ATTENDANCE: Michael Coffey, Chairman, Kelly Straniti, Douglas Sutton,
Carvin Hillard, Michael Miklave

STAFF: Attorney Katherine Lasberg.

OTHERS: Frank DiMilio, Norwalk Preservation Trust Treasurer; Tony
Doumlele; Nancy Esposito, Norwalk business owner, Diane
Witkowsky, Marija Bryant, Norwalk Historical Commission;
Marilyn Robinson, Norwalk Historical Commission; Debbie
Mathies, Norwalk Historical Commission, Keil Evans, Norwalk
business owner; Attorney John Lauizos, Curtis, Brinckerhoff &
Barrett, P.C; Victor Paladino, Julie Burton, Tony Savas, Barbara
Pendergrast,, Attorney Frank Zullo, Tierney, Fhaherty Zullo and
Murphy; Timothy Sheehan, Norwalk Redevelopment Agency
Director; Bob Wagman, Alan Raymond, Spring Hill/Norwalk
Hospital Association, Walter Briggs.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Coffey called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m.

1. ROLL CALL

Attorney Lasberg called the roll and stated that there was a quorum. Chairman Coffey then announced that Agenda Item Number Five, The Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) would be considered first.

5. NEW BUSINESS

a) Water Pollution Control Authority ( WPCA)

** MR. COFFEY MOVED TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

2. PUBLIC HEARINGS

a.) Eminent Domain

Chairman Coffey called the public hearing regarding eminent domain to order.

Let it be noted that the following comments and remarks by all speakers have been summarized and are not necessarily verbatim.

The first speaker on the subject was Mr. Paladino, who resides at 7 Muriel Drive. Mr. Paladino introduced himself to the Committee. He then distributed copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) to the members of the Committee. Mr. Paladino commented that the Founding Fathers had the right idea, and indicated that the Fifth Amendment speaks about property seizure. He said that the current Supreme Court was the cause of the problem in regards to the New London, Connecticut decision., Mr. Paladino informed the Committee that most of the people in the room find themselves losing their property at the whim of a developer.

Attorney Louizos from Curtis, Brinckerhoff & Barrett, P.C in Stamford who represents some of the business owners spoke next. Regarding the individual votes, Attorney Louizos pointed out that each parcel is different, with its own individual history. In conclusion, he applauded the Committee for looking at this issue and stated that the local level is the best level for decision making because the Committee are here in Norwalk and know the areas and residents.

Ms. Burton, who lives at 14 Sunwich Road, addressed the Committee next. She stated that she did not believe that the Norwalk Redevelopment should be at the expense of the small business owners and residents. Ms. Burton stated that she was a small business owner but did not have property in the proposed West Avenue Development Area. Ms. Burton pointed out that this issue encompasses the potential loss of livelihood and that some small businesses are not able to be relocated. If the various businesses can not be incorporated into the development plants, Ms. Burton urged the Council to mandate generous relocation settlements that include payment for the pain and suffering that the residents and business owners are experiencing.

Mr. Doumlele introduced himself to the Committee and stated that he supports a super majority proposal and other actions that might be proposed to build a strong, highly convincing case for eminent domain. Recently, the plan moved forward with the properties labeled as “substandard”. Mr. Doumlele stated that the term “substandard” is meaningless when there is no clear definition of what the standards are. He asked how someone could make a case against it if there is no definition of “standard”. There is no way to disprove the term. The Commission needs to seriously consider this term and how it is applied.

Mr. Doumlele distributed copies of a statement titled “Office Vacancy Rates” to the Committee members. Regarding eminent domain, Mr. Doumlele pointed out that at the last Planning Committee meeting had West Avenue on the agenda and Redevelopment stated that Norwalk suffered greatly in comparison to Stamford and presented data to support that position. During this month’s Planning Commission meeting, different numbers were presented along with quotes from a Reed Putnam Feasibility Study, which do not show Norwalk at a disadvantage. He stated that the Redevelopment Agency has informed him that they will provide some clarification on this, but he wished to call the attention of the Committee members to this.

Mr. Sheehan, the Director of the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, spoke next. He stated that he had a question for the Committee members. Under Section 1 of the proposed Eminent Domain Ordinance, the statement that it should be voted by a “full” Council could be more fully explored because he was uncertain as to whether every member of the Council was require to be in attendance or if it was those who were present needed to vote.

Mr. Evans, from 539 West Avenue, and a small business owner, introduced himself to the Committee., He stated that he was upset with the main situation. He pointed out that small business owners have to make a living, and now also have to deal with this situation. He said that he had heard recompensation percentages around 125 - 150%. Currently, Mr. Evans informed the Committee, he has been looking around for property in Norwalk and found the real estate prices to be staggering. Replacing his property would cost over a million and a half dollars. This doesn’t begin to cover the replacement costs. He informed the Committee that he should not be expected to move his business at fair market value and take a financial hit so that a developer can make millions of dollars off the property that Mr. Evans currently owns. It is frustrating to see projected drawings that show buildings on the property that Mr. Evans currently owns. He likened it to the neighbors redoing the Committee Members houses. He stated that he was not against progress, but that replacement value would guarantee that the small business owners would be treated fairly. Mr. Evans pointed out that he had run some financial risk to purchase his property on West Avenue, as did the other neighbors. Now, they are being asked to displace themselves and lose money through the move, but also running a very high risk of moving their businesses and losing their livelihoods. Mr. Evans stated that the business owners who have property in the redevelopment area are not located in a blighted area, they all pay their taxes and their property values have increased 81% over the last few years. Currently, the business owners are succeeding with a cloud of eminent domain over their heads. Mr. Evans asked the Committee to imagine what they could do without that cloud and for the Committee member to put themselves in the business owners shoes. Where would they go and what would they do, Mr. Evans wondered. He concluded by stating that the business owners wish to be treated fairly and honestly. The local business owners would like to be part of the progress, but that hasn’t been a possibility with eminent domain.

Attorney Zullo with Tierney, Fhaherty Zullo and Murphy introduced himself and stated that he was representing Stanley Seigleson. He stated that he also wished to have a point of clarification because he was of the opinion that the public hearing dealt with two matters: the first being an ordinance that every property being acquired by eminent domain through the City of Norwalk or any agency thereof, must be voted individually by a full Common Council. He said that it was his understanding that the word “full” was going to be substituted with the word “the”. Attorney Zullo stated that this would be consistent with the West Avenue amendment that had been debated earlier. This current amendment would set policy for any future project the City might undertake. The second point Attorney Zullo expected to see on the agenda was the issue of a super majority of the full Common Council. Attorney Zullo commented that he wished to say that it was his opinion that when the issue of the super majority is discussed, it should be in regards to the Common Council present at the meeting and not the “full” Council. He then referred to 510 in Mason’s Rules and read the appropriate statute. Currently, Attorney Zullo stated that the current Norwalk Charter does not allow for a super majority and to require this would be to require a Charter change. Requiring the full Council to be present for a vote would give the power to the members who chose not to attend that Council meeting. He stated that he was not aware that just compensation was going to be part of the discussion at the hearing. With the Council having to approve each and every single taking, which includes the price of the property, the Council has the authority to deal with this.

Chairman Coffey commented that the Corporation Counsel’s opinion was in agreement with Attorney Zullo. Mr. Miklave stated that this was the second time that the Corporation Counsel had released an opinion without notifying the members of the Common Council.
Attorney Zullo stated that he had read about this opinion in the paper and called the Corporation Counsel’s office to confirm this.

Ms. Esposito, who has property at 4 Merwin Street, spoke next. She stated that she supports the amendment and the super majority. She encouraged the Committee that if requiring a super majority requires a City Charter change, then so be it. It is a very important issue for those whose properties are involved in the Redevelopment area, and she appreciated the careful consideration that the Committee has given this proposal. She thanked the Committee members for their efforts.

Mr. Savas, who resides at 16 Chapel Street, addressed the Committee next. He stated that he was familiar with the process for requesting a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. There are five members on the ZBA Committee. In order to get a variance, a vote of four out of five is required for approval. If only four members are present, then the vote must be unanimous for approval. The idea of a super majority vote to protect someone’s property would seem to require at least the same standard, not less. Mr. Savas said that the secret is out that Norwalk has been taken over by developers. This is demonstrated by SONO, West Avenue, Wall Street and Route 7. He stated that he hoped someone realized what was happening in the City financially because he did not. Mr. Savas pointed out that condos on Rt. 7 were going for $650-$800 thousand dollars. The one result will be that Norwalk will not have any minorities in these development areas. One hears all kinds of great things about diversity in Norwalk until a developer comes in and takes over property. He stated that he was not against development but he also had some mentally disabled tenants who are not going to continue to live in Norwalk if they lose their apartment. Their rent will triple if a developer comes in and these tenants can’t get better jobs. They need to maintain their economics and have low rent. Mr. Savas wanted to know where these tenants were going to go. If his property is taken over by a developer, Mr. Savas stated that his tenants should get one of the developers apartments for the same rent that they are now paying. This would only be fair.

Ms. Pendergrast, who was a Reed Street property owner, spoke next. She stated that she was a member of the Parent Leader Training Institute. Ms. Pendergrast stated that she wished to comment on the effect of eminent domain on her family. When her home was taken on 3 Reed Street, they were never approached by the developer. The three family home on the property was taken by eminent domain. Each of the apartments had three bedrooms. They were offered $250,000 for their property. It was only after negotiation that they settled for $330,000. Now, half of Ms. Pendergrast’s family lives in New Haven and the other half lives in Bridgeport. Maritime Motors paid 1.7 million dollars for their parcel in the 1980’s. Now in 2000 they only received 1.5 million under an eminent domain settlement. If a developer is interested in a property, a fair price needs to be offered, and taking the property for half the value under eminent domain is wrong. The City is working with the developers, not with the residents. Ms. Pendergrast informed the Committee that when the Reed Street property was taken, she was given a contract from the City that promised her assistance in locating a new place. When the time came to move, they were offered no assistance at all. Consequently, Ms. Pendergrast’s father was forced to let a Section 8 tenant go in order to provide housing for his family. Norwalk needs to consider its residents first, not the developers.

There being no other members of the public who wished to speak on the topic of eminent domain, Chairman Coffey closed the public portion of the hearing on eminent domain at 8:35 p.m.

b. Temporary Demolition Moratorium

Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing on the Temporary Demolition Moratorium at 8:35 p.m.

Ms. Bryant, a member of the Norwalk Historical Commission, introduced herself to the Committee. Ms. Bryant asked for clarification on whether or not the suggested ordinance was reviewed by the legal department. Chairman Coffey said that the legal department had not issued a legal opinion on the ordinance. He commented that it would be sent to Planning and Zoning, or if the legal department changes is changed, there would be another public hearing.

Ms. Bryant thanked the Committee for having another public hearing. She gave a brief overview of the history of the situation and mentioned that the number of demolitions has increased. After looking at the buildings that received 90 day delays and realized that the zoning laws need to change. The buildings that were saved during the 90 day delay required that the developer work to not only save the buildings, but make it profitable. Variances were often needed because the zoning often did not allow the developers to do the things that needed to be done in order to retain the historic buildings. Teardowns have increased and this is happening more and more in our historic neighborhoods. Renewal and growth is good, but not when it destroys the quality of life in the area. This is what prompted the general temporary issued moratorium. This will allow Zoning and Planning to have a chance to evaluate the regulations and provide rules that would make it more appealing to save a structure rather than to tear it down. When too many teardowns happen, it destroys the very thing that makes Norwalk unique and gives it character. The Zoning and the Master Plan are the tools that need to be changed to allow growth and preserve what needs to be preserved. By giving developers incentive to design in such a way that are both profitable and good for the neighborhood. A stop gap measure is needed so that when the zoning regulations are in place and the Master Plan is completed that Norwalk retains its soul.

The ordinance requires that Norwalk identify buildings fifty years or older, which meet the criteria for eligibility individually in the Norwalk Resource Inventory, the State Register of Historic Places or the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Bryant stated that “historic” does not equal the term “grand”. Historic includes the houses on Steward Avenue that were demolished because they showed the character of Norwalk as a working town. “Historic” also does not include any building fifty years or older. There is a process to ensure that non-historic buildings can be demolished. Ms. Bryant stated that the effective date would be nine months after the effective approval date or the updated Master Plan to allow Planning and Zoning time to review and determine appropriate amendments to the Zoning regulations that effect design, density and location and other aspects. This will allow the entire City to plan and catch up with the various mini-plans in different areas. The parts of the City that are vulnerable are the residential neighborhoods. The impact on the major projects that are being dealt with would be very little because of all the reviews and other legal aspects currently required. For individual parcels, there is no public input, which means that to save the individual structures, a hold needs to be place on the status quo and re-examination of the Zoning codes to ensure that the Norwalk retains its character.

Ms. Bryant commented that she was sure that the legal department would be looking at whether or not these issues are allowed by Connecticut State Statutes of the 90 day demolition statutes. She pointed out that in the Urban Home Setting Property, there was an exemption which might apply. This needs to be researched in terms of precedent. Takings do not eliminate the value of the property and maintains the status quo. The owner can still reuse, rehab and expand the property. This moratorium would be temporary and for the purpose of planning. In regards to a development moratorium versus a demolition moratorium, the Historical Commission feels that the demolition moratorium is more comprehensive because it focuses on the older neighborhoods, which are currently besieged with teardowns. Ultimately, Ms. Bryant commented, that this will provide the developers with incentives rather than restrictions to better preserve and develop in neighborhoods. Ms. Bryant then gave a quote from 1981 “The clock is running out for Norwalk to take control of the architectural requirements. What really happened in Stamford was that a few people from out of town made alot of money, but the center of the City lost its soul.” In conclusion, Ms. Bryant distributed copies of an speech given for the National Trust for Historic Preservation titled “Battling Teardowns, Saving Neighborhoods”.

Ms. Robinson, the Chairperson of the Historical Commission spoke next. Ms. Robinson started by reading a short emailed statement into the record from Mr. Jim Del Grecco, President and Mr. Jim Clark, Vice President of to the Golden Hill Association.

“The Golden Hill Association supports the Historical Commission’s 9 month moratorium on the demolition of historic buildings.

“As South Norwalk’s first neighborhood, we have a major concentration of some of the oldest buildings in the city among our 400+ homes and as we have seen, firsthand, the loss of many of our historical architectural structures. Eliminating historic homes in the city takes away from Norwalk’s unique character and personality. The tragedy is that often the proposed and/or constructed new structures are sorry replacements for the stately gems that presently exist.”

“We encourage Norwalk to take a more active role in carefully “reviewing and restricting” applications for the demolition of Norwalk’s residential assets and the destruction of the city’s architectural character.”

Ms. Robinson said that on behalf of the Norwalk Historical Commission acknowledged Ms. Bryant’s strong contribution to this project.

Ms. Robinson then read into the record a statement from the Norwalk Historical Commission as follows: “ A disturbing pattern of demolitions is approaching epidemic proportion in neighborhoods across America, certainly that is the case in Norwalk.”

Ms. Robinson added that in 2005, the Commission had reviewed a total of 55 demotions for the entire year, while in 2006, there have been a total of 45 applications in just six months.

“What is behind this rush to demolish historic houses? It is now labeled as the “teardown trend”, a real estate development practice that is devastating historic buildings and neighborhoods across the nation. The term “teardown” refers to the existing practice of demolishing an existing house to make room way [sic] for a dramatically larger new house or condo complex on the same site. This practice is wreaking havoc in historic neighborhoods, whether they are officially designated historic or are potentially eligible for such designation at the federal, state or local level. The most obvious impact of “teardowns” is the loss of older homes which become “scrape-offs” because they are seen as outdated or too small. Perhaps even more damaging, though are the replacements for these demolished homes: massive out-of-scale new structures that completely ignore the historic character of the existing neighborhood.

“Shoehorning massive homes and/or condo complexes into historic neighborhoods is not a good fit. These nes [sic] structures overshadow neighboring homes and threaten the very qualities that make these neighborhoods so attractive in the first place.

“Incrementally, as the number of teardowns increases, the overall charm of a neighborhood and city/town begins to disappear, replaced by a hodgepodge of boxy new mansions and condos mixed with forlorn older homes. Neighborhood livability is diminished when mature trees and landscaping are removed, backyards are eliminated and sunlight is blocked by towering new structures built up to the property lines.

“Economic and social diversity is reduced when modest, affordable homes are replaced with the structures costing three times as much. these neighborhoods are highly prized for their pedestrian orientation, convenient location near mass transit lines, attrctive [sic] tree line streets, historic residential architecture, public amenities suchas [sic] parks and libraries, local shopping districts and good schools. Many of them are stable and nearly built out, with relatively fewer lots available for newer construction. May of these homes were built in the early 20th Century, when a growing economy allowed large numbers of people to buy private homes for the first time. The homes typically only covered 20 percent of the lot. Finally, any sense of neighborhood continuity and stability is lost when teardowns are a constant threat and speculative developers, rather than the residents control the neighborhood destiny.

“In addition to the negative impact on architecture and the neighborhood character, teardowns can greatly alter the economic and social balance of communities. One of the greatest attributes of older neighborhoods is that they are built in a way that encourages people of different ages, household types, income levels and cultures to live together. “Teardowns” eliminate many housing options, including “starter homes”. These older “starter homes” have now become an endangered species.

“Norwalk must develop a vision for the future and while we are accomplishing that we must put a moratorium on these “teardowns”. Norwalk needs to decide where and how growth and change can be accommodated. Then, mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that this vision is not compromised by speculative teardown developers. Norwalk’s pace of teardowns has already reached a crisis point and it is necessary to provide a “cooling off” period, through a temporary moratorium on teardowns to allow time for Norwalk to develop a concensus [sic] on what to do.

“There are a variety of effective planning and preservation tools to implement the vision and to tame “teardowns”. We need to be able to review proposed demolitions and limit the scale of new construction to reduce the pressure for demolitions/teardowns.

“The Historical Commission recognizes that there is no “magic bullet” that will stop teardowns, but placing a temporary moratorium on demos, perhaps with high penalties for violation, can prevent the loss of significant structures and allow time to develop alternatives to demolition.

“Residents have worked for decades to protect and nurture the slow, incremental revitalization of many historic neighborhoods. Now suddenly they are SEVERELY threatened --not by people leaving the neighborhood, but by newcomers wanting to move in on their own terms.

“The challenge is to manage this new investment so that it respects the character and distinctiveness that made these homes and neighborhoods so valuable and desirable in the first place. [Signed] Marilyn Robinson, Chairperson.”

Ms. Robinson distributed copies of the statement to the Committee.

Ms. Mathies introduced herself to the Committee and stated that she lives at 77 West Rocks Road. Ms. Mathies is a member of the Norwalk Historical Commission. Ms. Mathies submitted a letter from Mrs. Gail Wall, another member of the Historic Commission and Vice President of the Historical Society who was unable to attend the meeting to the Committee.

Ms. Witkowsky, who lives at 79 Truman Street, was the next speaker. Ms. Witkowsky stated that she strongly supports the temporary moratorium on demolitions. She said that her neighborhood had affordable housing, but now that is gone. She questioned the statements from City Hall which claim that the City is looking to build affordable housing since that affordable housing is being demolished on a regular basis. Ms. Witkowsky pointed out that these are homes for families with yards, but tearing them down is creating a transient population. Gaining more livable space in terms of more units per lot size is fine, but the price is beyond what a family could afford. While this may look good in the city’s coffers, the effects on residents is profound. The schools are overcrowded, which was just revealed recently. The City’s infrastructure is not able to keep up with the growth. It is time to stop for a moment and take a closer look.

Ms. Witkowsky then stated that she had a letter written by Gordon F. Tully, RA to Donna Bertoli, the editor of The Hour , which Ms. Witkowsky wished to read into the record for Mr. Tully.

July 13, 2006

The letter in Thursday’s Hour from Megan Callahan Kane expresses feelings held by many Norwalk residents, feeling with which I am very sympathetic. The delay in finalizing a Master Plan is indeed frustrating and visions of Norwalk turning into downtown Stamford must haunt many people. Tear-downs of historic structures, and of small homes to make way for outsize ones are especially threatening.

One important way to become informed and to have your voice heard is to become active in your neighborhood association, which in turn gains leverage through the growing influence of the Coalition of Norwalk Neighborhood Associations (CNNA). Citizens need to be heard, and this is a great way to gain a voice.

Norwalkers know that there is something special about the city, but they aren’t sure exactly how to describe it. The result is a general resistance to change, because change in the past has so often wrecked what is special about the city.

A reality that we all must deal with is that Norwalk is one of the hottest real estate markets in the country. When I first came her ten years ago, all I heard was gloom and doom talk about Norwalk being the “hole in the donut”. But it soon became clear that this was a local myth, and that the developers knew better. Development cannot legally be stopped, but we certainly have the means and the obligation to steer it towards desirable outcomes.

A serious obstacle to thoughtful and creative development is that most citizens (including developers) are not aware of the planning and development options available that control density, ameliorate traffic, increase livability, and prepare our city to thrive in the coming decades where environmental, energy, water, and other crisis will hit us all at once, hard.

To overcome this obstacle, those who know about creative options have an obligation to explain them to citizens in a sympathetic and non-threatening way (listen first, explain second!). Likewise, citizens have an obligation to learn about these creative options, and to choose those that indeed save and improve Norwalk’s character.

We no longer need to wonder if we have the development engine - it’s a V-8 turbo. What we need - and we need them soon - are better brakes, more responsive steering and the judgment to use all three creatively.

The next speaker was Attorney Louizos from Curtis, Brinckerhoff & Barrett, P.C in Stamford, who commented that one of his clients was a survivor of the flood and was still in residence at his location. Attorney Louizos asked that since a legal opinion has already been requested, that counsel also look at this in terms of the eminent domain statutes, also. This is a separate chapter from the earlier discussion and there are many properties in the West Avenue Redevelopment area that are fifty years or older.

A second point, Attorney Louizos brought forward was that in driving around Stamford it is easy to see the zoning mistakes. Another example was the old Penn Station which is gone, but everyone wishes they had it back. Because Penn Station is gone, people are glad that Grand Central is still there. Once something is gone, it can’t be retrieved. He respectfully asked that the buildings in the West Avenue Redevelopment area also be considered in terms of their history.

Ms. Becker came to the podium and read a brief statement from the CNNA. Ms. Becker reviewed the history of the CNNA and their purpose. She listed the various Neighborhood Associations that supported the moratorium as outlined in the statement that she submitted to the Committee. They are the Golden Hill Association, Eastern Norwalk Neighborhood Association (ENNA), West Norwalk Association, Spring Hill/Hospital Association, Rowayton Civic Association, Cranbury, SoNo Alliance, Harbor Shores Association, Shorefront Park, and Silvermine Crossing. CNNA has created a Task Force that not only includes residents, but also developers. Ms. Becker informed the Committee that she and Marija Bryant would be meeting with Mike Greene in the near future to discuss the zoning regulations.

The CNNA statement gave three reasons for supporting the demolition moratorium as proposed by the Historical Commission.

The first reason is Norwalk’s wealth of historical structures are being destroyed because of the high demand and limited housing supply. The second reason is that it is currently easier to demolish a structure than to rehabilitate them. And the final reason is that without a current Master Plan to guide it, the proposals are inconsistent with the neighborhoods for which they are slated.

In order to correct the problem, CNNA respectfully asked for the following things: an enactment of the temporary moratorium to allow the current demolition codes to be strengthened and enforce and to complete the Master Plan. Organize meetings between Planning and Zoning staff, the commissions and the CNNA Zoning Task Force to discuss protecting the various neighborhoods. And finally, the selection of a Master Plan consultant to meet with neighborhood associations, historical, environmental and other groups in order to have a collaborative work. This will allow the Plan to truly represent Norwalk and the needs of its residents.

Ms. Burton who resides at 14 Sunwich Road, identified herself to the Committee and stated that the Rowayton Advocates supports the moratorium.

Mr. Doumlele identified himself to the Committee and stated that he was a Board Member for Norwalk Association of Silvermine Homeowners (NASH) and wished to state NASH’s support of the moratorium.

Mr. Wagman introduced himself to the Committee and stated that he lives in West Norwalk. The Master Plan for developing the City is late, but the City continues to move forward. Mr. Wagman stated that he was not present to restate the history, which is already well known but to suggest a supplementary action to allow the city to continue to move forward in a logical manner while addressing the concerns of the citizens. The moratorium would run parallel to the effort to complete the Master Plan and this will provide some additional, logical control over the manner in which development proceeds.

Mr. Wagman pointed out that there are those who believe the rights of the property owners are sacrosanct and allow the owner to do as he wishes within the law. With rights, Mr. Wagman reminded everyone, comes obligations. This is shown when people shovel sidewalks or mow the grassy strip between the curb and the sidewalk, which they do not own. It actually belongs to the community, but those who take care of these items do so because they respect the community. Now the community is asking why so many houses are being torn down. Questions are being raised with the Planning and Zoning, the Common Council, the Mayor and everyone else about this issue.

Regarding the Master Plan, Mr. Wagman recounted a letter that appeared in The Hour from a Westport resident about the Westport Planning and Zoning Commission. Recently a company called Planimetrics, a professional consulting firm, conducted a meeting about Westport’s need for a Master Plan. Planimetrics has announced that creating a Master Plan for Westport will take 12-18 months. With Norwalk’s plan already some seven years late, an additional year or so does not seem burdensome. And with so much time elapsed, the data is probably out of date. Also, when presentations were made to the Planning Commission by those areas that chose to participate, the response was a mere thank you and there was no further input. Input from every section of Norwalk is important. And dialogue between the various branches of City government and the residents is equally so.

Mr. Wagman concluded by encouraging the Committee to implement the proposed moratorium while a current Master Plan is developed that has input from all the sections of Norwalk.

Mr. Raymond of the Spring Hill/Norwalk Hospital Association introduced himself and state that he concurred with what has been said earlier by the other speakers. The City is dragging its heels. It is time to move the process along.

Mr. Briggs approached the podium, identified himself and stated that he was speaking as a private citizen. Mr. Briggs stated that he personally felt that this would be a good thing if the Common Council and the Committee saw fit to draft an ordinance of this nature.

As there were no addition members of the public who wished to speak, Chairman Coffey closed the public hearing on the temporary demolition moratorium at 9:23 p.m.

RECESS

A recess was declared at 9:23 p.m. The Committee reconvened at 9:50 p.m.

Mr. Sheehan asked if there were questions from the Committee. He thanked Chairman Coffey for providing him with materials on Private Redevelopment. Chairman Coffey responded by thanking Mr. Sheehan for providing the materials on material compensation. Mr. Sheehan stated that the State of Connecticut requires the City to use the fair market value when calculating property compensations where there is the use of State money. He commented that as a community, the City could give a price beyond that. Mr. Sheehan informed the Committee that there have been a number of agreements in the Development Plan area that have been above and beyond what the State was willing to provide. Mr. Sheehan said that the Redevelopment Agency has gone back to the State and asked for consideration for initial compensation to support that. The answer has consistently been no. The additional amounts above and beyond the fair market value have been taken from other aspects of that project. Mr. Sheehan said that the Redevelopment Agency felt that the final price was fair to the owner of the property. The State relocation regulations should be changed because they are grossly outdated and unfair to people that are impacted by eminent domain.

Regarding the question Mr. Doumlele had raised about the office vacancy rate that was issued in the RTG report and what was being stated as retail vacancy rate is different. When the presentation for the West Avenue plan was done with the retail numbers, not the office vacancy rate. Mr. Sheehan stated that it is the Agency’s intention as these questions are being submitted to the Agency, the answers will be posted up on the Redevelopment website so that everyone may have access to the information. Going forward, Mr. Sheehan said that the Agency understands the concerns of the Council. The more dialog that occurs with various issues, the better the end result will be.

Mr. Hillard asked how the fair market value was determined on a parcel. Mr. Sheehan stated that there are multiple appraisals on any given parcel. The Agency is required to have at least two appraisals and the property owner often has one done for himself. Fair market value is often much clearer when there are two appraisals done, and the third one often brings the amount closer to what it should be. In the discussion, it had become clear to the Agency that fair market value is probably not enough for those in the areas of Urban Renewal Areas or the Redevelopment Areas. Mr. Sheehan said that there are those who have concerns with his terminology of “substandard”, but the properties in the project areas have been labeled substandard because of the property evaluations. When property owners move out of an area that is labeled substandard, they are moving out into another area of the community the taxes are much higher. Mr. Sheehan said that the Agency needs to understand that and be aware of that at all times. Unfortunately, this issue conflicts with what the State of Connecticut has set out as guidelines, not to mention the Federal regulations. The Federal regulations are better in terms of relocation but they also are based on fair market value.

Mr. Hillard then asked what would happen if there was a wide variance in the appraisal numbers. Mr. Sheehan replied that it was likely to come down somewhere in the middle of the two appraisals. There needs to be consensus between the Agency and the Council on a variety of issues that have direct economic impact on the project. These need to be clear up front so that the developer understands that and can factor that into the economic equation for the project.

Chairman Coffey has some questions about a current proposed change for the building heights in South Norwalk. Mr. Sheehan quickly assured the Committee that it would not be possible for the existing buildings to add two more stories to their structures if the variance is given to the Norwalk Company project. The height variance is actually a bonus density provision. This would be limited to only two parcels in SoNo, the Norwalk Company parcel and the parcel that formerly housed Amberjacks because of parking requirements. Chairman Coffey had several more questions about the details of this variance, which Mr. Sheehan answered.

Mr. Miklave stated that he hoped that everyone appreciated how difficult these issues were. On one hand there was a proposed ordinance and discussion about under what circumstances the government can take private property, how is it valued and for what reason. In the same meeting, equally passionate individuals are advocating that this is our community and that in order to protect our community, the City needs to stop private property owners from demolishing existing building and replacing them with very large buildings or increasing the density. Mr. Miklave pointed out that we no longer live in a time when there is free space to build. Now the government dictates building codes. It is a difficult balance to strike. The Council and the city government is not unlimited in what restrictions can be placed on demolition delays and related matters. The Council and the Committee are limited in their authority by state statute. Mr. Miklave said he looks forward to the opinion from Corporation Counsel because he finds them incredibly enlightening. He pointed out that when someone comes into the community and acquires property, the City has the right to have input on what the outside of the structure looks like. This will be difficult to work out from both a legal stand point and a policy stand point. Mr. Miklave stated that he thought the Committee had taken the 90 day demolition delay ordinance had been created within the full boundaries of what was allowable by law.

Mr. Hillard stated that the property owners have their rights but that the property owner’s rights affect the rest of the community. He stated that he felt the moratorium would be a way of clarifying these complex issues. The role of government is to protect the rights of the citizens.

Chairman Coffey thanked the members of the public for their attendance and commented that there had been nearly 40 people present. He stated that there would be no action taken on this issue tonight as the Committee wished to wait for a legal opinion from Corporation Counsel.

Mr. Miklave pointed out that this was a special meeting, rather than the regular meeting as was indicated on the copies of the agenda. He then commented that there could be no action taken and also mentioned that nothing could be added to the agenda because it was a special meeting as shown by the fact it was being held on a different date than the regularly scheduled meeting.

Attorney Lasberg commented that this was an obscure point of order. Chairman Coffey reiterated that there would not be any action taken tonight.

** CHAIRMAN COFFEY MOVED TO TABLE THE ISSUE OF A TEMPORARY DEMOLITION MORATORIUM UNTIL THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

3. MINUTES

The following changes were noted:

Page 9, paragraph 3, line one: please change “ Mr. Sheehan was asked by Mr. Hempstead who determines” to “ Mr. Sheehan was asked who determines”

Page 11, paragraph 5, line two : please change “she recommended the two thirds majority.” to “she recommended the two thirds majority of those present.”

** MS. STRANITI MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH FOUR IN FAVOR (SUTTON, STRANITI, HILLARD AND COFFEY) AND ONE ABSTENTION (MIKLAVE).

4. OLD BUSINESS

There was no further old business to discuss.

6. ACTION ON BUSINESS ITEMS

As stated earlier, no action was taken on any items.

7. ADJOURNMENT

** MR. SUTTON MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Sharon L. Soltes
Telesco Secretarial Service