Supressed Reports Every Resident should read
from start to finish......
What residents, the community and the Planning & Zoning Commission were not suppose to know.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jkctoz7xjjpb7qn/Fuss_and_ONeill-Environmental%20Site%20Assessment-April_2014.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b001n9xa0zan1js/Fuss_and_ONeill-Limited_Haz_Mat_Inspection_Report-April_2014-full.pdf?dl=0
Review the HUD page here: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/healthy_homes/healthyhomes/lead
March 6th 2015, a letter of recommendation is sent to the Planning & Zoning Commission stating that DPW Director Amy Seibert has recommended no further testing be deemed necessary on the Armstrong Court property. Interestingly, the area she oversees as part of her job for the town abuts to this very property. , and she fails to point out in the report that one of the test pits on this property has tested positive for Chromium which surpassed the State of CT's legal limit's according to CT State Dept of Environmental Protection. Tuesday, March 10th after extensive testimony from the neighbors whom have resided in the area from 30-60 years give compelling testimony of illegal dumping and an account of various health issues, and previously submit 13 key points of error's that lie within the soil report, The Planning & Zoning board, votes 4-0 and 1 abstaining to condition this project and hold public health high in standard and make the decision that further testing is necessary before moving forward and let science rule the day. They also were not comfortable with the inconsistent testimony and accounts of the Greenwich Housing Authority.
Because Planning & Zoning cared enough for resident concerns, March 19, 2015 more test borings are being dug. As of May 6, 2015 still no presence of the enviromental company.
ORGINAL LOCATION OF A PROPOSED FOUR STORY BUILDING THAT WOULD HOUSE SENIOR CITIZENS WHICH WOULD OVER LOOK THE TOWN'S DUMP.
POSTED ON A DOOR AT ARMSTRONG COURT. COULD THIS BE A CONSTANT REMINDER TO RESIDENTS TO REMAIN SILENT?
SHOULDN'T THIS BE BUILT ON A CLEAN FOUNDATION PRIOR TO SPENDING 11 MILLION DOLLARS OF CT STATE'S MONEY?
NOT ONE RESIDENT FROM ARMSTRONG COURT SHOWED UP FOR THE PLANNING & ZONING MEETING, WHAT DOES THAT SAY?
THEY DON'T CARE ,THEY HAVE FEAR? DO THEY HAVE NO IDEA OF THE SERIOUS LIVING CONDITIONS?
WITHDRAWN PARKING LOT FOR SENIOR HOUSING. THE VERY LOCATION WHERE LEVELS OF CHROMIUM EXIST WITHIN 3 FEET OF SOIL. THE CT STATE STANDARD IS 100 THE TEST RESULTS WERE 280 WHICH IS ABOVE THE CT STATE LEGAL LIMITS FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE.
ONE PAGE OF THE TEST RESULTS FROM OCTOBER 24 2014. THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY AMY SEIBERT THE DPW COMMISSIONER. SHE MADE A RECCOMMENDATION TO P & Z THAT NO FURTHER TESTED WAS NEEDED. SHE ALSO HEAD' S THE REMEDIATION OF MISA AT GREENWICH HIGH SCHOOL.
ACCORDING TO THIS REPORT BY MELLICK-TULLY A N.J. FIRM NOT CERTIFIED WITHIN CT STATE, THEY IN THIS DOCUMENT HAVE INDICATED THAT THE STATE OF CT HAS "NS" NO STANDARD FOR CHROMIUM AND THAT THE LEGAL LIMIT FOR LEAD IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE IS 500. HAD THEY BEEN CERTIFIED WITHIN CT STATE THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN THE STATE LIMITS FOR HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM ARE 100 AND LEAD IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE IS 400PPM(PARTS PER MILLION). ARESENIC BODERLINES 9.16 LEGAL LIMIT OF 10.
C
http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2715&q=324946&deepNav_GID=1626
STATEMENT ON THE GREENWICH HOUSING AUTHORITY'S WEBSITE.
ARE YOU TRUSTING YOUR HEALTH IN THEIR HANDS?
http://www.greenwichhousing.org/
A Brief History of Armstrong Court...........
December 1951 Armstrong Court becomes home to Veterans returning from war. The building was selected as
one of the ten outstanding projects in the country by a national board of architects. Years later it becomes low-
moderate income housing, an affordable opportunity for families to reside in Greenwich, CT. Most would believe
that this seemed like a wonderful opportunity for the poor and the middle class to capitalize. Families could live in
town and suffice with the basics, a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs and food on their tables. This
would a lot these residents to save for a home or education for the future of their children all while gaining the top
notch education Greenwich boasts and prides itself on. Seems like a dream come true for most.
December 2011 Peter Alexander of The Byram River Parks Association attended a Housing Authority public
meeting. He asked the newly appointed Commissioner Sam Romeo permission to test the soil in the housing
facility. The public meeting minutes document states the following:
The Chairman (Sam Romeo) addressed the public and asked if there were any comments or concerns.
Mr. Peter Alexander discussed the possibility of testing the river that passes through Armstrong Court at the site. Preliminary testing was already done and some substances came up, such as E. Coli and lead.
Mr. Alexander noticed that on the property of Armstrong Court there is a preschool and a garden and he is concerned that the substances might cause a problem. The Chairman asked Mr. Alexander what is being asked of HATG. Mr. Alexander would like permission to enter the property to do testing and would like for HATG to support them in an application for federal funding.
He would also like to list HATG as one of the potential beneficiaries of this study. The Chairman asked Mr. Alexander to supply HATG with their insurance information as well as a detailed letter of their intentions.
http://www.greenwichhousing.org/pdf/12.14.2011_%20GreenwichHousing_BoardMtgMinutes.pdf
At the February 1, 2012 meeting Commissioner Romeo rescinded testing to the Byram River Park System. Association.
Commissioner Romeo would like to remove the prior approval given to do testing in Armstrong Court and to have the report corrected.
Commissioner Curdumi motioned to have a notice sent to Peter Alexander from Byram River Park System.
(see page 4)
http://www.greenwichhousing.org/pdf/2.1.2012_%20GreenwichHousing_BoardMtgMinutes.pdf
****HERE IS THAT VERY NOTICE****
Prior to receiving notice Byram River Park Systems had gone into Armstrong Court and tested soil at 6 inches in depth and the soil did infact test positive for lead at a level or 420ppm(parts per million) **SEE THE FOLLOWING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS***
Byram River Park System than contacted and sent the certified lab results to the Town's Health Department. The Health Department then called the Housing Authority. They went out and obtained samples at a depth of a 1/2 (HALF) inch, they claimed the area was clear of lead. Interestingly, a new playground was installed prior to the health department testing additionally, a fresh finish cover of new soil. Coincidence?
In December of 2013, less than a year later a one year old child tests positive for lead poisoning residing approx 1500 feet from the housing facility. The families yard is tested at the same 6" in depth, samples taken by the Town's Health Department and test results come back at 353 parts per million just 47 ppm below the residential limit. Coincidence or dumb luck?
October 2014 the HATG publishes notice in the Greenwich Time on Sunday that coming Thursday October 24, 2014, a meeting at Hamilton Avenue School will take place to unveil a revitalization project to renovate and expand Armstrong Court's housing stock to erect 18 more units on Hamilton Avenue and a Four Story Senior Housing building on the lowest part of the facility that would give pretty views over looking the dump. Questions and concerns within the community were raised during this time. Less than 50 people in the community show up as the notice was very short, if you don't read the Greenwich Time or Stamford Advocate well than you weren't meant to know unless by word of mouth.
Most of the questions and concerns for neighbors in the community consisted of parking as the Housing Authority was seeking easement from the Town of Greenwich to gain entry over a main sewer trunk where they would use this property that has become a natural habitat for animals and birds to erect a third asphalt parking lot. Neighbors were concerned about the characteristics, the extremely steep hill, additional traffic to the already busy Cul de Sac neighborhood. Was this neighborhood ideal to have more traffic where kids play and ride their bikes, residents exercise and walk their dogs? Would the steepness of the hill be ideal for an older person to climb this hill? Would building a parking lot in a wetlands area in a flood zone, adding more impervious surface, to a an area that floods so heavily, and lacks any storm drainage?
The Housing Authority thought they would rid the basketball court the residents use to build a monsoon building with no thought about any of these conditions or neighborhood concerns or that they would be building in a flood zone on polluted land.
November 3, 2014 the residents of the Booth Cul de Sac, along with majority of RTM District 3 sat down in the First Selectman's office with Peter Tesei, DPW Commissioner Amy Seibert, and the Town's Deputy Planner Katie DeLuca at which time the residents at length expressed concerns. A resident whom worked at the Town Dump from approx 1971-1977 came forward expressed to Town officials what was occurring after being dumped into the land and what was entering the water that ran from the dump down the corridor past Armstrong Court, and eventually after a few other stops into the Byram Harbor and Long Island Sound. No health or safety concerns were expressed from these Town Officials at all. The meeting became redirected back to the characteristics of the neighborhood.
On November 21, 2014 Peter Tesei our Selectman with residents toured the neighborhood along with DPW Commissioner Amy Seibert, and the Town's Engineer Jim Michael, they came with maps to delineate the boundaries of Town property and the HATG property giving the residents a clearer understanding of who owns what.
November 21, 2014, the housing authority bit from the poisonous apple and went into the property with a back hoe to take soil samples of the area. The contractor didn't call before you dig (CBYD) as required by law, CBYD comes out to the site and marks utilities sewers, drain locations. After checking the State of CT Website it was confirmed that Mellick-Tully a NJ firm was not certified with the state of CT to test soil in the state regardless of PRELIMINARY SAMPLES or not.
On November 24th 2014, the 22 million dollar project quickly deflates into an 11 million dollar project after neighbors raised concerns. Why would the town and the HATG vacate this property suddenly? Because 20-30 neighbors signed a petition? Doesn't make sense.
Reading through the report you will notice that it is nothing more than preliminary testing. Appendix II lacks a chain of custody report which is a log of the the samples, temperature and recording time which is of the utmost importance. A list was compiled challenging this testing to the Town of Greenwich and the Planning & Zoning Department. Compared to the GHS soil report, similar and some of the same contaminates exist. Some just a hair below the state limit and some above such as chromium. True testing consists of digging 10-15 feet in depth, the report show's depth of 3-4 feet what do you think they will find at 10-12 ft? The truth.
http://www.greenwichhousing.org/pdf/ArmstrongCourtEnvironmentalReport.pdf
If you wanted to tour the property where the additional parking would go you wouldn't be able to do so. The HATG has put "No Trespassing" signage up to alienate residents from entering the States property that for years has lacked care, monitoring or maintenance by both the Housing Authority and the Town of Greenwich, in respect to the land and water.
© 2014 Photo by: Bob Lucky / Greenwich Time
Michael Finkbeiner banned from Greenwich Housing Authority property accused for wanting to capitalize for recognizing enviro issues. (Property owners in the area retained Mr. Finkbeiner's services for sum of $1.00, how does he stand to capitalize)? There are good people that still exist in the world, they are few and far between, he is living proof of what humanity is!
Automotive Batteries (Lead-Acid Batteries) Just past this fence is Tom's Brook. Bob Clausi from the towns IWWA said he toured the property and it's okay. It all checks out fine. CT DEEP says...Lead-acid batteries may not be disposed of in the trash, buried, or thrown in wetlands or waterways. These batteries contain a corrosive and toxic electrolytes that
are harmful to the environment. Connecticut law requires consumers to return their lead-acid auto batteries for recycling, and requires retailers of these batteries to accept a used battery for each battery they sell. Retail stores that sell batteries are required to accept up to three batteries from a customer that is not purchasing a new battery. In addition, some towns accept lead-acid auto batteries at their local transfer station. To find out if this service is available in your area, call your local recycling coordinator. http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2718&q=325496&deepNav_GID=1645%20
This is the Greenwich Housing Authorities fencing. The severe erosion around these concrete pillars and the fencing that is hanging by string checks out also.
As does a 75 year old weeping willow tree that obstructs the flow of the brook from the last hurricane which also sits on the fence in the flood zone,
Trees that have come out of the ground, litter and bicycles in the brook from the 1980's and oil slicks on the waters surface. When the Inland Wetland Water Course Agency was called the Town said that they were out two weeks prior and the site checked out fine. Fine???
*************************************************************************************************************************************************
Some unknown solvent on the waters surface.
Picture taken during a rain fall event. Once the water enters the foot bridge, it intersects with Tom's Brook.
1958 Tax Map submitted to P & Z Commission February 10, 2015 Public Hearing by the residents and their staff.
3/10/2015 the engineer for the housing authority denies a pond on the HATG property. He fails to show the P & Z board this map below which many residents recollect ice skating on this pond and it being a staple of the property. Note the black triangle, it is a man made pond showing water. How can one refute the evidence of water? Our First Selectman goes on the WGCH radio Friday mornings 1490am between 9am-9:30am and says the very same thing. This is public record and pulled from the Town's very own file. How could something like this be missed? Could residents in their 70's be lying when the said they ice skated on this very pond in their younger years? 3/10/15 the Housing Authority denies this pond exists and excludes it from their presentation. A month prior it was submitted by Michael Finkbeiner proving the pond's very existence.
Where did the "Non Existant" pond go?
The HATG illegally filled in the pond in 1973 and than again in 1975. In 1975 they were caught by the town. Based on the test findings, it is consistent with the test results from other known contaminated area's such as Greenwich High School and the CCPP that a combination of fly ash from the dump and coal ash from the Cos Cob Power Plant indicate trace amounts of not only chromium but also Alacore1260 which only comes from transformers a known chemical causing carcinogen.
As years continued on, the housing facility began to deteriorate with age and poor upkeep. Plumbing pipes rusting out, raw sewage overflowing in the kitchen sinks, ponds of water sitting on the roof tops, leaks from the roof running down the buildings interior walls and roofs , asbestos from layers of flooring , lead paint, mold in the bathrooms due to dampness and moisture
lack of proper ventilation. People living with roaches, mice, and bed bug out breaks, the list goes on and on. Go to www.greenwichhousing.org and read the meeting minutes.
All these interior issues effect the quality of life and the health of many families in one area. Should the living conditions be sub par and health deteriorated for the exchange of affordable housing? The housing authority spends little to no money to fix up the interior of these dwellings, does a minimal clean up when a tenant vacates the housing facility. It's biggest concern is rotating and adding to it's stock.
2015 marks the buildings 64 years of age. Money is spent by dressing up the outside as seen by the sidewalks. It seems the Housing Authority is more concerned with the look of housing than the health of it's people. A minor little fix here and there don't suffice or do a bit a good when the your putting a patch on much larger issues. Where do the rents go from this facility? If 144 families paid 650.00 each per month for rent that would add up to $93,600.00 per month. Some of these people have larger apartments and pay upwards of 1200.00 per month. Where does the rent money go if repairs are not being performed? Doesn't make you wonder why part of the community has to live this way?
To see the Capital needs assessment http://www.chfa.org/Press%20Room/Press%20Releases/pressreleaseviewer.aspx?id=528
Choose 4.b. Appendix U - Capital Needs Assessments--G-K.zip
The Town of Greenwich say's they are separate entity's......
1. Housing Authority of the Town of Greenwich Armstrong Court Boiler System Replacement Project (Phase I) - $60,695.79 CDBG funds will be utilized to support the first phase of the Boiler System Replacement Project at Armstrong Court, a low-income apartment style family complex with 144 units. The proposed project will involve the full demolition and replacement of all components of the current boiler system at Armstrong Court. The existing boiler system which includes the boilers, domestic hot water tanks, pumps, and piping have been estimated to be over 30 years old, well beyond the useful life for the system. As a result, the boiler system frequently fails, has to be shut down and requires costly repairs. The proposed new boiler system will be a more energy efficient system, which will provide annual savings of approximately $64,000 in gas utility expenses. Page 2 of 2 The total project cost is anticipated to be around $525,000. The Housing Authority received a written commitment from CNG (CT Natural Gas) for $200,000 in funds for the boiler system upgrade/replacement project. PY2014 excess funds of $60,695.79 have been recommended to support the first phase. Additional PY2015 CDBG funding of $239,304.21 has been recommended to support the second phase. The Housing Authority Management stated that they will continue to seek additional funds from other non-governmental sources for this project.
http://www.greenwichct.org/upload/medialibrary/2e1/BET_Meeting_Packet_07-21-14.pdf
If they cared wouldn't they show concern for human health and fixed these issues sooner? How could they not know giving the age of the building? Poor Housekeeping?
Fourth year in a row? Who is performing these inspections?
Note.......
According to the GIS report 8/13/2014, Tom's Brook which runs through the HATG property was not tested, and hasn't been tested from 2004 until present. The surface water on Booth Place was however and this water runs into the Chickahominy Brook that intersects with Tom's Brook. Water Run Off from the street reveals alarming and unsanitary results of E coli measured which are notably higher than the limit that closes down Byram Beach. Byram Beach closes at the level of 105 the level shown here is 27,500. E coli comes from human and animal feces. This water leads down to Byram Harbor and into Long Island Sound.
E.P.A. Standards: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/beaches/qa.html
What levels of indicator bacteria are considered acceptable?
Based on studies conducted in the 1980s, EPA has determined that a geometric mean (a measure of an overall average) in samples from recreational waters of less than 126 E. coli per 100 milliliters (ml) of fresh water or 35 enterococci per 100 ml of salt water is acceptable for protection of swimming. The geometric mean should be calculated from more than five samples within the previous 30 days. If a single sample exceeds 235 E. coli per 100 ml in freshwater and 104 enterococci per 100 ml in salt water, EPA recommends that the beach be closed, or posted, for swimming until levels are lower. (Some states, such as New Hampshire and Vermont, recommend that advisories be posted at more protective levels of indicator bacteria.) Because elevated fecal indicator bacteria are often associated with storm water runoff, some agencies post beaches preemptively if rainfall exceeds a set amount, based on site-specific studies.
http://www.greenwichct.org/upload/medialibrary/83b/boh-minutes-02-23-2015-draft.pdf
UPDATE ON POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION OF GREENWICH HOUSING AUTHORITY AND TOWN PROPERTY The Greenwich Housing Authority had a proposal to add new structures including one for senior housing and renovate the existing buildings at Armstrong Court. The Senior housing that was proposed was to be accessed via Booth Place. As part of the proposal, an environmental investigation was conducted in the area of the senior housing parking lot (November 2014). As a result samples were taken; no elevated levels of contaminants were found.
(GUESS THEY FORGOT ABOUT THE CHROMIUM OVER THE CT STATE LEGAL LIMIT MUST BE AN OVERSIGHT)
The report is available on the Greenwich Housing Authority website.
The Greenwich Housing Authority has since modified their proposal to remove the senior housing building and parking area from the proposal. However, they will go forward with six new buildings along Hamilton Avenue and the renovation of the existing buildings. In response to an environmental report that was written as a result of samples taken by a resident and noting elevated lead levels in 2012, the Division of Environmental Services took some bare soil samples in the areas of the Armstrong Court playground to verify there was no lead contamination present in accessible areas. All three samples were negative for elevated lead levels. Senator Blumenthal stated that he would like to meet with all parties to see what could be done. On January 31, 2015, a neighborhood group met with Senator Blumenthal on the corner of Booth Court and Booth Place (Peter Tesei, Drew Marzullo, Amy Siebert and Michael Long were in attendance).
The neighbors believe that there is soil contamination on the Armstrong Court property and the Town’s Transfer Station property. On February 12, 2015 there was an article in the Greenwich Time about the Greenwich Housing Authority posting a No Trespassing sign on their property and the inability of a consultant to take samples on their property.
On February 14, 2015 an article in the Greenwich Time reported that Selectman Drew Marzullo was calling for a soil remediation plan for Town properties.
On February 19, 2015 the Division of Environmental Services spoke with a Greenwich Housing Authority representative, who said that the proposed senior housing building and parking lot was removed from the proposed project site because it would have extended their timeline, due to an easement requirement and zoning changes. However, the Greenwich Housing Authority is proposing new housing units (accessible from Hamilton Avenue) and rehabilitating the existing units.
WHY WAS THIS PROJECT FOLDED FASTER THAN SUPERMAN ON LAUNDRY DAY?
WHAT IS HUMAN HEALTH WORTH?
DO PEOPLE IN ARMSTRONG COURT DESERVE LESS?
