 27 Valley Pl. North’s owner, Daniel Zweeres.
That order states that city Demolition Officer Jose Romero inspected the property on March 5, the day of the fire, and found that the building was “ in imminent danger” of collapse.
“ Due to the 2‑alarm fire the structure is unsafe and is causing an endangerment to public safety and welfare,” that city-issued order reads. “ Immediate demolition is required. This constitutes a violation of the Connecticut State Building Code.”
On March 16, the Building Department sent another demolition order with the exact same message to Zweeres.
And on April 8, according to the city’s online building permit database, city Building Official Jim Turcio signed off on a demolition permit pulled by New Haven Abatement & Demolition LLC to tear down the unsafe and vacant structure and remove asbestos from 27 Valley Pl. North.
The building permit database also includes a number of photos taken of the property, pictured above, in the wake of the destructive March 5 blaze.
On June 6, Fumiatti submitted a proposed order to the Board of Alders in which he called on the board to approve the costs of the emergency demolition. That proposed order provides further details on how the Building Department came to hire a demolition contractor to tear down the structure in the first place.
After determining that the March 5 fire had left the building unsafe to remain standing, the Building Department “ held a mandatory walkthrough on March 18, 2022. Six demolition contractors, which are listed on the City’s small business program were invited … where only five submitted their proposals.”
Then, “ strong winds caused more severe damages to this building thus creating endangerment to the public, pedestrians, and adjacent homes that were already impacted by the fire that took place at 27 Valley Place North,” the order continues.
“ The offices of OBIE [Office of Building Inspection & Enforcement] were at the time identifying additional funds to find ways to demolish this unsafe structure but due to the rapid deterioration of this structure it was determined that demolition needed to take place right away. On 4/12/22 an emergency response took place for the emergency demolition of 27 Valley Place North. The work was performed by New Haven Abatement & Demolition LLC .”
The cost of the demolition, according to the permit and Fumiatti’s writeup, was $62,585.
On July 7, the aldermanic CSEP Committee held a public hearing about Fumiatti’s request that the alders approve $62,585 in city funds on the emergency demolition.
The minutes for that meeting point to why the city decided to hire a contractor to tear down the fire-damaged building rather than leaving that work to the property’s owner, Zweeres.
“ Jose Romero, Demolition Officer, reviewed and spoke in favor of this item,” the relevant portion of the CSEP committee meeting minutes read. “ Reviewed how they had to tried to work with the owner, but he did not have the funds or insurance on the property. Discussed how the structure needed to be demolished for the safety of nearby residents.
“ In response to Alder Festa, Mr. Romero reviewed how the city is in the process of placing a lien on the property for the costs of the demolition. Discussed how Livable City Initiative, beginning in 2017, started placing liens on the property. In response to Alder Miller, Mr. Romero reviewed how sometimes when liens are placed, the city recovers part of the costs or sometimes the city can foreclose on the property and take the land.
“ In response to Alder Festa, Mr. Romero reviewed how the property is safe for the owner to use. Discussed how the owner will be able to use the property until the foreclosure process is complete.”
According to the city land records database, the Building Department then filed that lien on Zweeres’ property on Aug. 3.
That so-called “ demolition lien certificate” states that the city incurred a total of $62,585 in expenses “ for the inspection, repair, demolition, maintenance, removal or other disposition of any real estate in order to secure such real estate” at 27 Valley Place North, which is owned by Daniel Zweeres.
Finally, on Tuesday, during their most recent full board meeting, alders voted unanimously in support of the order submitted by Fumiatti, thereby approving the city’s emergency expenditure of $62,585 to demolish the fire-damaged structure.
A Google Maps photo of 27 Valley Pl. North, from 2019.
Don't want to miss a single Independent article? Sign up for our daily email newsletter! Click here for more info.
Share this story with others.
any info on why the owner did not demolish the house? The City BETTER recover all costs or take the property to pay for as much as possible. Why must taxpayers bear this burden alone?
If the property owner can’t pay for the demolition, then the city should take the property through foreclosure/liens on the property for recouping the demolition costs. Then the city can work with Habitat For Humanity to help build an affordable home with sweat equity from the future homeowner. The part of the article that stuck with me the most is the part about how the federal government built all those homes in the 1940’s for families who needed affordable housing during the WWII effort. The federal government also helped to build affordable housing when the GIs returned after the war ended so they could afford raise their families in small starter homes. Our country has a serious affordable housing crisis, and the federal government should once again build affordable starter homes, condos and apartment buildings so working class people with front line and essential jobs, retirees and disabled folks on fixed incomes, young people with college loans and starter incomes, and the poor can afford safe, decent housing.
@CityYankee2, "Jose Romero, Demolition Officer, reviewed and spoke in favor of this item,” the relevant portion of the CSEP committee meeting minutes read. “Reviewed how they had to tried to work with the owner, but he did not have the funds or insurance on the property. Discussed how the structure needed to be demolished for the safety of nearby residents." No money, no insurance.
$62,585 seems like an awful lot of money for such a small house. How long could it possibly take. How many bids did the city obtain?
Heather, tax foreclosure is a lengthy and expensive process. As the article notes, the city has placed a lien on the property for its costs, which it will at some point recover. Mr. Zweeres will still be required to pay property taxes on the lot. It is likely that he will (1) rebuild the house, which would be a good thing for the neighbors or (2) sell the lot, in which cases the city will get its expenditures back. There is virtually no chance that the federal government will substantially increase spending on housing now, with Democrats in tenuous control of Congress. The chances will decrease if the Republicans capture either house in the fall.
Kevin- I am well aware on both points, but I am suggesting that the house should not be an empty lot and should be replaced with affordable housing for a family, and that the federal government needs to once again create affordable housing considering we have a national crisis of housing that people can afford. At some point Congress needs to act or we will have a situation ripe for revolution. We already have homeless families living in vehicles and tents all over this country because they can’t find a place they can afford to live in.
Dennis, the article notes that the demolition will involve asbestos removal, which is seriously expensive. And given the building's age, it also has lead paint. Its removal involves meeting all sorts of costly (and necessary) OSHA regulatory requirements.
Dennis you are so RIGHT the poor owner got ripped off. It stood since March they could have waited a few more days and took some bids. $62,585 no fairness here. If they tore it down 2 days after they might have got away with this but all of this time and no bids, smells FISHY.
Hi Kevin..given the photos and reported condition of the property, I doubt anyone was allowed into the building to remove the asbestos. And almost all wood in New Haven contains lead. This was a windfall for the demolition company.
4Sq, you did not read the story carefully. Five demolition firms submitted proposals. I assume the city chose the lowest bidder, since it is initially on the hook for demolition costs.
Kevin you are so right, I missed that part. 4Sq.
Heather, the GI bill/VA loan programs that enabled WWII veterans to buy starter homes never ended, and continue to this day. They are available to anyone who serves over 180 days. With the economy overheated, there are lots of opportunities for military and navy service. Moreover, many barriers, such as sex and sexual orientation, which precluded WWII service, no longer exist. In fact, my niece's boyfriend just bought his first home enabled by a VA loan. https://www.va.gov/housing-assistance/home-loans/loan-types/
Awesome, but is the government building affordable starter homes or working with developers to build them? If there is a shortage of affordable starter homes that the veterans can buy in their hometown, then the veterans will find it increasingly difficult to take advantage of the program. The experts are saying we have a housing unit shortage in this country, and that we have a shortage of affordable housing for lower and lower-middle and middle-middle class income folks. We need the federal government to start up an affordable starter small homes, condos and apartments building program all over this country to fill the need, because developers are not building them because the profits are not high enough for them to bother. If the government could build housing for workers during WWII and for returning GIs starting families, then they can start up a similar program now for affordable housing and supportive infrastructure.
The government built homes for war workers during WWII as part of the war effort, because virtually all materials and labor were subject to government dictate. I am unaware of any government program to build start homes for veterans after WWII. What program are you referring to? All those post-WWII homes on a 1/4 acre were possible largely b/c there was lots of empty farmland available. That land is largely built out today. Look at aerials of New Haven's suburbs in 1940 vice today.
1644- the feds wrote a bill “that provided GIs low-interest loan provision allowing veterans to secure a mortgage for new housing construction with no down payment, which helped speed the development of the postwar suburb.” See quote in article below https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/the-gi-bill This encouraged the developers to build new housing that the GIs could afford on those loans. If the feds created a bill with low interest loans with no down payment on housing developed on land the feds worked with developers and communities to build affordable housing on, then they could create affordable housing to help fill the residents needs around the country. Plus there are a lot of abandoned factories and malls and mental hospitals and schools and other large buildings sitting empty and rotting away, surely those sites could be remediated and used for development and most communities would be happy to get those sites back on the tax rolls instead of the eyesores that they are now.
Danny is/was a neighbor, has been for the last 7 years. He's a nice guy but he was a hoarder of epic proportion. His yard was always full of stuff, never saw the inside of his home until the fire happened and got a glimpse into the the amount of stuff he had in there. Glad he is ok, I thought he had the house demolished, but apparently not.
This was first posted by someone on February 2021, has anything been done? I… more »
Traffic light going on front st and grand ave green is blow and… more »
©2005 – 2022 New Haven Independent