ROLL CALL: Michael Coffey; Chairman, Matthew Miklave, Kevin Poruban, Richard McQuaid, Peter Wien

OTHER(s): Katherine Lasberg, Assistant Corporation Counsel

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING

Amendment to Norwalk Code Section 74-4 Stickers for certain residents and property owners

The Chairman asked if anyone was present to speak on this item. Then he adjourned the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. to allow the arrival of Mr. Bondi of the Common Council, who previously relayed that he wanted to speak on this item.

The Chairman opened the regular meeting at 7:44 p.m.

MINUTES

** MR. WIEN MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES
** MOTION PASSED WITH FOUR VOTES IN FAVOR AND ONE ABSTENTION (MR. McQUAID)

NEW BUSINESS

a) Stickers for certain residents and property owners

Discussion and comments followed.

Mr. Miklave said when they issue a permit, they need to make sure it doesn’t end up being used primarily by say a relative of the resident who is constantly using the beach as if they were a Norwalk resident, when they are not.

Mr. Wien suggested some sort of hand pass for a relative or caretaker of the resident to use. He said that if it was found the pass was being used in excess, then there should be some language that the pass would be revoked.

Mr. McQuaid questioned how they would police the matter effectively. He felt they needed to devise a better way of issuing the pass.

Mr. Bondi mentioned that this matter could be an enforcement nightmare. But he said that in his discussion with Mike Mocciae, they thought they would give the process a year and if they began to see abuse happening, then they will initiate a program to issue a photo ID to the person obtaining the park sticker. This would be laminated and it must be shown to the person at the gate.

Mr. Wien asked if this would increase the cost of producing the sticker. Mr. Bondi said they would have to determine that at the time.

Mr. McQuaid said he would be in favor of implementing a photo ID upfront.

? Mr. Art Dubrowski addressed the fact that most people come to the park and nine out of ten of them were from out of town and not registered in Norwalk, noting this was something to consider.

Mr. McQuaid asked about the use of the pass for corporations. Mr. Bondi said they allowed any business with employees to buy the park passes that are good for use during weekdays.

Mr. Coffey asked Mr. Bondi if he thought there should be modifications to the ordinance. Mr. Bondi said the ordinance was a good idea. He pointed out that anyone could walk on the beach, but he stressed that hopefully it didn’t become a nightmare to police the pass process. He further stressed that one way to protect fraudulent use of a sticker would be to have it on a particular color that would be laminated on cardboard.

b) Outdoor Dining

Mr. Coffey stated they had a draft done for an outdoor café ordinance. He explained that he invited people tonight to speak on the topic.

? Mr. Tom Closter of the Health Department approached. He said he reviewed the ordinance and his department gets involved for the licensing of the kitchen portion of a café, but not the actual dining room. He said that upon his research, he found that the sidewalk area should be sanitized properly and cleaned. He also found that outdoor dining tables on the grass were prohibited. He stressed that any café should adhere to the public health code. He noted that neither busing stations nor trash receptacles were allowed outside of the kitchen.

The Chairman reopened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. to allow Mayor Knopp to speak on the topic of Stickers for certain residents and property owners.

? Mayor Alex Knopp approached. He stated that the purpose of the amendment was to make it easier for residents to use Calf Pasture Beach; but currently, the sticker was limited to those to display on a vehicle. They found that some elderly/senior people don’t own a car and rely on a caretaker to get them to the beach. Many of them expressed their frustration at not having easy access, so the change in the ordinance is to make it easier for residents that don’t have a car. The ordinance is proposed to give the department some discretion on how to provide for the pass or sticker.

He went on to say that it seemed the ordinance should be changed to consider the fact that the sticker is currently non-transferable. But there is a question if a resident doesn’t have a car and they have someone else drive them on different days to the beach, the language may require a change to make an exception to allow the transfer of the sticker from one car to another. He expressed that his should be allowed, again, for the sake of an elderly person’s benefit. He further noted that the purpose of this was to improve and increase utilization of the beach.

Mr. Coffey asked since they switched from issuing a 1-year sticker to a 2-year sticker, did this process increase activity. Mayor Knopp said yes. He commended Mike Mocciae the Director of Recreation of Parks for overseeing the process of data processing and mailing procedures. He commented that he hoped with the installation of the Bocce court, this would bring more seniors down to the beach. Mayor Knopp ended in saying this was a modest amendment that was designed for the 40 to 50 individuals who don’t have a car.

He also noted they planned to pull together an internal staff to look at the outdoor dining matter; but he thought it was an excellent idea and expected it to be a big success.

? Mr. Michael Greene, Director of Planning & Zoning approached. He stated the Planning Commission supported outdoor dining. He pointed out that they recently amended the regulations to accommodate this (he submitted a map that was devised to designate certain areas outdoor dining might take place).

He highlighted item #3 of the draft ordinance and noted that they may want to look closer at it again. For item #14, he noted that the application goes to the Zoning Enforcement Officer, but he felt they should separate the duties of the Zoning Officer to act under the ordinance regulations and not the zoning regulations. For item #18, he said the departments to be consulted should be checked to make sure they need to be.

Mr. Coffey stated that the purpose of this meeting was to come to a consensus of what the public wanted. He stressed it would be important to do the ordinance right to allow them to implement it for the upcoming season.

Mr. McQuaid cautioned that they should be careful when consulting the mapped areas for parking designation. The felt they should consider other areas in the city as well. Mr. Green said that in certain areas, when an establishment is near a parking garage, they don’t have to supply parking. Mr. Coffey asked if they would have to go back to zoning to change the parking for a certain area. Mr. Greene said in some cases they might have to.

Mr. McQuaid said he had a concern of long established restaurants that have been practicing outdoor dining for years, whether they’re conforming or nonconforming. Mr. Greene said with the new ordinance, it wouldn’t hurt those established restaurants, but it may not help them either. However they should be encouraged to go back to zoning for approval of the parking.

Mr. Greene noted he would supply the maps that the Zoning Commission devised.

? Mr. Alvord, Director of Department of Public Works approached. He stated that as a municipal government, the permit process was key to residents, so whatever ordinance is adopted, it should be a simplified process. He went on to explain the two types of outdoor dining. One is the type that occurs on private property, but with minor changes, the ordinance will cover that. The other is for outdoor dining on city property that he didn’t feel the document adequately addressed. He stressed that the mapped areas needed to be well defined.
He reviewed and commented on portions of the draft ordinance as follows:
Paragraph A – they should define the zones clearly to be in sync with the business districts.
Sub-paragraph 3 - the type of sidewalk being concrete should be rethought to consider brick pavers or deco stone treatments that area apparent at some current establishments. But he wouldn’t suggest asphalt.
Sub-paragraph 6 - for design standards. He didn’t expect that all the outdoor furniture needed to be dragged inside every night. He suggested that when in-season, the furniture could be left out, but in off-season, it should be stored inside.
Paragraph 8 – for railings and fences. He would require a hole be drilled in the pavement so a post could be inserted for safety purposes.
Sub-paragraph 13 – the general manager should be referred as either the City or the Mayor.
- As far as trash in the dining area and on the sidewalk. He suggested prohibiting a café from blowing trash into the street.
Sub-paragraph 15 - for the issue of who has the authority to approve the use of alcohol. He recommended not leaving this up to any department. He suggested this matter be looked at further.

He said he also had a concern of the lease arrangement for cafes on city owned property. He emphasized that they should require a lease agreement to also protect the city from liability.

Sub-paragraph 18 - he questioned the Zoning Enforcement Officer being the primary perimeter for this process. He reiterated the process should be simplified.
? Mr. Monroe of the Redevelopment Agency approached. He said they recently put out the redevelopment plan and one strategy was to promote outdoor dining in the area and on Wall Street to create a friendly atmosphere. He said he was present to support the idea.

Mr. Poruban asked how much city property could be utilized i.e., where certain establishment s are limited in space. Mr. Monroe said they approved the redevelopment plan and invited proposal from developers to respond. But one developer has submitted a proposal for a land disposition agreement. The plan includes five (5) redevelopment parcels that they will be working with the developers closely on for new development , particularly around the Isaac Street lot. He said he suspected that when new construction was built, to the extent they affront on the public right of way, there would be opportunity to set the buildings back in some instances.

? Diane Jacobsen said her role would be to draft a permit. She questioned the role and responsibility of the Zoning Enforcement Officer and the City Clerk. He asked if both would be involved in the process. Mr. Coffey replied yes. But he stated that could be changed if she felt there was a better way to implement it. Ms. Jacobsen said she thought they should chose one person how would be primarily responsible. She further stated that the City Clerk was outlined in the ordinance to allow outdoor dining and alcohol, but only the city can authorize the permit. But the Zoning Officer would be the person to issue a Cease & Desist. Other logistics wouldn’t fall under zoning, so ultimately, the ordinance allows the opportunity to afford outdoor dining and nay special permit would be coupled with the Zoning Enforcement Inspector. The approval and licensing agreement would be drawn up indicating a fee, specifications etc. to assure that all areas comply.

Mr. Coffey said that normally when agreements are drafted, they notify clients of any cancellations. Ms. Jacobsen said they worked with Risk Management who requires that they give 30-days notice of cancellation. They also need to supply proof of continued insurance and this information is kept on file.

Mr. Poruban asked if the fee should be by the permit or by the square footage. Mr. Alvord said if the café is on private property, a permit should be issued. But if they are dealing with the leasing of city property, then a square footage rate should established.

Mr. Miklave asked why they needed an outdoor café ordinance for cafes on private property . Mr. Poruban responded that currently there are outdoor cafes on private property and they were trying to deal with areas to utilize public property. Mr. Miklave questioned if the ordinance was drafter to apply to all outdoor cafes, regardless of whether they were private or public. He said he wasn’t sure if the ordinance should apply to a wholly private out outdoor facility.

Mr. Poruban said he thought the key component involved the waiver of parking. Mr. Miklave said the other concern had to do with the safety of outdoor dining. And to make the location secure, this would require a private café owner to make alterations to city property. He pointed out that they don’t want for example to have say fifteen holes in city pavement when the season ends, so he would suggest a clause to say that it has to be safe, approved and that any improvements should be at the owner’s cost. Ms. Jacobsen said that would be covered under the permit/lease agreement. Mr. Miklave questioned where the legal authority was to enforce that.

Mr. Miklave continued and stressed that there needs to be consideration whether it’s the actual application that is set forth. He agreed that there needs to be a fee generated that goes to the City of Norwalk, because he felt they were in some way depriving people of Norwalk the use of the sidewalk for a period of time, so there should be a fee to accommodate that. There is also the issue of serving alcohol, so they need insurance protection to protect the city any liability.

Mr. Coffey clarified that the ordinance was only a draft. He further noted the other component they didn’t outline in the draft was for the fee. So he thought there should be more discussion on that subject.

Mr. Miklave questioned the City Clerk’s role of issuing regulations. Ms. Lasberg said that in terms of special events that matter goes through the city. Mr. Miklave further questioned whether the City Clerk had the authority to promulgate (as it was drafted in the ordinance). He felt this issue should be checked. Overall, he said he supported the concept of outdoor dining, but the interests of the city needed to be protected, as well as what’s best and safe for the residents.
Mr. Jack Chiaramonte of New York Pizzeria, Norwalk approached. He said his establishment was located next to the Crown Theatre (he had some pictures to show what happens on a weekend). He explained that the theatre parking lot festers problems every weekend, where people come to hang out. He said they go into his place being disruptive and he constantly has to ask them to leave. He thought that allowing tables and chairs outside would discourage kids from hanging out. He also noted that he and a couple of other business owners in the area would be willing to hire a policeman to maintain order to help the businesses thrive.

Mr. Miklave asked how the owners/restaurateur’s felt about paying a fee. Mr. Chiaramonte said he himself was okay with that as long as it was reasonable. He reemphasized it was important to the extra in to make sure the area stays safe.

Mr. McQuaid asked how much indoor seating he had. Mr. Chiaramonte said he had six (6) tables.

Mr. Coffey said he appreciated everyone’s comments. He stressed that this topic involved a quality of life issue and he noted that more work would be done on the proposal to improve it and to take the comments into consideration.

Mr. Miklave asked when the outdoor dining season began. Mr. Chiaramonte said that the weather dictated that. Mr. Miklave asked if it was possible to have the working draft available for the next meeting before it went to public hearing. Mr. Coffey said he would try to schedule a special meeting then.

Mr. McQuaid commented that having a working committee meeting before a public hearing was beneficial. Mr. Coffey repeated he would schedule a special meeting before the public hearing was held in March. He noted the draft would also be submitted to the Common Council for their comments.

The Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.

c) Loitering

Mr. Coffey said this topic related to the increase in gang activity in the area and drug related loitering. He asked the committee members to review the document contained in their packets.

OLD BUSINESS

Ethics

-No discussion-

ACTION ON BUSINESS ITEMS

a) Stickers for certain residents and property owners

** MR. MIKLAVE MOVED TO PASS THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

** MR. PORUBAN MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT THAT THE STICKER SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERABLE EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE AMENDED
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

** MR. MIKLAVE MOVED TO AMEND THAT AMENDMENT ....but
Mr. Poruban withdrew his motion and…
** MR. PORUBAN MOVED TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT THAT THE RESIDENT PARKING PASS SHOULD BE NON-TRANSFERABLE FROM A NORWALK RESIDENT AND THE PHOTO ID MUST BE ACCOMPANIED. THE FAILURE TO DISPLAY THE ISSUED STICKER AND/OR PASS SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOULSY

** MR. MIKLAVE MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

*IT WAS NOTED THAT THIS MATTER WILL BE PASSED TO THE COMMON COUNCIL FOR THEIR APPROVAL

ADJOURNED

The Chairman moved to adjourn at 9:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Diane Graham
Telesco Secretarial Services

Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page