Jump to content

IN PROGRESS: 917 Main Street

beerbeer

By beerbeer
in Greater Hartford

Recommended Posts

Chessplayer Whistle-Stop

Chessplayer

Posted
Posted
It has nothing to do with red tape. It has nothing to do with building code violation. It has everything to do with some intransigent bureaucrats who obviously don't want anything like that dive Elbow Room in that slum known as West Hartford in our precious city, it will ruin the paved parking lot and the abandon building look we are going after.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply
jcrc Hamlet

jcrc

Posted
Posted

Let's just say that the owners/contractors did not submit the proper document initially. They must know by now that they have to submit said document. According to the city, they still have not. And you guys think therefore, they must have not. But what logical reason can there be for the owners/contractors to not submit such document at this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chessplayer Whistle-Stop

Chessplayer

Posted
Posted
It's not a matter of corruption. It's a matter of according to someone's opinion there should be no roof top dining in Hartford and that someone happens to be in control of an approving stamp. The contractor in this case specializes in building restaurant. He builds them ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, I find it hard to believe he would not be able to make modification to comply with whatever code out there. I find it even harder that he would not pull all the permits required for the job. I have been involved in building 4 restaurants, one in Northampton Mass, one in Springfield Mass, and my recent two shops in Connecticut, one in Hartford and one in New Haven. I can tell you that Massachusetts and New Haven were a walk in the park and Hartford was impossibly hard to deal with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Voice of Reason Town

The Voice of Reason

Posted
Posted
Let's just say that the owners/contractors did not submit the proper document initially. They must know by now that they have to submit said document. According to the city, they still have not. And you guys think therefore, they must have not. But what logical reason can there be for the owners/contractors to not submit such document at this point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bill Mocarsky Hamlet

Bill Mocarsky

Posted
Posted
It's not a matter of corruption. It's a matter of according to someone's opinion there should be no roof top dining in Hartford and that someone happens to be in control of an approving stamp. The contractor in this case specializes in building restaurant. He builds them ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, I find it hard to believe he would not be able to make modification to comply with whatever code out there. I find it even harder that he would not pull all the permits required for the job. I have been involved in building 4 restaurants, one in Northampton Mass, one in Springfield Mass, and my recent two shops in Connecticut, one in Hartford and one in New Haven. I can tell you that Massachusetts and New Haven were a walk in the park and Hartford was impossibly hard to deal with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T52 Whistle-Stop

T52

Posted
Posted
It's not a matter of corruption. It's a matter of according to someone's opinion there should be no roof top dining in Hartford and that someone happens to be in control of an approving stamp. The contractor in this case specializes in building restaurant. He builds them ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, I find it hard to believe he would not be able to make modification to comply with whatever code out there. I find it even harder that he would not pull all the permits required for the job. I have been involved in building 4 restaurants, one in Northampton Mass, one in Springfield Mass, and my recent two shops in Connecticut, one in Hartford and one in New Haven. I can tell you that Massachusetts and New Haven were a walk in the park and Hartford was impossibly hard to deal with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Voice of Reason Town

The Voice of Reason

Posted
Posted

IMG_0010.jpg

ok so this is from today, but it could have been from November.

now you all can see the exact view I have had of this thing for about a year dreaming of waving to my co-workers with a Martini in hand whilst they work away...

The reality is I would be the one working, but the dream is the dream!

actually this is closer to the desk of dapapabear. my window zone was really busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beerbeer Burg

beerbeer

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The graft and corruption in the city of Hartford are a matter of public record. The parking lot extortion at the site of the Butt Ugly Building is one example. The mayor's house improvements are another.

Just because it doesn't happen to a person personally, it doesn't mean it isn't all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcrc Hamlet

jcrc

Posted
Posted
We are all speculating on what the issue is here but it would seem that it would be possible to take completed drawings downtown and negotiate a solution. Even if the problem is that the City screwed up and issued a building permit on a set of plans that didn't meet code, hadn't been through zoning, design review etc. the requirements that haven't been met don't go away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcrc Hamlet

jcrc

Posted
Posted
Sorry, but the fact that some administrative screw-up resulted in an OK to begin construction of of a project does not grant any right to not comply with all of the regulations and codes applicable to a project. Many plans that are submitted for permits have issues that may not comply with code and those are typically sorted out during the construction and inspection process. To expect anything else would be unfair to those that take the time to go through all of the steps. I have been involved with situations whare an administratve person has said that a specific permit (such as STC or Army Corps) is not required on a project only to find out later that it is required and my response has alway been to scramble to get the required applications immediately in place. As approvals often have expiration dates to do otherwise only means additional work to renew expiring approvals. Contractors are often granted permission to proceed with specific portions of projects (such as foundations) while the plan review process is underway with the express understanding thatit is at the contractor's risk to remedy and non-compliant issues.

Just because it doesn't happen to a person personally, it doesn't mean it isn't all around.

My point is not that graft and corruption do not exist but rather if they do, they are probably not as common as common perception would have you believe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
T52 Whistle-Stop

T52

Posted
Posted
What if despite all your scrambling STC or Army Corps or whatever agency in question would not give you the approval for whatever reason? You have built something to within 99% of completion and now you are stuck. This is the dilemma Kyto is facing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcrc Hamlet

jcrc

Posted
Posted
Unfortunately, the burden to conform with all applicable regulations, codes etc. falls on the developer and builder. There have been projects constructed and never occupied. In the 1970's there was an apartment complex in Waterbury that was constructed and never occupied because of problems with drinking water.

Again, I am not aware of all of the details of this problem but the rumor that I heard was that the approved zoning documents did not show the rooftop addition but the building permit drawings did. If you read the zoning regulations, there are very specific requirements about what information the approval documents must contain. At the discretion of various agencies, additional studies may be required for things such as wind shear, noise, reflectance etc.

If, as you seem to be saying, the documents clearly include the rooftop addition and all other required studies/approvals/permits are in place the project should be moving forward. Somehow I don't think that is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beerbeer Burg

beerbeer

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Interesting that the city jerks around the guy who puts up his own dough. The projects that the city pays for do whatever they like. They change plans and materials, no problem. But someone who tries to improve the city out of his own pocket gets punished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
T52 Whistle-Stop

T52

Posted
Posted
Interesting that the city jerks around the guy who puts up his own dough. The projects that the city pays for do whatever they like. They change plans and materials, no problem. But someone who tries to improve the city out of his own pocket gets punished.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcrc Hamlet

jcrc

Posted
Posted
I seriously hope the business community picks up on all of this demand for 1 bedroom units in the city.

Maybe one of the projects in the pipeline could be redesigned for this higherr density. Either 111 Pearl or maybe the Hartford office supply building.

I would not expect it in the case of the office supply buiolding since it has all of its permits, but anything that takes advantage of demand makes sense to me and well to financiers as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.