|
Tenants allowed back home |
|
|
Thursday, 14 May 2009 |
PAWTUCKET — Tenants have been allowed to move back in to apartments at the Union Wadding complex, but the developers have yet to pay their $40,000 court-ordered fine to the city.
PAWTUCKET — Tenants have been allowed to move back in to apartments at the Union Wadding complex, but the developers have yet to pay their $40,000 court-ordered fine to the city.
According to Ronald Travers, the city's zoning and building code enforcement officer, the complex at 125 Goff Avenue received its temporary occupancy permit for 40 units. These units, originally constructed as condominiums, represent the first stage of a multi-phase plan to renovate the sprawling former factory property into loft-style living quarters. The one-and two-bedroom units were being rented at a reported price of $750 to $800 a month by the property's sales office.
During the last week of March, some 25 tenants were evicted from 14 rental units after city officials found there were no working fire alarms or sprinklers and discovered other building code violations. In addition, the property's management had allowed the tenants to move in before a municipal occupancy permit had been granted.
The Connecticut-based developer, First National Development; was fined $40,000 by Pawtucket's Municipal Housing Court for allowing the tenants to occupy the apartments without a proper permit. At an April 3 hearing before Municipal Court Judge Donna M. Nesselbush, an attorney for the developer, Thomas Romano, said his client had admitted to the charges and agreed to pay the fine by the established 30-day deadline.
However, Travers said that while the occupancy permit has been issued, the 30-day deadline has come and gone, and First National Development has yet to pay the $40,000 fine. He said the developer has been notified to appear in Municipal Court this Friday to address the matter. If the city does not receive a bank check for $40,000 on Friday, Travers said he will ask the judge to impose a higher fine.
If the developer refuses to pay the city, Travers said that a lien could be placed on the property.
He added, however, that such an action would not affect the occupancy permit or the tenants currently living on the property.
Travers said that one of his main concerns is getting money back for the tenants, who were going to be reimbursed for the expenses they incurred in lost rent, security deposits and other costs. The fine also includes getting money back from the city for the costs of having extra fire personnel on the site while the tenants were in the process of moving out their belongings.
Several of the displaced tenants said they had been put up at local hotels while the fire and building code issues were being addressed, with this expense being borne by the developer. Others told The Times that they had sought lodging with relatives.
Attempts to reach both the project manager for Union Wadding and attorney for the developer were unsuccessful.
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 15 May 2009 )
|
Horoscope
