Quantcast

Letter to the Editor: Negligence, Discrimination or Favoritism to the Developers in New Traffic Pattern Cemetery and Gregory Blvd East Norwalk

February 2, 2026
–
Liz Conti

East Norwalk residents continue to be burdened by the preferential treatment given to the new Mill River apartment development on Cemetery St. The residents turned out, spoke out, and cited numerous reasons to the Planning and Zoning board to not approve this project. Those efforts proved fruitless. Next, the Oak tree had to come down to facilitate the drainage upgrades. This was brought up as well during the approval process with respect to the inadequate culvert designs as cited in the 1998 Ebeyments study, and needed upgrades even then, and certainly should have been done BEFORE a building of such mass should be constructed. But, I guess the cart was thought to be more important to put before the horse, as the drainage upgrades are still not done, yet the building is already up and taking applications for residence. 

Consistently, residents, organizations, and businesses in East Norwalk have been put dead last in decisions made by this city’s leaders. In my opinion, there is no excuse for this inadequate and morally reprehensible lack of representation in response to the loud outcry of the public. 

Recently, the traffic pattern has been changed on Gregory Blvd, which is now being forced to yield its larger flow and volume of traffic to the Cemetery circle flow of traffic onto Gregory Blvd. This is absurd and goes against any normal traffic pattern rules, which tend toward a “yield” intersection occurring at an entry point to the major traffic flow, as opposed to disrupting the major roadway to yield to the minor roadway… i.e., it is like having yields on I95 at on-ramp entrances to the highway. This is in direct conflict with the norms of traffic design. Please see section 2B.06 pn page 75 and 76, item 6, and section 2B.07 regarding applications for yield intersections: 

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_11th_Edition.htm

06 YIELD or STOP signs shall not be used for speed control. 

Section 2B.07 Determining the Minor Road for Unsignalized Intersections 

In addition, the new yield placement was located directly in front of the access and egress to Christ Church, which has been in the community for over 100 years at the corner of Gregory Blvd and Cemetery St, and of which I am a member and in leadership. 

Neither the church nor other adjoining affected properties were given any prior notice of the date of placement of this new yield intersection, as I believe should have been the legal requirement, to my knowledge of such a major change of traffic flow, and especially one that created a burden on the church’s access/egress point. 

So, I immediately complained to Norwalk, and a traffic coordinator was sent to observe my issue regarding the church not being considered in this new traffic pattern, and asked how Gregory Blvd or Cemetery St yields for us to get in and out? 

I believe both the church, as well as the East Norwalk residents are being treated unfairly, with preference clearly being given to developers of the Mill River apartments, this is not up for dispute, as it is clear. 

As a matter of law pertaining to the church’s rights in this situation, it is my contention that Norwalk and/or CT DOT is in violation of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act under RLUIPA, religious freedom in land, and planning/zoning/traffic/parking: 

Inequality given a religious institution under the US Constitution’s 14th amendment by implementing a policy that clearly omits any consideration to the access and egress, or treating the institution in an unequal manner in favor of surrounding properties, i.e., the new development on Cemetery St being given preferential treatment over the interests of the religious institution. 

This new intersection creation may also be in violation under RLUIPA specifically as well: 

Religious institutions in the United States are protected against state Department of Transportation (DOT) or local government actions that create an “unlawful blockage of egress” or unreasonably hinder access to church property through traffic pattern changes, primarily under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Under RLUIPA, if a government regulation imposes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise, the government must demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means to achieve it. 

East Norwalk is a neighborhood community that deserves better from our leaders. We deserve the right to be heard and respected equally, not treated unequally to accommodate new developments over the interests of our rights to exist and thrive in our own community. 

I challenge our leaders to respect the rights of Christ Church and the greater East Norwalk community in remediating this traffic design plan in a more equal and less preferential way immediately. 

We are tired of being ignored and mistreated as taxpayers, community outreach organizations, and small businesses, and demand our 1st and 14th amendment rights, which include equal treatment and the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as residents of East Norwalk, CT. 

We should not have to introduce the process of law and litigate in court for these rights against what seems have become the “deaf” ears of the leadership of this town as it continues to roll over our rights in favor of “others” at warp speed, devoid of the destruction it leaves behind. 

Whose interests are being supported of late in East Norwalk? Whose interests are being ignored in East Norwalk? Ask yourselves whether this “progress” is really that at all, or just an excuse to serve the new developers that have come to town to make money over fist for themselves and their “friends” with no regard or effort at assimilation into the historic and family-oriented working class town this once was. 

It is past time that some fairness happens here; this community deserves and demands it! 

Liz Conti 

Norwalk, CT

More Stories

Comments

22 responses to “Letter to the Editor: Negligence, Discrimination or Favoritism to the Developers in New Traffic Pattern Cemetery and Gregory Blvd East Norwalk”

  1. David Muccigrosso

    This reads like a NIMBY Greatest Hits Album.

  2. David Muccigrosso

    Just for fun, I drove this route this morning during rush hour.

    There was no issue.

  3. Mike Mushak

    This letter from Liz Conti is disappointing to say the least, and sadly full of misinformation about this project (which was designed long before the apartment building was proposed) to make the streets around Christ Church safer for everyone, especially elderly, children, the disabled and parents pushing baby strollers in this dense neighborhood full of churches, senior living, young families, and daycare centers.

    Once the new drainage line is installed to the former oak tree site (that has absolutely nothing to do with the apartment building but is required as part of the East Avenue train bridge and station replacement), this entire area surrounding the cemetery will have new sidewalks, crosswalks, and new traffic layout to slow speeds to make it safer for everyone including members of Christ Church.

    At my church St Paul’s on the Green just a mile up the road, church members worked with the city and state for over a decade to get safer new intersections with crosswalks installed on adjoining North Ave (Route 1) at both France St and East Avenue, improvements that help not only our own church members in the neighborhood who want to walk to church safely, but also to help the public in general. We also advocated for an automated crosswalk installed across East Avenue at St Paul’s Place and a new crosswalk to connect to the Norwalk Green. There is still more to do, but so far these improvements have made the streets around our church safer for church members and for everyone, which we all welcomed and applauded.

    The traffic flow into and out of the Christ Church parking lot has not been obstructed in any way as Liz Conti has stated. In fact the new layout has made it much safer by reducing speeding traffic directly in front of the church including inches away from the entry driveway as it was previously.

    The president of ENNA, Diane Cece, recently stated in the latest ENNA monthly meeting on January 20th that the former layout caused her to routinely increase her speed as she was driving up Gregory directly in front of the church, stating the obvious to anyone living in that area who knew what a dangerous speedway that had become.

    It is clear that Liz Conti is opposed to the new apartment building that was built across from her church, replacing an ugly 1970’s bank building surrounded by a huge empty asphalt parking lot that collected trash and weeds. She has that right. I personally think the new apartment building is beautiful and a welcome addition to the neighborhood especially the many small businesses that will benefit, and may even add new church members to the currently meager attendance at Christ Church.

    But it is unconscionable in my opinion for anyone to oppose much-needed safety improvements to slow speeding traffic on the dangerous obsolete layout around the cemetery that was designed in the 1950’s to encourage high speeds while ignoring pedestrian and bicycle safety. These improvements, when completed by 2028, will transform this area into the walkable and safer and more attractive neighborhood it deserves to be, which will benefit everyone including church members who previously risked their lives trying to cross the street on foot or while trying to navigate the speeding traffic when entering or leaving the church.

    I know whenever I speak out on these issues, I also am speaking for many folks who don’t have a voice in public meetings or on social media, including the elderly, disabled, children, young families pushing strollers, etc. So I want to give a big “thank you” to the many city and state officials who are working hard to make the area around Christ Church safer for their membership and for everyone, whether on foot, in a wheelchair, using a walker or cane, on a bicycle, or even in a car as lower speeds means less accidents and injuries including to car occupants.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you!

    1. David Muccigrosso

      Much agreed on how ugly that lot was.

      As usual with NIMBYs, ENNA is long on complaints and short on suggestions. Even traditionally “suburban” uses that would have maintained the large parking lot — like a strip mall, corner store, gas station, daycare, or whatever — all would’ve engendered complaints about new traffic burdens from customers, kids shouting, gas fumes next to the pond.

      HECK, if a new bank tenant had decided to take it over and actually became a more successful branch location than the Wells Fargo before them had been — which we ought to consider broadly a net improvement — I’m pretty sure ENNA would still be complaining about the bank’s “encroachment” on their sleepy, quiet neighborhood.

      Your point about the 1950’s-era street design is all the more trenchant, because I place the blame for these attitudes on all the 1950’s-era realty advertising that hawked white-picket-fences in sleepy suburbs that would never change. That was a DRAMATIC departure from pretty much how all of human urban development patterns have ever worked, even in pre-surburban areas that were relatively well-off. It’s not even realistic to a homeowner’s lifespan, because guess what? We’re born, we grow up, we get married, have kids, buy houses, kids move out, and then we die and the kids sell the house. THAT is an inexorable tide of change that no one on this planet has the power to stop.

      And yet we now treat the right to keep our neighborhoods preserved in brochure-like amber as if it’s some God-given fundamental right. It’s not.

      Cheers, Mike. And by the way, there are at least a half dozen ugly old lots like that on West Ave. The Wall Street improvement project isn’t enough; we should probably calm traffic all along West and even consider closing down 2 lanes (reducing to 1 each way + middle turn lane) so that we can turn them into one long urban park for street festivals and whatnot.

      Just saying.

      1. Anthony Pavia

        East Ave should be next for addressing traffic, accidents and pedistrian and bike safety. East Ave has two traffic lights between 95 and the green – West Ave has something like 9 or 10 between the mansion and Wall Street .

        1. David Muccigrosso

          Moreover, south of 95, East Ave has a whole breakfast/coffee establishment situated for a left-in-left-out from the direction of the morning traffic.

          This is insane and unacceptable, and probably responsible for a disproportionate amount of traffic disruptions in the area; if we’re going to talk about buildings/uses that “should never have been approved” and whose traffic burden represents an “assault on the neighborhood”, this is a PRIME candidate.

    2. Peter Marino

      Another Mushak Missive that dismisses everything & everyone ………. Could you kindly provide reasonable proof to your statement “I know whenever I speak out on these issues, I also am speaking for many folks who don’t have a voice in public meetings or on social media, including the elderly, disabled, children, young families pushing strollers, etc. So I want to give a big “thank you” to the many city and state officials who are working hard to make the area around Christ Church safer for their membership and for everyone, whether on foot, in a wheelchair, using a walker or cane, on a bicycle, or even in a car as lower speeds means less accidents and injuries including to car occupants.
      Thank you, thank you, thank you!”

      Are there any specific surveys, data or documented input from those who are speaking for? Who exactly are these people that you represent?

      Thank you x 3.

      1. Mike Mushak

        @ Peter Marino: I only need look out my window in front of my house at the new sidewalks the city finally installed a couple years ago (that we requested for many years) to see the diverse demographic I know I speak for whenever I support public safety improvements to our streets and sidewalks.

        But if you want more proof, just look at the census data for Norwalk over the last decade. Our overall population increased 7 percent, but the under-18 group increased 19 percent, and the over-65 group increased 18 percent. That clearly indicates that both children and elderly are increasing in Norwalk faster than any other age group, and this includes those with disabilities. I see this in my own neighborhood in South Norwalk and across the city.

        I am proud of my 25 years of advocating for safer roads and slower speeds and more sidewalks and crosswalks in Norwalk to help these folks who often do not show up at public meetings and on social media. I know this because I’ve attended hundreds of public meetings over the years, as a P and Z Commissioner and founder of the Norwalk Bike/Walk Task Force in 2014 that is now a city commission.

        The last 12 years under the strong leadership of Mayor Rilling, the Common Council, and dedicated city and state staff, has seen a miraculous transformation of entire neighborhoods in Norwalk into safer and more walkable areas to live and work, with reduced traffic speeds from proven traffic-calming measures such as reduced lane widths, more street trees, bump-outs to create safe havens for pedestrians, bike lanes, and more on-street parking. In fact, all of these measures are being utilized around the perimeter of East Avenue Cemetery, following the strong endorsement from licensed traffic engineers following federal and state standards. Thank you for asking!

        1. Peter Marino

          Thank you for the explanation. Respectfully, personal observation, census trends, and your own advocacy history don’t demonstrate that these groups have expressed the specific views you’re attributing to them. My question remains: what direct input, surveys, or documented feedback from these populations supports your claim to speak on their behalf?

          1. Mike Mushak

            We have file cabinets full of public surveys going back 20 years, surveys done in conjuction with both pedestrian and bicycle studies, and transportation management plans, that show a strong desire to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and slow traffic speeds especially for our most vulnerable neighbors including the demographic I’ve already described. These surveys are in appendices in the back of the studies, and the studies are available on the city website. All that aside, I have direct input from neighbors and friends of all ages who have had their daily lives transformed with new sidewalks and crosswalks and bike lanes all across Norwalk. In fact, creating more walkable and bikable neighborhoods is a goal for all towns and cities across the nation as folks want to get more exercize and use their cars less, and has been a major goal of Norwalk over the last 20 years as the multiple studies and surveys prove.

        2. Peter Marino

          Thank you for the additional explanation. It should be simple enough to cite the titles, dates, or even a link to the relevant appendices. Without that, we’re left with an argument built on your interpretation, especially when you’re asserting the authority to speak on behalf of entire demographic groups who, by your own admission, are not present in these discussions. Its like some random neighborhood sent out a May-day and you answered by looking out your window.

  4. Audrey Cozzarin

    Reading the replies to Liz’s letter makes me feel sad. I do wish more people would speak their minds as Liz does, even if we read her words and don’t agree with everything she or any courageous person dares to put in print in front of their fellow citizens. Liz and others in East Norwalk are trying hard to live in community and the comments as I read them sound holier-than-thou and dismissive in a way that just plain makes me sad.

    Whether 1950s street planning or the utter nerve to expect having a home with a yard and picket fence, the desire to live in a safe, beautiful, congenial city is what I believe to be called “The American Dream.” Poo-pooing Liz’s concerns for her church, a church which is trying very hard to be relevant in the shadow of that enormous apartment building, when she knows there is a salivating desire to devour the rest of the neighborhood for financial gain of the few, I just don’t understand the mindset at work there.

    I, for one, am not impressed with progress for its own sake, the endless plowing over, the bulldozing of the natural world to remake in our own image. A city’s or town’s scale is important and in the years I’ve lived in Norwalk it seems to be growing out of scale. When city or town leaders do not really know how to listen to its citizens who find the communications process as frustrating as Liz has, who can’t see above their own noses, who can’t place themselves in another’s shoes, well, we have a Norwalk. I still welcome the day when concerned citizens can have a seat at the table to help shape plans that affect their homes, businesses, and neighborhoods. In my experience, I have seen concerned Norwalkers brushed aside with eye rolls or simply no response at all to their ideas, pleas, deep concerns. I’m hoping the new administration at city hall has time to really listen to all of us, even those who do not agree, to find consensus. As the late great Norwalk leader Greg Burnett said, “From conversation often times comes resolution.” We have to talk and deeply listen to one another to find common ground. That is my hope, one that makes me happy, dispelling the sad!

    1. Peter Marino

      Audrey – I don’t know you personally, but I want to say that I genuinely appreciate the spirit of what you wrote here. Your compassion, your desire for real dialogue, and your respect for people who speak up — even when we disagree — all shine through. That those people who do speak up are not dismissed, mocked or meant to feel unheard. That’s something I truly admire you. Someday, I hope to meet you.

    2. Liz Conti

      Many thanks Audrey for your thoughtful comments in reminding others that we should all listen to “all voices” in our community.
      You know very well how many years I have dedicated to Christ Church; and how many in our community benefit from our outreach missions. These are very relevant missions to our local community members who come to our food pantry and our worship services. Christ Church does not seek or desire to have “priority”, but rather “fairness” in the upgrades and development of the neighborhood that surrounds us.

      That is what my letter and words speak to in letting others know that the community of East Norwalk is not and should not be all about the priorities of the “new development” while by-passing interests and needs of the homeowners, businesses and community elements (such as Christ Church) that have been a part of the neighborhood long before the new development broke ground.

      I am not surprised that all the negative comments seek to justify by overlooking the needs of the many in their constant effort to serve the interests of the few???

      I am not sure why others don’t have the courage to stand for what is fair even if it means being criticized by those who get enjoyment from making personal attacks against anyone who dares to speak truth to power …

      1. Mike Mushak

        At Liz Conti, I agree, we should speak truth to power, so let’s be crystal clear about the facts that are verifiable. The new layout around Christ Church was NOT done to favor the developer as part of the East Avenue improvements included in the Walk Bridge project, because these improvements were designed a few years before the development was proposed to slow speeding traffic on the obsolete roadways that were designed in the 1950’s to encourage high speeds, complete with interstate highway-standard guardrails to protect the sidewalks from the deliberate high-speed traffic that created a dangerous death trap for pedestrians trying to cross the street as many long-time neighbors have mentioned.

        Those rusted and dented highway guardrails were removed, the nearly 40-foot wide road aimed directly at Christ Church was narrowed to one lane, on-street parking was added, and street trees were planted. These are all federal traffic-calming measures, that two separate licensed traffic engineers stated on the record in a public hearing should be implemented regardless of whether or not the apartment project would ever be approved and built. Please stop saying that the roadway improvements were being done for the developer. They were not. They were done to make the roadways around your church and the entire neighborhood safer for all users, especially the most vulnerable people in our community who are children, the elderly, the disabled, and young families with baby strollers who previously had to risk their lives trying to cross the street directly in front of your church.. Surely you care about helping those folks, although you have never mentioned the public safety aspect of this project in any of your letters.

        Lastly, the new layout is not finished, as the drainage pipe from the train station area has to be installed first. But once completed, there will be new safer ADA compliant sidewalks all around the cemetery including directly in front of your church, traffic speeds will be slowed significantly, and multiple crosswalks with planted islands will be added to make the area around your church much safer for everyone including your own church members.

        Please stop making this out to be some kind of assault on your church, as it’s just the opposite. City and state officials are trying to help you and your church by making the streets safer for everyone including those in cars, and you continue to attack them with ugly and untruthful accusations that is not helping your cause, which is clearly against the development you hate across the street even though the road improvements have nothing to do with it.

        This is my speaking truth to power, and in this case it’s the power of misinformation which you have repeatedly spread through your letters. Please stop.

    3. Kenneth Nob

      A few thoughts on this response. “shadow of that enormous apartment building”–the new apartment building in question can hardly be described as “enormous”. As apartments go, it’s quite small. You’re exaggerating the size of the building because you’re inclined to believe it shouldn’t exist at all, for whatever reason.

      “Liz and others in East Norwalk are trying hard to live in community and the comments as I read them sound holier-than-thou”–pretty jarring to read that it’s *the commenters* who are being holier-than-thou in response to a compliant that incorrectly cites the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act as remedies to an issue that largely does not exist. As others in this comment section have stated, the alleged issue in front of the Church is not real. Appealing to the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act for a nonexistent issue is the definition of “holier-than-thou” behavior.

      “there is a salivating desire to devour the rest of the neighborhood for financial gain of the few”–you appealed to the 1950s vision of an American Dream right before this, and then have the gall to say that actually, it’s development which makes housing more affordable for young people and others that is the problem. Maybe you dislike apartment complexes specifically, fine. Let’s hear your thoughts about increased development of single family homes in East Norwalk, then. I have a hunch that you’d have similar objections. It’s just as true to say that blocking development leads to the “financial gain of the few”, the few in this case being existing homeowners who are content to sit on their properties and watch their value inflate despite doing nothing to materially improve that property. The development on East Ave is a significant improvement to what was there before (an old lot collecting dust), and I, as someone in East Norwalk “trying hard to live in community” welcome it.

      1. Kenneth Nob

        Double-commenting but also, your concern about “the bulldozing of the natural world to remake in our own image” falls very flat for me. For one thing, there is nothing natural about the present state of Norwalk, which is mostly paved over with single family homes. If this was really your concern, the target of your criticism would not be this apartment complex, or frankly, any apartment development currently happening in Norwalk. On two counts, concern about the apartment’s environmental impact are incorrect. Per-capita, apartment complexes of that size are greener, since many more people live in apartments than can live in a single family home, for not much of an increase in footprint, i.e. 20x as many people can reside there than can in SFHs, but the land use and resource requirements are not 20x. And second, because it is true that the environment does not “care” about per-capita, but rather, total, impact, it’s again not clear that the apartment complex is worse. There are definitely many SFH lots in Norwalk already that are the size of this complex (on footprint). Given that the people who will inhabit this complex are going to live *somewhere*–they wouldn’t just disappear from the face of the Earth if the apartment was prevented from being built–from an environmental protection standpoint it’s preferable that they live in an apartment complex.

        You are making a selective demand for environmental protection. When it’s an apartment, you consider that an environmental tragedy. When it’s existing SFHs, well that’s just the natural state of the world and it’s okay. When it’s growth and expansion that you’ve inherited and benefited from, well there was nothing you could do about it and you can’t realistically reverse it now. But when it’s new growth and development that will benefit the people who had the bad luck to come after you, now it’s an environmental issue and shouldn’t be allowed. If you want to make a consistent argument about environmental protection and land use, then this apartment complex should be far down your list of targets.

        1. David Muccigrosso

          Hear hear.

  5. Peter Marino

    Is there any actual substance to the hearsay about development interest in the Old Well Lodge at 5 Gregory Blvd? That’s a big lot. Just trying to separate real information from the usual nextdoor scuttlebutt. So far I haven’t seen anything suggesting the Masonic Lodge is planning to sell or that any formal proposals exist- it’s not like the Masons are a booming organization these days. If anything is happening behind the scenes, nothing seems to be public?

  6. Thomas Belmont

    I look forward to reading Liz Conti’s articles. They are meaningful and spirited and I sense a great patriotism in her voice. The Millpond area has been “big Citied”. That’s called progress. In the office they used to call it putting ten pounds of s—-t in a one pound box. But that’s progress. Big city joins the rat race, and bureaucrats are stepping all over themselves to stand out their higher position in the human race.

    1. Kenneth Nob

      Have you ever been to a big city? Calling what’s going on at Mill Pond “big city” is entirely out of touch with reality.

      1. David Muccigrosso

        >> “entirely out of touch with reality”

        NIMBYs generally are thus.

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Chalk Talk promo
Secret Link