The Zoning Board of Appeals met yesterday (Thursday) evening, from about 5:30 to 7:30. The meeting began with a review by the acting chairwoman, whose name I didn't get (apologies), and Bruce Driska, Zoning Enforcement Officer for the city, of the reasons for the delay in resolving the present appeal (see *note* at bottom), the circumstances which led to the current meeting's continued inability to issue a final decision (the members haven't yet sufficiently 'experted' themselves on the many interesting twists and turns of the case), and the decision to hold the public hearing in any case (to at least complete the record of testimony and move things along). It was unclear at first whether an actual quorum existed, but the fact that an entirely new member had been seated (sorry, I can't recall that name either) seemed to resolve that issue. (Nevertheless, the quorum present did not include all the members who are voting on the case.)
When we finally did get under way with public testimony a new conundrum presented itself. The chairwoman had, in initiating the proceedings, called for those in favor of the applicant to speak first, after which those opposed could follow. So after Atty. Bennet (representing Christopher Parslow, the applicant) said a few introductory words, Jennifer Saines of High Street went up to the microphone and read her letter in support of Mr. Parslow. The chairwoman let Ms. Saines finish and thanked her, but then added that she had in fact spoken out of turn -- since the chairwoman had asked for those speaking in
favor of the applicant to go first. With everyone in the room scratching their skulls, Atty. Bennet pointed out that his client was, in fact, the applicant, so Ms. Saines had spoken in the correct order. Apparently the confusion revolved around the fact that speaking against the continued presence of the hot dog stand constitutes speaking in favor of the applicant. One can thus be opposed and in favor at the same time. (I often find myself in this position at home, so I caught on right away.) This led to a new round of discussion between Mr. Driska and the chairwoman, at the end of which it was in fact determined that Ms. Saines
had spoken in the correct order, and the chair apologized for the confusion and asked, for clarification, that every speaker clearly identify whose side he or she is supporting. So Ms. Saines re-approached the podium to say, for the record, that she was speaking in favor of the applicant, Mr. Parslow, as represented by Atty. Bennet. Then a parade of public testimony followed by various members of the public, whose comments ranged from supporting Mr. Parslow to supporting Miss Patsy's (and the lot owner, whose name slips my memory, but all documents relevant to the case can be read
here).
The public comment revealed a continued variety of assertions about the alleged prior existence of a hot dog stand on the corner back in the day, as well as the nature of that stand -- though these questions, it should be noted, have been decided by the courts (which, in fact, is why there is currently an appeal to the ZBA). The comments on the mysterious hot dog stand were interesting as a question of historical memory, and as I am a historian, despite my inability to remember names, I will review some of those comments here. Some people claim that they recall going to get a hot dog on a regular basis, while others claim that the sale of food at the site was nothing more than a church bazaar held once a year. One speaker pointed out that the Cyprus Restaurant and Grill down the street (across from the Monte Green [now Haveli]) was formerly known as the Cyprus Diner, and that many people who took the bus to New Haven would stop
there to get a hot dog. One person, whose birth date ranged from 1938 (according to Atty. Dowley, representing Miss Patsy's et al) to 1958 (according to the person himself), recalled getting hot dogs as a child in the 1960s and feeding the deer (in fact, I think he even said reindeer, but that could simply by my
own memory issues kicking in) at Sanibel across the street. The chairwoman noted, in questioning Atty. Dowley, that she had spoken to two or three long-time residents along South Main and Randolph Road, "who'd lived there 75 or 80 years," who had no memory of a hot dog stand at the corner in question (Randolph and South Main). She added, "it would be
wonderful if you could just provide a photograph or some hard evidence to back up your case." Atty. Dowley acknowledged that evidence of this sort would be wonderful, but that he couldn't "simply invent it". The owner of the lot stood up, toward the end of the public comment session, to state that the reason the stand was not shown on the survey that he had had done was that surveys do not include trailers and temporary structures, and that the stand in question was simply a cart with an umbrella. (This and another survey, by the Highway Department, had been introduced as evidence in the Superior and Appellate court cases that preceded (and necessitated) the current appeal; according to Atty. Bennet, it had been proven to the satisfaction of those courts that while a church bazaar may have been held intermittently at one of the two adjacent lots in question [which have since become one lot, adding to the confusion in the case], there was no evidence of a permanent or semi-permanent structure at either lot. The current structure, as I understand it, is a trailer that is connected to both water and power.)
Atty. Bennet's description of the court's decision is, in fact, backed up by the documents from the case, available online. Here is the relevant excerpt from the Appellate Court's affirmation of the original Superior Court decision (I think I have the order correct), issued 16 September 2008, on page 11 of
the city's pdf file (note that most of the punctuation was rendered invisible in the scanning of the document):
All in all, it was a surreal evening.
[Full disclosure: During the public comment I spoke in favor of Mr. Parslow's position. And I am related by marriage to Ms. Jennifer Saines.]
*note*: the 'appeal' technically is an appeal of the November 2008 decision by Mr. Driska, the current Zoning Enforcement Officer, to not abide by the findings of the Appellate Court's affirmation of the Superior Court's upholding of the original ZEO's cease and desist order back in the early years of the millennium.
