ROLL CALL: Michael Coffey, Chairman; Matthew Miklave, Peter Wien

OTHER(s): Katherine Lasberg, Assistant Corporation Counsel

The Chairman stated that there was no quorum and that another Council member is due to arrive shortly.

CALL TO ORDER

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.

MINUTES

The Chairman stated that the minutes would be discussed next month.

NEW BUSINESS

a) Appeal Procedure for Civil Penalties

The Chairman reported that at the mayor’s request, he wanted to have an appellate process for civil penalties. Norwalk would have a hearing process for citations, with a citation officer. Kate reported that the exact language of the statute # 7 1152 states that it reads as the Chief Executive Officer, so she inserted the Mayor as a proposed change.

Mr. Miklave requested that the packets and agenda be distributed in advance of the meeting in order to be more informed. The Chairman said that there was a time conflict last week with the Mayor, and that was the reason for the information not being in the packet, and stated that this item will be put on for next month.
OLD BUSINESS

a) Outdoor Dining

Regarding the outdoor dining statute, the Chairman said that the proposed amendments have been given over to them, but they have already come up with their own. They appreciate any recommendations. Last month Mike Green, Mr. Monroe, Tom from the Health Department, and Mr. Albert came to the meeting and there was a vigorous discussion about the ordinance. There are some housekeeping issues that still need to be addressed and they need to be done by spring. Mr. Wien has questions regarding sidewalk café.

Mr. Albert reports on revisions from Ann Harris dated the 8th. Even though a Public Hearing was held, the Chairman reports that the Mayor held another meeting on the outdoor dining statute but the City Council was not invited to attend. Mr. Albert reports the following:

“The best way to describe it is 4 departments wanted to distance themselves from this issue and not get stuck with responsibility for it. The general consensus of the functional departments is that work still needs to be done. Insuring that the pertinent areas that the various departments of the city are charged to protect the city in are covered and that those appropriate departments are involved in the process, there was some discussion as to how the permit and application process could be simplified for applicants. People are told that they have to apply for a permit, and that several departments need to sign off on the permit, and this takes an excessive amount of time, especially when the necessary person is not there. The general consensus of the functional departments involved was that there should be a Central position in the City where the primary responsibility for receiving and processing such applications would reside. As a result of this discussion, the general feeling of the departments was that it should be the City Clerk. All the departments would have to participate in this process. Health, Planning & Zoning, Code, DPW, Public Safety would need to sign off on it, but none of these departments have any inherent capability in assessing whether or not approval should be given for selling or serving alcohol, or administering leases, etc. Based on the typical organization of municipal government, the right place to have that reside is the City Clerk’s office. There was a point made fairly clear that there were two places in the city where that responsibility would not reside is the City Clerk and the Law Department. Then discussion followed that DPW will be the department charged with the responsibility for accepting and processing those permits.

The Chairman recognized that Mr. Albert has been a proponent of the streamlining effort for the permit process, and asks how many stops the new process will take. Mr. Albert responds that it would be 6 or 7. The Chairman stated that it would be difficult to have it all in one department.

Mr. Albert states that he doesn’t think that sidewalk dining permit applications would be received in the same volume as other applications. Assuming that the responsibility is assigned to the City Clerk’s office, and it’s advertised that applications would be received on a certain day and time, the applicants would be encouraged to call and make an appointment and apply, the City Clerk could then arrange for the appropriate people in the various departments to be available in one place at that time. This would alleviate the applicant going to all the various departments. Perhaps there would be one appointment per hour (3-4 applications) and the team would spend that time reviewing the applications. If the application meets everything, they would then have their approval. A standard form of the lease agreement would then have to be executed between the City and the applicant, completed by the City Clerk, and reviewed for the alcohol permit in accordance with the ordinance requirements. The Law Department is responsible for reviewing the insurance agreements and would be one of the functional departments involved in that approval. When leasing City property as part of the application, at the point in time when all other requirements are met, the Law Department would then be invited to execute the Lease agreement. The better term for “Lease” is a Special License Agreement. The applicant would then present a certificate of insurance, and a statement from their policy or broker, naming the City as an additional insured, which is now standard process. There was some discussion about licensing fees. The general concurrence was that it should be done on a square foot basis. The property would be measured and square footage would be determined. A retail rate for commercial space or dining space would be applied, but the # of square feet would not necessarily be put on the ordinance, so that the applicant wouldn’t have to go back and change the ordinance if the # of square feet changed. The applicant would then go to the city’s schedule of rates and fees. The Chairman asked Mr. Albert if the time schedule looked favorable for this to be done by the summer? Mr. Albert replied that he thought it would depend on the staffing process. Mr. Albert was not aware if another meeting was scheduled.

b) Loitering

The Chairman stated loitering will be put on for next month. There still has to be a public hearing regarding drug related loitering as a prohibited activity. It’s a quality of life issue. We want to make Norwalk a safer place. The other portion is the new addition of loitering on coastal properties during nighttime hours. The Chairman said he had left a message for Chief Rilling. The Chief likes the proposed loitering statute, and the Chairman has invited Chief Rilling to attend next month’s meeting to discuss.

c) Ethics

The ethics topic will be put on for next month also. No action has been taken yet. It’s still in Hartford now. There are a few proposals that are being worked on and the situation will be monitored. If nothing is done in next two months, we will do our own version of the ethics code.

The Chairman stated it was premature for public hearing. He will invite people from the Zoning Department, Health Department, and Licensing.

The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carolyn Marr
Telesco Secretarial Services

Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page