October 30, 2021, on going problems with Saturday construction at PBSA
On Saturday morning, October 30, 2021, an issue arose at 33 Ocean Avenue that several owners believed warranted immediate attention. At approximately 8:00 a.m., residents heard jackhammering and truck air brakes coming from the building. Upon investigating, we observed construction activity involving Apartment 606. The work appeared to include the use of jackhammers in connection with the removal of west-facing windows. A concrete pump was also positioned in the circle, apparently to pump a concrete mixture to the sixth floor for the purpose of leveling the floors. Several owners questioned the work and sought clarification regarding what was being done. During the discussion, the owner of 606 stated that the windows being worked on were his windows and that he was replacing them. I pointed out that, to my understanding, the building's governing documents address ownership and responsibility for windows and exterior building components. I was concerned that this work should be reviewed by the Board before any exterior building component was altered. At that point, exterior concrete around one of the windows had already been chipped, and the work was stopped. The owner also stated that approximately 10 cubic yards of concrete material would be used to level the floors by approximately one to three inches. I asked about the approximate weight being added to the building. I was told that the engineers had reviewed the project. Because of my previous professional experience managing a concrete pumping company involved in numerous major construction projects in the New York metropolitan area, I was particularly conscious of the substantial weight associated with concrete. My understanding at the time was that conventional concrete weighs approximately 4,000 pounds per cubic yard, which would make 10 cubic yards approximately 40,000 pounds. I was not, however, acting as an engineer and was not qualified to determine whether the proposed work was structurally appropriate for the building. My concern was simply that any significant additional load, as well as the use of a concrete slurry or other material, should be evaluated and approved by the appropriate professionals before the work proceeded. I was also concerned about the possibility of water or construction material entering areas below the apartment if the work was not properly contained. I subsequently learned that Kevin Bennett and Carl Tomik had not been made aware of the work at that time. I do not know what approvals, permits, engineering reviews, or other authorizations may have existed, and I therefore do not want to speculate about whether the work had been properly authorized. My concern was that the Board and appropriate building representatives should be informed and given an opportunity to verify that the work complied with the building's requirements and applicable regulations. At the time, the building's general construction period was scheduled to end on October 31, 2021, with an extension subsequently discussed at a Board meeting allowing owners additional time to complete work. Emergency work had also been permitted in certain circumstances, including repairs associated with water damage that had previously affected portions of the 05/06 stacks. Several owners, including myself, were concerned about the continuation of substantial construction work during the holiday season. Many owners have family visiting during Thanksgiving and other holidays, and construction noise and activity can have a significant impact on residents. My purpose in raising these concerns was not to make a determination about the safety or legality of the work. Rather, I believed that the Board should ensure that any construction involving structural components, significant additional weight, plumbing, windows, or other building systems was properly reviewed, documented, and authorized before proceeding.
In my opinion, it would also be reasonable for the Board to consider whether Saturday construction and construction during designated holiday periods should require advance Board approval and appropriate notice to the residents. Clear procedures could help prevent misunderstandings and ensure that everyone understands what work is permitted. Following the events of October 30, 2021, the Board subsequently took action to stop further construction beginning Saturday, November 13, 2021, until after the winter season. I am providing this account to document what I personally observed and the concerns that were raised at the time. Where I was not personally aware of the underlying facts or approvals, I have intentionally stated that rather than draw conclusions.
My hope is that we can learn from these events and establish clearer procedures going forward that protect the building, its residents, and the rights of all shareholders while allowing properly reviewed and approved work to proceed.
Rich Bolton
Rest in Peace Polly Kidder
DUNE SEAGRAPE TRIMMING
St Valentine's Day Photos
Click on year to view
2026 Season
Rest in Peace Polly Kidder
It is with sadness the passing of Polly Heath Kidder, New London, NH Polly (Heath) Kidder, 94, of Twin Lake Villa Road, died Saturday, August 22, 2026.
She was born in Worcester, MA on April 6, 1932 the daughter of Ellis K. and Helen (Leeds) Heath.
Polly's husband, Henry "Hank" W. Kidder III, died on January 1, 2026. She is survived by a daughter, Laurie (Ken) Jacques; son, Scott Kidder; grandsons, Tanner (Catherine "Catie") Jacques and Thatcher Jacques (Ingrid Knowles); two great grandsons, Henry and Oscar Jacques.
St Patrick's Day Photos
Click on year to view
CONCERN REGARDING CONSTRUCTION IN APARTMENT 606
We are raising a serious concern regarding construction work that was performed, and may still be relevant to the condition of, Apartment 606, located on the top floor of our cooperative building at 33 Ocean Avenue.
Our concern is not about the owner personally or about preventing legitimate improvements to an apartment. Our concern is whether the work performed was properly authorized and permitted, whether appropriate structural professionals were consulted, and whether the work has had any adverse effect on the structural integrity of the building.
Based upon what was observed at the time, the construction appears to have involved modification of a concrete roof beam, including the removal of a significant portion of concrete and exposure or removal of reinforcing steel. We understand that approximately 10 inches of material may have been removed from the beam. We are not qualified structural engineers and therefore cannot determine the extent to which this work may have affected the beam's load-bearing capacity. That determination should be made by an independent, licensed structural engineer after an inspection of the work.
There is also a concern regarding the amount of additional concrete or concrete-based material reportedly placed within Apartment 606 to level the floors. The actual quantity and resulting weight have not, to our knowledge, been independently verified. Given the age of the building, which dates to approximately 1956, we believe it is reasonable to determine whether the existing structure was designed to accommodate the additional permanent load.
On Saturday, October 30, 2021, concrete placement at Apartment 606 was observed involving pump trucks and the placement of concrete. The work was subsequently stopped. At that time, we understood that there had been questions concerning whether the appropriate Board notification, building permits, and structural documentation had been obtained. We believe these matters should be verified through the cooperative's records and the appropriate municipal authorities rather than relying on assumptions.
On Saturday, November 6, 2021, additional bags of concrete, reportedly approximately 80 pounds each, were observed being brought to Apartment 606 and concrete-related work continued. Again, our concern is not to characterize the intentions of anyone involved, but to determine whether the work was properly authorized, permitted, supervised, and structurally appropriate.
WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING
We believe the cooperative and its shareholders are entitled to have these questions answered objectively and professionally.
Specifically, we believe the following should be obtained and reviewed:
All applicable building permits and approvals relating to the work in Apartment 606.
The plans, drawings, and specifications submitted for the renovation.
Any structural-engineering reports, calculations, or certifications relating to modifications of the concrete roof beam or other structural components.
An independent inspection by a licensed structural engineer, selected independently of the apartment owner, to determine whether the building's structural components have been compromised or subjected to loads beyond their design capacity.
An accounting or engineering estimate of the additional permanent weight introduced by the concrete or other materials used to level the floors.
Confirmation that all work complies with applicable building codes, permits, cooperative requirements, and the building's governing documents.
If an engineer determines that any structural component was improperly altered or damaged, a professionally designed remediation plan to restore the component to a safe condition, with repairs performed under appropriate professional supervision.
Our objective is simply to ensure that the building remains safe and that construction performed within an individual apartment does not adversely affect the cooperative property or the other shareholders.
If structural work was improperly performed, we believe it should be properly evaluated and, where necessary, remediated to a condition that meets or exceeds the applicable structural requirements for the building today—not merely concealed or cosmetically repaired.
We are asking for transparency, proper documentation, and an independent professional evaluation. We believe these are reasonable safeguards for a 70-year-old cooperative building and for everyone who owns an interest in it.
This statement is intended to document our concerns and request appropriate investigation and verification. It is not intended to make a definitive engineering, code, or legal determination regarding the work in Apartment 606. Those determinations should be made by the appropriate licensed professionals and authorities based upon their inspection and the relevant records.