"If we're handed a cease and desist by the city, we'll obey it," Hofher said as she prepared breakfast sandwiches for two customers Monday. "We have to do what the judge ordered."
What the judge ordered is for the City of Middletown to enforce its zoning laws, and in the case of Hofher's kitchen on wheels at 980 South Main Street, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has declared it illegal. According to Zoning Control officer Bruce Driska, the city will pursue closure of the breakfast and lunch stand.
"We are obliged to follow the judgment issued by the court," Driska said. "I've met with the City Attorney, and with (city planner) Bill Warner. We want to be sure we handle it correctly."
But that's only a small part of a story which began six years ago.
Chris Parslow, who owns a house at 11 Maple Shade Road bordering the driveway where Miss Patsy's is permanently parked on a concrete stand with water and utility service, has been trying to get the city to enforce its own zoning ordinances for more than six years. At first he was concerned solely about the noise and the additional traffic in the driveway but as the battle continued, he was even more concerned that a retail precedent would be set if the portable kitchen was allowed to stay.
"The larger concern is that it would have established retail sales on what is zoned as a residential lot," Parslow said. "That could've opened the door to development of any kind of restaurant, store, or chain restaurant there."
In 2004, the city's zoning enforcement officer at the time ordered it closed. David Mylchreest, who owns the property on which Miss Patsy's Kitchen rests resisted the order and sought an opinion from the ZBA. Mylchreest insisted that retail sales had occurred on the site for years, and that the right to
pursue retail sales should continue and be extended to Miss Patsy's Kitchen. The ZBA sided with Mylchreest, and Miss Patsy's stayed open.
But, frustrated by the ruling, Parslow pursued the case in court and the ZBA decision was overturned. The ZBA then issued a second ruling, this time indicating that Miss Patsy's should be closed.
Mylchreest's resisted again and has brought two appeals of his claim tp court. Over the course of those hearings Mylchreest has argued that he moved the food vendor trailer to a part of the property from a lot which was residentially zoned to one which is commercially zoned, and that there have been food sales by local churches on the property. In both cases the judge rejected the arguments indicating that there was no convincing evidence presented of such prior retail food sale on the property, and that zoning laws of merged property favors a more restrictive zoning, and not a more liberal zoning.
While the case has been on appeal, the city's Zoning Enforcement Officer has refused to order the closing of the food stand, but now admits that it is the city's duty to do just that. That has been a source of frustration to Parslow who emphasized that he simply wanted the zoning laws to be followed on the property.
"They certainly now have the legal authority to do so," Parslow said.
"It's very disappointing," Hofher said. "I understand the zoning regulations and that the judge has handed down her ruling. But my customers are going to be disappointed."
"It's seems real nitpicky," said Miss Patsy customer Sebby Pandolfo. "To take someone's source of employment away in these times is the wrong thing to do."
"He's the kind of neighbor who likes a conflict," Hofher said of Parslow.
"I've only had one primary complaint," Parslow said. "I had a legitimate concern about the value of my property, and I expect the city to enforce its zoning laws."
25 comments:
Amen!
I find it so funny that this is the concern of residents. This lady is hurting no one and she has been there for years. What has happened to the world when all we see is dollar signs? Why not focus your anger and rage on important things like the drug dealing, murders, rapes and robbery that is happening right here in our town? Why not focus on the North end where people can not safely walk at night. No by all means, lets close down a tiny eatery that "MAY" lower your property value! Lord help us all!
I hope Chris can have the privlage of being laid off of work and be out of a job like Miss P. is going to be. Maybe he will be kind and help her thru these tough times seeing he has such a great job and a high property value!
Laura,
As a North End resident I am saddened to hear that people still harbor that misconception about our neighborhood. I know many men, women and children who feel comfortable walking in this neighborhood during the day and at night. I would love the opportunity to take you on a tour of the North End and show you all the great things that this neighborhood has to offer. I would also like to invite you to come down to the Green Street Arts Center this Saturday at 10:30 for the Family Festival and Community Music Initiative. I truly hope to see you there.
Sad day indeed. Miss Patty's has been a great place to pick up breakfast and lunch at while on the road. She was always friendly and had excellent food.
More big brother getting involved and putting a small business out of business.
I hope a certain Wesleyan professor is now happy with this decision. She wasn't hurting anyone.
Laura Wilson what makes you think that people can not safely walk at night in the North End. Perhaps you are confusing your fears with reality. Pretty far off topic too.
Is it enough to post that I just returned from my regular evening walk in the North End without getting mugged once?
Sigh.
No, it's not enough. Because Laura is speaking something that feels true to many Middletown residents. The North End can be intimidating if you are not familiar with it. Personally I would feel quite awkward taking a long stroll on a suburban Middletown cul de sac - I'd feel a little conspicuous. But I've been walking the North End for nearly 30 years, and it feels fine.
It's hard for those of us who love downtown to let remarks like Laura's pass unchallenged. I'm hoping that Laura won't feel attacked by this, but I wanted to share how I see walking in the North End.
One of my favorite things about walking here is greeting people on the sidewalk, and seeing people out-and-about with friends. It's true that some people are less than friendly - while I was on Main Street tonight, I passed two men who asked me if I could spare any change. That bugs me. But on my walk I also chatted with the owner of Luce's, overheard some people coming out of the hotel and heading to a downtown restaurant, noticed that the walk light blinker at the corner of Grand and Main has burned out, peeked in Eli's to see who had braved the snow storm (pretty full there), and saw the North End Action Team folks moving into their new office space next to the MAC gallery.
I'm nosy. I like city life. It's hard for me to imagine I could have this much fun walking in the more "country" sections of Middletown, but I'm sure those places have their pleasures too. My point is that "safety" is a relative term. I am fully aware that my neighborhood is not disneyland. Last week I was out walking with one of my teenagers, and we watched the detox crew picking up someone who was too drunk to make it home. So I suppose it's what you choose to focus on and how you weigh these experiences. Last night my kids and I pulled into our North End driveway to find someone from the neighborhood shoveling ice off our walk - and he seemed kind of embarrassed to get caught doing this little kindness. The kids dragged me out there to say thank you.
I think it's important that people know that's what our neighborhood is like too - not just the police reports that you read.
As for Miss Patsy's....I don't really have an opinion!
I think it is not fair that local college brag they are good for Middletown, when they pay for a lawyer to close down Miss Patsy, sounds like the school is not playing by the rules..
Miss Patsy's what a shame that the city is turning there dicision around after they ok'd for her to be there, small business that was good to all. And a good friend. Sorry to see you go shame on Middletown and Weslyan for sticking there nose in this because of a professor lives next do.
I lived in the northend for over 13 years and will say that drug sales, and prostitution is pretty rampant. Those who don't see it are just blind to reality.
I had drug sales in the front of my apartment a number of times. Heck prostitutes walked up and down my street looking for John's. Even came to my apartment. Where I lived was considered decent compared to say Ferry St, Green St and Liberty St.
A huge issue is absentee landlords who rent to anyone as long as they have the money to pay the rent. That is a big problem in the northend. Whether people want to admit it or not.
Miss Pasty will be missed. Shame she had to close up shop.
Well apparently you are walking somewhere other than where I lived. I was on Grand Street for 4 years. I could not walk out of my driveway without be confronted with drug dealers, fighting, and even had the pleasure of meeting prostitutes. One who even asked to use our phone and then propositioned my husband. I am glad that you all feel safe, I however, will stay away at night from my own personal experiences. I mean no disrespect to anyone whose opinion differs from mine. I also by no means, meant to take away from the story of another business being shut down.
The only opinion worth having on Miss Patsy's is that it is a travesty--and a tragedy for Parslow--that it took the city more than six years and three court cases to do what it should have done in the first place. And people wonder why it takes so long to get a police chief confirmed. The folks in city hall seem congenitally unable to follow their own rules and regulations. This town is governance challenged, not to mention politically dysfunctional. But at least the North End is nice.
Hey, "It's all here!"
I understand that people may be upset at what appears to be a privileged university professor attempting to get rid of a local business, but the fact is, one can't really fault him for wanting a resident to follow the laws put forth by Middletown. I think it is a legitimate concern, as what is stopping other people from setting up their own business on residential property, which is technically illegal. What, then, does this say about the people who followed the law when applying for a permit, adhering to zoning laws, etc., when opening their own businesses? The fact that this may lower his property value is not completely ridiculous, especially if he plans on selling in the future. I am sympathetic in these hard times, but until the law itself is changed, it's not fair to fault Mr. Parslow for simply expecting people to follow the law.
I wonder if she was a minority would it have taken all these years to close down.Can't imagine so. I don't care if she was nice or not, she is in violation and should have been shut down years ago. This is Politics at it's best, typical Middletown
Suppose someone opened a food stand, or an illegal garage in the driveway next to your house. I think you might reconsider your opinion about whether Miss Patsy's ought to remain open.
I think a more important question to ask is why the city refused to enforce the law after the first appeal.
It's not what you know, it's who you know.
The most disturbing thing about these random and often irrelevant comments is that so few people seem to be interested in the fact that the use by Miss Patsy was and is clearly illegal. What the North End or any other neighborhood has to do with the discussion is baffling. Patsy could, with an approved location move to another site. She would not be unemployed and her fans could easily follow her. She is a good cook and will make it work wherever she is. In the meantime, understand that Wesleyan has nothing to do with this. It happens to be Chris Parslow's employer. No more, no less. He could as easily be employed by another institution. It would make no difference in the reason for this action.
Biff Shaw
It's has wheels. Just back it up 20 feet or so onto "commercial" property and have at it!
I'd also tether one of those big advertising blimps to it!
All this hostility being directed toward prostitutes in the North End is, frankly, appalling. These are simply self-employed businesswomen trying to make a living. They're not hurting anyone. Another instance of Big Brother going after small business.
I'm sorry Pinch but did you actually just compare Miss Patsy to a prostitute? I know her wagon is on a corner and she takes money for her services, but her services do not include selling her body. An honest living is one where you go to work and it does not involve taking money for sex. You, sir, are an embarrassment to Wesleyan and should be truly ashamed for that comment. You sit here talking about "Big Brother" going after small businesses, yet weren't you practically sitting on Parslow's lap at the last hearing objecting against Miss Patsy and her small business? Pull yourself together, and get your opinions straight.
To anon @ 7:41: Though you seem willfully ignorant of the fact, I was drawing attention to the irony, indeed downright hypocrisy, exhibited by those who complain about government policing of obviously illegal activity in one area of town but not in another. I was not the one who introduced and repeatedly invoked North End prostitutes. Do I take it from your comment that you think laws are only meant to be obeyed by some people?
Insofar as my comment implies any analogy between Miss Patsy and the hypothetical North End Prostitute, it is based on the fact that both come to the attention of government for engaging in illegal activity. Period. To suggest otherwise, and to suggest that I am somehow comparing Miss Patsy to a prostitute, is a bit of tendentious lawyering learned (and usually outgrown) in Debate 101. It's also a pretty cheap attempt to score a point. You owe both me and Miss Patsy an apology. Of course, in order to do that, you'd have to reveal your identity. I, for one, am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
As for my opinions on the case: I have never concealed my support for the Parslow Position, though whether this means I was "practically sitting on Parslow's lap at the last hearing" is another matter altogether. (It sounds a little painful, frankly, as I'm a tad heavier than Parslow, but if you take pleasure in the imagery, that is your privilege.) My reasons for supporting the Parslow Position are not unlike those stated by Biff Shaw in his eminently sensible comment. You imply that I have tried to hide my feelings on the matter, when in fact I've done no such thing. You, by contrast, pretend to be a neutral observer, but hide behind a veil of anonymity--which suggests that you are anything but neutral. It also indicates that you lack the courage of your convictions. Are you embarrassed about something?
(NB: Readers can find my past reporting on the Miss Patsy affair in previous installments in the Eye. If you can't get the Eye search button to work, simply google "Middletown Eye" and "Miss Patsy's". You can judge for yourselves whether my reportage was fair.)
not trying to drag out this sordid debate but I am really curious about any parallels between this discussion and the one that ensued around the Food Not Bombs controversy. Anyone who was against Food Not Bombs or commenting here that they were operating illegally without their permit, had better be saying the same about Miss Patsy. If you were against Food Not Bombs yet think that Miss Patsy should stay you are a hypocrite. I'm not saying any of these comments here are hypocritical because I don't know who said what about this issue and the previous issue. Just something to think about.
Is VJ Pinch looking for Hookers to become legal or was that left wing humor?
Well, Mr. Rak, in fact hookers are legal in certain places such as Nevada. Like Miss Patsy's Kitchen, their activities are not legal in certain places but permitted in others.
No one says Miss Patsy can't do business, but she needs to do it somewhere else where it's legal.
That is neither left wing nor right wing - it's called consistency.
In fact eating a bacon and egg sandwich is legal in ct. But hooking is not. So lets not cloud the issue with comments about pros and eggs.
Well, Mr. Rak, since it's already been established that prostitution is legal in some places but not in Connecticut, we can conclude that it really comes down to a matter of proper zoning. (I'm trying to keep this on topic so that Biff Shaw doesn't get annoyed with me.)
Should prostitution be made more broadly legal? (Sorry Biff, I can't resist, but don't worry, we will return to zoning momentarily.) It is a question worth debating. My view is that the state should keep its nose out of people's private business so long as no one is being harmed. Insofar as the prostitute is a healthy free agent and has not been coerced into the sex trade, prostitution is a victimless crime. So, just on principle, I would say it should be legal. Whether or not I find prostitution immoral is irrelevant: we should not be legislating one group's morality. (Yes, you may correctly conclude that I'm not a big-government conservative.)
Of course, prostitution is a little more complicated than what is described in the above paragraph: not all prostitutes are free agents. There are many cases where an individual has been forced into prostitution. This practice should certainly be illegal, since there is a clear victim. But the criminal is not the individual prostitute him or herself, but the sex trafficker ("pimp", abusive boyfriend in need of cash, "madame", gang kingpin, whatever). Likewise, some people sell their bodies for sex to feed a drug habit or to avoid homelessness or to support a family or loved one. Who is to blame in these instances? Hard to say. But should the individual prostitute be punished in such cases? If so, then the state justifiably takes on a responsibility to care for that individual and, when applicable, the people s/he was trying to support.
We may think prostitution is inherently immoral. Everyone has a right to his or her own opinion. But to imply that prostitution is dishonest (as per the comment by anon. 7:41) seems to me off the mark. There are probably fewer professions in the world where brutal honesty is a sine qua non.
Does this mean I favor the broader legalization of prostitution, or rather, the extension of legal zones of prostitution to Connecticut? I think it is an idea whose time may have come. I've already argued the case in favor of legalization from a philosophical point of view: get the state's nose out of people's private business unless someone is being harmed. (Surely an unobjectionable position for a conservative, or at least a paleo-conservative, to take.) From a pragmatic, economic point of view, there are also good reasons to consider broader legalization of prostitution. For example, there are plenty of burned out, decaying inner cities in Connecticut that could use an injection of entrepreneurial spirit and venture capital--heck, just more live bodies after 5 p.m. would be a good start. Globally, prostitution, according to one estimate, is a $187 billion industry; in the US, it's worth about $14.6 billion. [Source: http://www.havocscope.com/black-market/prostitution/prostitution-ranking/] Perhaps it's time to broaden the legal zones and capture some of that business, then regulate it, tax it, and use the proceeds to ensure the health and safety of prostitutes and go after sex traffickers.
Two things would probably need to happen before this plan would be workable, however.
First, the broader decriminalization of drugs, so that drug addiction (which leads some people into prostitution) could be more effectively dealt with, and so that the gangs that control so much of the sex-trafficking that goes on are put out of business. (Another perfectly good paleo-conservative position, by the way. I refer you to LEAP, at http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php.)
And second, proper zoning.
Left-wing humor? Hardly. Prostitution is no joking matter.
Thank you for your attention. And thanks, also, for signing your name.
Post a Comment