ATTENDANCE: Matt Miklave; Doug Sutton; Kelly Straniti; Carvin Hilliard; Mike Coffey (8:00 p.m.)

STAFF: Katherine Lasberg

OTHER: Tim Sheehan, Redevelopment Agency; Bob Keyes; Mike Greene, Planning & Zoning;
Walter Briggs

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Miklave said he would be the acting chair. He called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m, and said there wasn’t a quorum. There weren’t any action items on the agenda. He then invited members of the audience to address the committee.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mr. Tony Doumlele said he spoke to the committee last month on eminent domain and blight, and how they are used and, in his opinion, abused with respect to the West Avenue project. He provided an update. The redevelopment agency asked the Coalition of Norwalk Neighborhood Associations (CNNA) to support the West Avenue plan. Knowing how concerned Norwalk residents are about the use of eminent domain for private purposes, the agency told the coalition in an e-mail that the West Avenue plan “does not put forward the use of eminent domain at all.” Unfortunately, he doesn’t think everyone in the coalition believes that statement. He said he had three reasons why he thinks eminent domain is a crucial part of the plan.

1. Dozens of properties have to be acquired. At every public meeting, there have been property owners that said they don’t want to move. Eminent domain is the only weapon that can be used to close that gap.
2. Redevelopment loses no opportunity to say that the area is blighted. The only reason to say that is to make the taking of private property for private use politically powerful.
3. When the head of redevelopment spoke to this committee last month, he didn’t say that West Avenue did not put forward the use of eminent domain at all.

He is concerned that a city agency would say something that is so misleading. He said that redevelopment would probably justify their statement by compartmentalizing the process so that in a very narrow sense it appears true. If city officials can make the process so complex and so opaque that untrue statements can be justified, than the deck is stacked too heavily in favor of eminent domain. Serious changes, not window dressing, are needed.

Ms. Marija Bryant from the Historical Commission wanted to give some background on the demolition moratorium. The reason that they passed the resolution in the fall was because they were seeing a lot of demolitions going past their review even with a 90-day delay. There seemed to be a dilemma with the current zoning and the lack of a master plan which left them wide open for development and demolition that was not in the best interest of the neighborhood. They decided to put a freeze on the demolition of historic properties or properties that could be determined to be historic. She said the moratorium would be temporary and limited in scope. The purpose would be to take a look at the zoning to better encourage developers to consider the re-use and re-facilitation of historic houses instead of demolitions. They formed a committee and did considerable research on other demolition moratoriums, development moratoriums, and zoning issues. They found the research encouraging, because other cities have instituted various moratoriums that have held up in court as not constituting the taking of property. She said the most significant case is the Supreme Court case of Tahoe vs. Sierra, which determined that since it was limited it did not detract from the value of the property.

Mr. Danny Grundman, a Norwalk resident and a member of the Coalition of Norwalk Neighborhood Associations (CNNA), said that CNNA does not oppose the West Avenue redevelopment. He said they do oppose the use of eminent domain to acquire private property for private use. He said CNNA would prefer to see any of the properties that are needed for redevelopment of West Avenue be acquired through a free market process. He said that is the CNNA’s position on eminent domain.

Mr. Coffey arrived at 8:00 p.m., and read the roll call.

MINUTES

OLD BUSINESS

a) Eminent Domain

Mr. Coffey said that he is still waiting to receive the transcripts from Hartford. He wanted to see what they were doing in Hartford, as there are three competing proposals against those ordinances.

He apologized for missing the development/over-development issue that residents spoke about during the public comment portion of the meeting. He said there seemed to be confusion about who has what responsibility, what is currently being undertaken, and what can or cannot be done. He said he had invited Mr. Greene, Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Briggs to attend the meeting. He asked Mr. Greene some questions that he had received from some residents, specifically, what moratoriums can be done, what is the status of density issues, are they considering upzoning, what can be done about spot zoning, and should they raise the bar or change the bar. Mr. Greene said that they never had spot zoning in Norwalk, as it is illegal. Regarding rezoning, he said that back in the last plan development, some up and down changes went on in zoning. Many zoning changes have gone on in the city, and some have increased the development potential while others have decreased the development potential. He said that there has not been much discussion on density, because they are discussing affordable housing. One way to do away with affordable housing is to decrease density. One way to get rid of sprawl is to increase residential density. Norwalk has high density near mass transit, the transportation corridors, Route 1 and Route 7. As you get farther away from the main corridors, the density becomes less. That reflects the original zoning that has been in place since 1929.

Mr. Coffey asked what studies have been done to date regarding the number of students that are generated by condominiums. Mr. Greene said they surveyed over 4700 condominium units, gave the list to the Board of Education, and asked them how many students were in the condominiums. There were .07 students per unit. If you break that down for affordable housing, it is .05 students per unit. He said the change zones occurred in 1991. Mr. Coffey asked what studies have been done to show the impact the units have on the infrastructure. Mr. Briggs replied that there have been many studies done, namely South Norwalk, Westport Avenue and Main Avenue, Mid-Harbor Study, and the Industrial Committee’s study on industrial property uses. That was done within the purview of the Planning Commission. They will have the information once the plans are together. He said that the timeframe for their portion of the Master Plan is July. From there it has to go to SWRPA for 65 days for their review before public hearings can be held on it. He said all considerations of all the neighborhood association studies will be inputted into the Master Plan. Mr. Greene said that moratoriums on development are within the Zoning Commission, and all demolition moratoriums are with the Ordinance Committee. Mr. Briggs said that in the B Zone, C Zone and D Zone and in Zone A AA and better, they have limited the height of residences to a maximum of 40 feet from the mean of the road. This is not only restricted to Rowayton. The resolution that is now before Zoning is a result of the neighborhood association discussions, and it states that based on the size of the lot, if it gets bigger than 66,250 sq ft, the amount of sq footage that the house can take of the lot shrinks. He said there is no change in the lot coverage for West Norwalk, but they have changed the height restriction of the house to 40 feet. Previously there was no maximum height to the peak of the roof. The Planning Commission felt that the issue was so important that they didn’t wait to wait for the Plan. They took it out of the Plan to send to the Zoning Commission. Mr. Greene said he was in attendance the evening of the public hearing, and the response from the majority of the residents was overwhelmingly supportive.

NEW BUSINESS

a) Demolition Moratorium

Mr. Greene said he had two important things to mention on demolition. The first is under affordability, and it relates to a town north of Chicago. Part of their plan is to put a $10,000 tax on residential demolition. They use that $10,000 towards building affordable subsidized housing elsewhere. Without a moratorium, it puts a damper on demolition. His second point is regarding demolition by neglect. People were buying historic properties and then applying for demolition permits. The blight ordinance for the town of Fairfield taxes the property before that happens.

Mr. Coffey asked about the status of Norden Place. Mr. Briggs said that the Planning Commission approved the Industrial Committee’s report, which basically said that it doesn’t take away the industrial zone, but allows them to put housing in with a “B” zone density for the property. Mr. Greene clarified for Mr. Coffey that the density for the “B” zone is 1 use for every 5,000 square feet.

b) Property Development/Overdevelopment

Mr. Coffey asked Mr. Sheehan his thoughts on the topics of property development/overdevelopment. Mr. Sheehan said that from a zoning perspective, the way the Redevelopment Agency interacts with the Zoning Commission, the Redevelopment Agency makes recommendations within the urban renewal plans with regards to developing. They don’t infer that the Zoning Commission is going to change any zones. That is a process that is separate from the Redevelopment Agency and is within the purview of the Zoning Commission. He said the redevelopment agency is undertaking a variety of studies. One is on the impact associated with the redevelopment projects and the multi-family housing that they currently have on paper coming into the community, which is approximately 2500 units. ZHA, a national consulting firm in Annapolis, MD, has indicated that the actual costs would be calculated at approximately 229 students, who would be new coming into the system. That would be 9.1 per every 100 multi-family units coming into the community. That would reflect a 2% increase in the educational budget.

Mr. Coffey asked about the plan for Washington Street. Mr. Sheehan said they are updating the plan that is 25 years old. It is the Washington Street Improvement Plan, Phase 2. It is not a new plan, but amendments to an existing plan to catch up to the formalities that have changed within that plan over time. One of the major changes is that they are taking out a former Norwalk Company as a zoned industrial site. He said the ice hockey rink won’t be incorporated into the plan. A more suitable site for the rink would be by the railroad station. The only issue relative to a development within that amendment is on the Norwalk Company itself, which is a recommendation for Zoning to allow for an increase in the height associated with that site to accommodate the preservation of the historic façade of the building and allow off-street parking. It would be mixed use, with residential units above and retail on the ground floor. Mr. Sheehan said they expect to have all of the studies completed by mid-April. The two most pressing ones are the retail study and the residential market study. Mr. Sheehan provided some early analysis, and said that the multi-family housing market appears very strong. The retail market analysis showed some pockets of concern. The office market, during a recent update about 90 days ago, showed that it would be aggressive for Norwalk to be advancing ½ million sq ft of office into the current real estate environment. That ½ million of sq ft would represent a 10-year supply.

Mr. Al Raymond said the 1980-2005 study was inconclusive. He works in a condominium complex with 119 units, and there are 29 children in the complex. Mr. Greene said that particular condominium complex did not require approval by the Zoning Commission. He said the Zoning Commission didn’t require approval of 12 or more condominiums until 1978. Mr. Raymond said that it is important for the moratorium so that they can study things before they move forward. He is in support of the demolition moratorium.

Mr. Danny Grundman asked why the Board of Education couldn’t provide the 20 addresses that have the most students. Mr. Coffey said that the Board of Education did provide most of the statistics.

Ms. Marija Bryant wanted to be sure that everyone is clear about the request for the demolition moratorium. It is not an end in and of itself, it is simply a tool. She said that the handouts Mr. Greene provided had great ideas for improving the current demolition ordinance. She hopes that the Master Plan will have information regarding neighborhood conservation zones and neighborhood preservation zones so that Zoning can enact the ordinances. The reason they are asking for the demolition moratorium is so that by the time this gets enacted, they still have something to preserve. The easy route for the developer is to tear down and rebuild as of right. The hard route for the developer is to preserve and build more within the neighborhood character that may require multiple variances and a trip to ZBA. Zoning does not support that kind of development.

ACTION ON BUSINESS ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT

** MR. HILLIARD MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carolyn Marr
Telesco Secretarial Services