ATTENDANCE: Michael Coffey, Chairman; Rick McQuaid; Doug Sutton.

STAFF: Peter Nolin, Corporation Counsel.

OTHERS: Michael Greene, Director of Planning & Zoning; Hal Alvord, Director of Public Works; Tim Sheehan, Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency;

ROLL CALL

The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by the Chairman. There was not a quorum present.

OLD BUSINESS

EMINENT DOMAIN

The Chairman said he had made revisions to proposals 1 and 2, which he distributed to committee members, Attorney Nolin and Mr. Sheehan.

Mr. Sheehan provided materials on compensation, which he reviewed. He said that one of the most important components relates to relocation benefits. Steve Mollica will review this information. Mr. Sheehan said that compensation issues are clear within Connecticut State Statutes/ A statement of compensation has to be issued to the court. One to two appraisals are done. Following the issuance of a statement to take property, the home owner is allowed to speak with the agency about the appraisal. The state will not allow a high degree of flexibility re fair market value (appraised value plus 10%). For anything above 10%, the agency or the city would be responsible for payments. The Chairman asked if the city could change the ordinance to allow over 10% and Mr. Sheehan responded if the state funds the taking, state statute will ultimately apply. The Chairman said that the federal government would not fund any eminent domain taking, and Mr. Sheehan said that CDBG is off limits for eminent domain. Clearly they are looking to expand this beyond CDBG.

Discussion took place on two bills currently before the state. Mr. Sheehan said one is before Planning and other before Judiciary. They will affect Norwalk.

Mr. Sheehan said that the Statement of Compensation is filed with the court and can be contested by the property owner. If not contested, the court reviews whether it is acceptable or not. If contested, the court can have a referee come in, and they submit a finding to the court, which can review it and get a new court referee, make their own settlement or accept the advice of the court referee.

The Chairman asked who selects the appraiser. Mr. Sheehan said that would be the Redevelopment Agency. The developer has sometimes had input into this process. The property owner has the right to select their own appraiser. There are still 3 to 4 contested properties in Reed Putnam.

The Chairman asked the issues before the Council within the near future. Mr. Sheehan said that a year ago, the Council approved a slate to be aquired list for 3 years for the Wall Street area, which expires approximately 1-1/2 years from now. This is an issue requiring eminent domain. There is the West Avenue Redevelopment Plan coming forward. They will come back to the Council with a concept development plan and get Council support for a slated to be aquired list. There are also issues with Reed Putnam still pending.

The Chairman said many Council members felt they weren’t totally informed regarding Wall Street. Mr. Sheehan said this had been fully explained; he did not know what else they could have done. The Chairman said it would be good to use plain English instead of Planningese.

Mr. Sheehan said that the developers are sticking their heads in the sand regarding current trends relating to eminent domain. Norwalk needs flexibility to improve their urban centers. The City also needs to grow its tax base. The Chairman asked how scaling Reed Putnam back from office buildings to residential affects the tax base. Mr. Sheehan said there has been no consensus to make any dramatic changes to the plan, and they are looking into the implications. Mr. Greene said they have numbers as to the affect of housing units on the schools. 10% of 470 units have children (47). The average is 3.3 students per housing unit in the City.

The Chairman said that the City has never taken solely for economic development, only for blight. Mr. Sheehan said he would like the State statute incorporated into the language of the City ordinance (taking for other than redevelopment). The Chairman spoke of requiring a super-majority of the Council in issues dealing with eminent domain. Mr. Sheehan said that the Council is the policy-maker. He cautioned that they not set a policy making them non-competitive with other municipalities.

Mr. Mollica highlighted the following issues:

1. Chapter 135, Sec. 266-282 is to provide fair and equitable compensation to people whose properties are being taken.
2. Compensation and relocation costs: paying for another move; prices for business; take fixed payment of $10,000 based on earning. For residents, they are eligible to receive up to $15,000 plus moving costs and up to $4,000 to renters. The statute does not take into account the high cost of living in Fairfield County.
3. Municipalities could receive State reimbursement as compensation if State projects. The City would have to make up the difference between what the State requires and the federal payment. Relocation assistance could be offered to make up for some of the more stringent requirements of the acquisition side. Incentive policies that may go above and beyond what the minimums are on the federal side, which can be crafted in such a way to anticipate a problem that residents might run into in regards to a particular situation or project, as long as it is applied uniformly, and in some instances can go beyond what the federal offers.

Mr. Mollica said he has worked with cities in Massachusetts such as Lowell and Boston where they have had programs incorporating incentives in with use and occupancy agreements. He said they were very effective in a lot of ways and can make up for some of the deficiencies and shortfalls on the acquisition side, especially when dealing with State statutes that are so out of whack. Mr. Coffey asked if any proposed draft laws have been seen. Mr. Mollica said that CCM is recommending that the state begin moving towards the federal standards, and in municipalities, in terms of competitiveness, Stamford is already saying that they want to enforce the federal level and Bridgeport has expressed the same.

CCM is saying that it is a policy initiative on the local level and that local people should be advocating it to get it into the state statutes. Obviously the reimbursements are on the state level so there has to be subsidizing to close the gap. If it were a development project as opposed to an infrastructure project, one could assume that the standard is made on the local level and for development projects, such as housing or offices, that would be the standard that would be utilized. Then the City has the ability to fall back to the state standard for infrastructure projects that need to be funded. He said the idea is not to have a project on one side of the street where people were being displaced, the idea would be to spread it around. Mr. Mollica cited the Uniform Relocation Act, 49cfr24, which is a federal regulation.

Mr. Mollica said it is tricky when people are involved in being relocated from their homes and businesses. It is important to keep in mind that the intent of the law is to be sure that people are being treated fairly and equitably. In response to questioning from Mr. Coffey, Mr. Mollica said that New Hampshire had offered $100,000 for businesses to be relocated. He said they don’t have much economic development but do a lot of transportation development projects.

Mr. Tony Doumlele, a Norwalk resident for more than 20 years, said that he had some prepared remarks regarding eminent domain but wanted to first preface them by stating that he wasn’t aware that compensation was going to be discussed.

Mr. Doumlele said he has looked up the value of properties in the West Avenue area. He used Redevelopment’s published values from 2002 for comparison with 2003 tax assessment values, and found that the properties that were not owned by a preferred developer were valued in the aggregate a little bit less in 2002 than the tax assessor showed in 2003. This made sense, as property values were going up. But in the aggregate, the properties that were owned by a preferred developer at that time were valued several million dollars more in 2002 than the tax assessor valued them in the following year, 2003. He said he could provide Mr. Coffey with his calculations if necessary, and the response he received from Redevelopment. Mr. Coffey said that would be appreciated.

Mr. Doumlele said he was using examples from the West Avenue project because he was familiar with it, not because he was arguing for or against any specific project this evening. He stated that blight was a powerful tool for eminent domain, for two reasons beyond the obvious financial one. First, it is politically powerful. How can a council member oppose something that claims to eliminate blight? And secondly, there is no legal definition of blight, so it can mean anything the city wants it to. How can a property owner or how can any citizen challenge a claim of blight if the proponents can make it mean anything they want it to and make up the rules as they go.

For example, the City of Norwalk said that for several years that West Avenue, including the Acura dealer, was blighted. Now, they have changed their minds. He asked, was this because the City was not aware there was an Acura dealer there, or was it because the dealer presented facts to show that luxury cars were a bad indicator of blight? Or is it simply because the dealer hired an excellent and expensive attorney? What hope is there for people who have equally good facts about a lack of blight but don’t have the resources for equally good representation?

Mr. Doumlele said the first thing Norwalk needs is a definition of blight. He would suggest two components: economics and crime. To establish economic blight, Redevelopment noted at a meeting that retail rents on West Avenue are lower than those in Westport. Mr. Doumlele said that to him, this was not an indicator; it was certainly factual, but it means that essentially every property in Norwalk is blighted. He asked, why stop there, Westport rents are lower than Greenwich. Even a Norwalk-only standard needs to be tougher than average. He was not saying that the West Avenue area is a fine section of Norwalk; he was just noting that by definition, half of the homes in the City are below average.

A similar situation exists for the crime aspects of blight. There have been police calls in the West Avenue area, but no area of Norwalk is crime-free. Until specific, quantified standards are set, any block in the entire City could be labeled blight as a matter of course. Further, those standards must apply to the actual area. The West Avenue plan claims that there is “hard evidence in the form of police reports, for petty crimes, drug use and prostitution in the plan area.” In December, Laurel Lindstrom of the East Norwalk Association requested a copy of that police data; it took six weeks for Redevelopment to provide it, and when it did arrive, one relatively minor error was obvious. Mr. Doumlele said that Ms. Kelly Straniti was at a Planning Committee meeting where he pointed out that there was not one police report of prostitution. He said there was no police data for the plan area at all. The crime statistics that were presented were from what the Norwalk Police Department called “Grid 1000,” which includes the plan area, but is triple the size. Mr. Doumlele said this was not a reasonable estimate; it is a guaranteed exaggeration.

Mr. Doumlele said Redevelopment and the City has spent several million dollars so far in City money and state grants, and this plan asks for $35 million dollars in subsidies, and said for large investments like this one, it is false economy to be content with inaccurate data. He said if the police data had underestimated the crime by a factor of three, the money would have been found to bid on more accurate data. Further, Mr. Doumlele suggested that all data that supports the proposal should be posted on the City’s website on the same day that the proposal is published. He suggested that if this had been done, the shortcomings of the West Avenue plan might have been identified long ago. Crime data should be given in context. He cited some examples before concluding his remarks.

Mr. Coffey stated that Mr. Nolin will review the data on eminent domain discussed this evening and in March or April it will come up for public hearing. They are awaiting Corporation Counsel’s review and then the Council will review it, and then schedule a public hearing for April. Mr. Coffey said that having a super-majority of Council members in attendance for this review would be helpful.

Prior to moving onto the next agenda item, Mr. Coffey addressed the question of the NFCC reporting to the Council, instead of the current procedure of going before Land Use and then to the Council. Mr. McQuaid said the NFCC is having a final say for millions of dollars, although ultimately the Council is responsible for the decisions. He thought that the NFCC ought to come before the Council first as they had done in the past. Mr. Coffey said he feels that the majority of the Council members feel the same way and he will discuss it with the other members. Mr. Coffey asked Mr. Sutton, in his position as chairman of the Land Use Committee, he has the perogative to push things through if necessary. There was some discussion about the NFCC at the Land Use Committee meetings and the length of time it took to review its items at the meetings. Mr. McQuaid suggested that this should also become the policy for the BET and Finance Committee and there was some discussion regarding these procedures.

OUTDOOR DINING

Mr. Greene said that the new regulations have gone over well and were accepted by the restaurant owners and the public. There have been no complaints since they were put into use, not from the restaurant owners or from the public. He said the only difficulty seemed to be the five-foot clearance. Mr. Greene indicated the five-foot-high stick he was holding and said he brought it with him when he went to inspect a restaurant; if they cleared its length then they were within the five-foot clearance. He indicated that certain restaurants such as The Brewhouse didn’t really need the ordinance since their outdoor dining area was on their own property.

Mr. Greene said that some restaurants applied for and received permits but have not yet put any outdoor dining areas into use, such as Shacojazz. He said the only problem he sees is that the ordinance does not address umbrella signs. Mr. Greene described the permit process, stating that the applicants could come in and work through his department and he would get back to them in a week or so, or they could visit each department individually on their own if they chose to do that instead. Each department designated someone who was responsible for signing off. And as the restaurants were interested in getting their permits as quickly as possible, they took the applications and maps and zoning permits and visited each department for their sign-offs, and then came back to his department and they issued the permit.

Mr. Alvord said that Mr. Greene would coordinate with him from time to time about certain issues that would come up, and he’s received nothing but good feedback about the ordinance. He said that as Chairman of the Board of the Maritime Garage Condominium Association, and since Pelican Restaurant was a tenant of the garage, the Association had to come up with a permit plan of their own so they mirrored the City’s plan with the exception of the fee structure.

Mr. Greene said he has told the restaurant owners that if any of them have any concerns about the ordinance they are welcome to come before the Committee and voice their concerns or propose changes.

Mr. Coffey commended the exceptional job Mr. Greene and Mr. Alvord have done on the ordinance, and said the Council did not need an annual report from them on this issue.

NEW BUSINESS

CHAPTER 44, FLEET SERVICES
CHAPTER 90, PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. Coffey asked if there would be a public hearing. Mr. Alvord stated that he anticipated the Committee would consider and discuss the proposed changes. He said that in his department they are reviewing all of the ordinances for which they have responsibility or partial responsibility to ensure that the current ordinances are in sync with the other ordinances and with the way things are being done in the City today.

Mr. Alvord indicated that proposed changes before the Committee today are Chapter 90, which outlines the Department of Public Works. He said the current ordinance does not align with other ordinances such as the Water Pollution Control Authority or the Parking Authority, and the Department’s responsibility to the Traffic Authority and providing staff to all these things. It does not include Fleet Services, which has been a part of the Dept. of Public Works for a number of years. The proposal is to update Chapter 90 to incorporate these responsibilities and to eliminate Chapter 44, “Dept. of Fleet Services” which does not exist. A brief discussion followed.

Mr. Alvord commented on the Water Pollution Control Authority’s five-year plan and said it was a smooth operation. He said they were developing a collection master plan. The Parking Authority is continuing to be a problem and they have to act on the rate adjustments that were presented in the public hearing in January. He said he has proposed some desirable revisions.

Mr. Coffey asked if there were any Council members on the Parking Authority and Mr. Alvord said there were not. He said the Parking Authority was made up of Norwalk residents who were not connected to any particular committee or commission. Mr. McQuaid suggested that this is why things are the way they are at the moment. Mr. Coffey asked Mr. Alvord if he thought that having a Council member on the Authority would help the situation. Mr. Alvord said there should be elected officials on the Authority. A brief discussion followed.

ACTION ON BUSINESS ITEMS

There was no action on this item.

ADJOURNMENT

** MR. McQUAID MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Linda J. Hayes
Telesco Secretarial Services

Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page