 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
ORDINANCE
COMMITTEE MINUTES
|
|
Click here for minutes from June 21, 2005 Click here for minutes from August 16, 2005 Click here for minutes from Sept. 20, 2005 |
Any request for minutes that are not available on
the website may be made directly to the
Law Department at 203-854-7750 |
CITY OF NORWALK
ORDINANCE COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 18, 2005
ATTENDANCE: Michael Coffey, Chairman; Doug Sutton; Peter Wien; Bill Krummel; Kevin Poruban; Rick McQuaid
STAFF: Kathryn Lasberg, Attorney
OTHER: Hal Alvord, Director DPW; Michael Greene, Director Planning & Zoning
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Coffey called the meeting to order at 7:44 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Coffey opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. He asked Mr. Alvord to speak on the following two ordinances.
b) Chapter 94 – Solid Waste, Collection and Disposal of
Mr. Alvord said there was only one significant issue that they were trying to resolve with the current ordinance. They proposed eliminating any reference to the Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority, or the Bridgeport Burn Facility. The City’s contract with CRA expires at the end of 2008. He is not recommending the renewal of the CRA Contract.
The other significant item requires solid containers for garbage. They have had problems with bags being left on the curb the night before the scheduled pick-up. Animals would open the bags resulting in loose garbage being left on the street. The Mayor’s Anti-Litter Task Force recommends this proposed revision, and suggested the addition of a few words. Mr. Alvord confirmed that the wording requires a rigid container with an airtight lid.
c) Chapter 95A – Littering
Mr. Alvord said 95A is currently an existing ordinance called Littering. There were two parts to the ordinance. The Mayor initiated his Anti-Litter Task Force about a year ago. The two things that didn’t exist in the Littering Ordinance was any prohibition on illegal dumping. There was only a State statute regarding illegal dumping. They are proposing adding illegal dumping to the Littering Ordinance. There wasn’t any prohibition regarding the manner in which handbills are distributed. There is a significant litter problem as a result of handbills in the City, particularly the at Haviland Deck at the Webster Street parking lot. Mr. Alvord said adding these two revisions to the Littering Ordinance should make a difference. One of the challenges is having enough staffing to enforce the ordinances. The revisions should make it easier to identify the person who violated the ordinance. Mr. Alvord said that the Mayor’s Anti-Litter Task Force recommends the revisions, and suggests that they be passed on to the Common Council, with the recommendation of some additional words that had been provided.
Ms. Lauricella said she was in support of both revisions to the litter regulations. She said she was pleased that this was strengthened, as it is an issue that touches on public health, economic development, government, neighborhood, and long term urban planning. She suggested that a marketing plan and a public education and outreach plan be initiated. The League of Women Voters feels it’s important that one of their members be on the Mayor’s Anti-Litter Task Force.
Chairman Coffey closed the public hearing on the two ordinance amendments at 7:56 p.m.
Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing on the NHPPO at 7:58 p.m.
a) Norwalk Homeowner and Property Protection Ordinance (NHPPO) (Ban of Eminent Domain for Economic Development)
Chairman Coffey then read a letter submitted by Mr. Robert Ward, the House Minority Leader of the State General Assembly.
The following 25 people signed up to speak at the Public Hearing regarding
the NHPPO. The majority of them are residents and/or business owners in Norwalk.
Some of the people had been affected by eminent domain already. Most of the
people hadn’t been offered fair compensation for their property, and they would
not be able to relocate their business or find another home with the money that
was offered.
Mr. Harding Dies,a resident of Norwalk for 27 years. He is a financial planner
and said that without the new ordinance, real estate is a zero investment.
Mr. Ricardo Bermudez, a resident of Norwalk for 35 years. He received $320,000 for his property when he was forced out in 2002 with the Reed Putnam development.
Mr. John Loiuzos, Esq., representing two property owners. He applauded the Ordinance Committee for taking up this topic.
Mr. Louis Guarnieri, a property owner in South Norwalk, said he feels the same way as the people who have already spoken.
Mr. Victor Paladino, distributed a copy of the Bill of Rights to the Committee.
Mr. Walter Briggs, Chairman of the Planning Commission, submitted his letter to the Committee. He said that eminent domain is an important tool that has been used by the City to eliminate blighted areas, which are needed for redevelopment. The City has been exceedingly careful in its use. All of the City’s redevelopment plans stem from comprehensive studies and are approved by the Planning Commission and the Common Council.
Mr. Thomas Daniel, felt that the Mayor and the public officials should go on record to make their positions known.
Mr. Edward Musante, Jr, President of the Greater Norwalk Chamber of Commerce, thanked Chairman Coffey. He said that there would be no Maritime Aquarium, or SoNo revitalization, Baltimore inner-harbor development, or Faneuil Hall, without eminent domain. Norwalk has always used the power judiciously. He urged the members of the Committee to not enact the NHPPO until the Connecticut General Assembly acts in their next session.
Mr. Otto De Pierne, congratulated them for taking up a difficult and controversial issue. He was not compensated fairly when asked to leave the Belden House. They gave them 30 days to leave.
Mr. Florinda Trofa, a business owner in South Norwalk, had his wife read a
letter that they wrote to Gov. Jodi Rell. He feels he
should be compensated for his property and business.
Mr. Alan Smith, resident of South Norwalk and a Norwalk native. He feels people deserve some sort of protection.
Mr. Robert Wagman, a longtime resident of Norwalk, spoke of different areas in the country and how they handled eminent domain. He quoted the Hartford Courant as saying (in part) Connecticut has the most sweeping law in the country regarding eminent domain.
Michael Sciaudone, is now part of Parcel 2A that the City is trying to take. His family has had a small business since 1928, and it was relocated to Leonard Street in 1955 after the flood, after the City took the land. There are members of the redevelopment committee that don’t live in Norwalk or know of the history.
Mr. Terry Page, business owner on Leonard Street since 1988. His business had been labeled part of the eminent domain 1 ½ years ago. He didn’t know what kind of offers were made on the property. Buildings have been taken on West Avenue, and now there’s an empty lot there.
Ms. Gail Wall, resident of Norwalk for 12 years, applauded the committee for taking on the ordinance. She is in total support of the ordinance. She would ask them to look at the abuse and the case in New London.
Mr. Tod Bryant, a resident for 20 years, is part of the Wall Street study, and he stands by it. The biggest issue here is compensation.
Mr. Peter Morley, a co-owner of Maritime Motors, has owned the property since 1984 and has owned the business since 1994. It’s been an active Chevrolet dealer since 1914. It’s the second oldest dealer in CT. He is fighting to keep the business and his employees. He stopped counting his legal fees after $700,000.
The Fred French Company came in and offered large amounts of money, and they are proposing an office building. They have developed only one building in Lebanon, NH.
Mr. Bill Wrenn, a former member and Chairman of this Council, said he supports the ordinance. He said the City Council in New London has already fired their Redevelopment Agency regarding the eminent domain situation there.
Ms. Emily Anne Kurnlein feels that the brakes need to be put on this movement of private development. She applauds the Committee for taking this up close to the Election.
Ms. Terry Tylo said the mess is eminent domain that was created after the 1955 flood and has been fed by cronyism, corruption.
Mr. Keal Evans, owner of a car service on West Avenue, said the blighted property owners are not willing to put money into their property and business because of fear that the government will take the property. A portion of West Avenue is without streetlights, giving it the appearance of neglect. He applauds the Commission.
Mr. Chris Jarba said that the hard part is arguing against the personal stories.
Ms. Diane Lauricella, a long-time resident of Norwalk, said the ordinance needs to be read correctly. The definition of blighted needs to be clarified. She would want to see more language worded correctly.
Mr. Bill Kraus said he won’t take an exact position on this. He feels there should be full disclosure, and he urged the Committee to be very creative and use full public participation.
Ms. Nancy Esposito operated her family business for 25 years on Myrtle Street. You can be in favor of the private development and not eminent domain. The private developers should have to work harder at compensation.
Chairman Coffey closed the public hearing at 9:40 p.m., and asked for a 5 minute recess.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Coffey called the meeting to order at 9:56 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Coffey read the roll call, and he said there is a quorum.
MINUTES
** MR. SUTTON MOVED THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2005.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
OLD BUSINESS
No discussion.
NEW BUSINESS
a) Chapter 55 – Demolition Delay
Mr. Greene said the intent of the demolition delay is to bring the information into public view, and to the Historic Commission for their decision on a timeframe. He said the demolition permits go to the Planning Department to be filed for the record.
b) Chapter 71 – Nuisances
No discussion.
c) Chapter 97 – Excavating and Filling of Land
Mr. Greene said there are 5 or 6 properties on Stuart Avenue, and the way the ordinance is written, it is 50 cubic yards per property. They are clearly not in violation.
d) Demolition by Neglect
No discussion.
ACTION ON BUSINESS ITEMS
b) Chapter 94, - Solid Waste, Collection and Disposal of
c) Chapter 95A – Littering
Chairman Coffey said it is the Chairman’s position to say that Chapters 94 and 95A are addressing well needed quality of life issues by not needing to use so much manpower to clean up trash. It would help prevent the spread of diseases, attraction of rodents, and increase safety. He congratulated Mr. Alvord and Mr. Poruban.
** MR. PORUBAN MOVED BOTH CHAPTER 94, SOLID WASTE, COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
OF, AND CHAPTER 95A, LITTERING, FORWARD TO THE COMMON COUNCIL.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Coffey handed out proposed revisions to Chapter 94 and Chapter 95A.
The revision to Chapter 94 is a minor, technical revision that requires homeowners
to use tightened, covered cans or rigid containers and not place garbage out
in plastic bags.
** MR. PORUBAN MOVED TO ADD REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 94.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. PORUBAN MOVED TO FORWARD THE REVISED CHAPTER 94 TO COMMON COUNCIL.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Coffey said the revisions to Chapter 95A include litter thrown from a vehicle or an aircraft.
** MR. PORUBAN MOVED TO ADD REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 95A.
Mr. Poruban referred to the area highlighted in blue regarding a violation fee of $99.00. Mr. Alvord explained that the revisions were drafted a year ago, and in a quick review of the State statute, the $99.00 can now go up to $199.00. That would be an option if the Committee and the Common Council decided to adopt it.
Mr. Poruban asked about the $10,000 fine. Mr. Alvord explained that the State statute now says it is a violation of $1,000-$10,000. When it was drafted a year ago, the limit was $1,000. The violation would be initiated by the City, and if and when it is collected, 50% of that fee would go to the State.
** MR. PORUBAN MOVED TO REVISE THE FEES TO REFLECT THE CURRENT MAXIMUM FINE
OF $199.00 FOR SECTION 95A-20 AND $10,000.00 FOR SECTION 95A-20B.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. PORUBAN MOVED TO FORWARD THE REVISED CHAPTER 95A TO COMMON COUNCIL.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
a) Norwalk Homeowner and Property Protection Ordinance (NHPPO) (Ban of Eminent Domain for Economic Development)
Chairman Coffey said he received a letter on September 19, 2005 from Mr. Tim Sheehan, Executive Director of the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, and he read the letter into the record:
“I thank you for the opportunity to speak before the Ordinance Committee of the Common Council on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 regarding the proposed Eminent Domain Ordinance that you have filed. I have however been advised by Agency Special Council, Attorney Jonathan Bowman, to decline offering any public comment on the proposed ordinance before the Committee while the Maritime Motor’s case remains in litigation.
I ask that you allow this statement as well as Attorney Bowman’s attached e-mail be filed into the public record of the Ordinance Committee Meeting.”
Chairman Coffey said that Mr. Sheehan had appeared before the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly on October 6, 2005 to speak on eminent domain. He reminded the Council Members that they have the right to subpoena power.
Mr. McQuaid said Mr. Sheehan was advised not to come to the meeting, but said that Mr. Sheehan asked that his letter be entered into public record. Mr. McQuaid asked that part of the October 6, 2005 testimony be submitted.
** MR. MCQUAID MOVED TO DISCUSS THE OCTOBER 6, 2005 TESTIMONY OF MR. SHEEHAN.
** MOTION PASSED WITH THREE (3) VOTES IN FAVOR (WIEN, KRUMMEL, MCQUAID) AND
TWO (2) ABSTENTIONS (SUTTON & PORUBAN).
Mr. Poruban said that he thought Mr. Sheehan was testifying on what was done in Norwalk. He asked Chairman Coffey if he had requested Mr. Sheehan to present on what was done by the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Coffey said that he had asked Mr. Sheehan to speak as the Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Coffey said that he had received the decline to his request the day of the meeting, about an hour before the start of the meeting.
** CHAIRMAN COFFEY MOVED TO ACCEPT THE TESTIMONY AS SUBMITTED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Some discussion followed regarding the eminent domain issue. Mr. Poruban said he would not be able to vote on this as he felt they did not have enough background information. He said he wanted to vote on the facts. Chairman Coffey said that they have done due diligence on this.
** CHAIRMAN COFFEY MOVED TO SEND THE NHPPO (BAN OF ECONOMIC DOMAIN FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT) TO COMMON COUNCIL.
** MOTION PASSED WITH FOUR VOTES IN FAVOR (WIEN, KRUMMEL, MCQUAID, SUTTON) AND
ONE OPPOSED (PORUBAN).
** MR. WIEN MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Marr
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |