 |  |  |
| | |
|
ORDINANCE
COMMITTEE MINUTES
|
Any request for minutes prior to August 15, 2006
may be made directly to the Law Department
203-854-7750 |
CITY OF NORWALK
ORDINANCE COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
ATTENDANCE: Michael Coffey, Chairman; Doug Sutton; Rick McQuaid; Kelly Straniti;
Carvin Hilliard.
STAFF: Linda Gulliuzza, Assistant Corporation Counsel.
ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 8:15 p.m. by the Chairman.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES
JUNE 19, 2007
** MRS. STRANITI MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
JULY 23, 2007
** MR. MCQUAID MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
AUGUST 8, 2007
** MR. SUTTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED.
** MOTION PASSED WITH ONE ABSTENTION (STRANITI).
OLD BUSINESS
DEMOLITION DELAY ORDINANCE
The Chairman said it is imperative that the Council does what it can to preserve their history. There are problems in certain areas with demolition. The State recently passed a statute which authorizes the increase from 90 days to 180 days for the demolition delay. The Chairman said he felt that this committee should look at that change; he favors 180 days. He distributed copies of an ordinance from Monroe which takes a different approach and said that, in addition, if they keep the current statute as is in Norwalk, it should be increased to 180 days for a demolition delay and require a public hearing rather than saying “may hold” a public hearing.
Tod Bryant, 23 Morgan Avenue, President of the Norwalk Preservation Trust, thanked the committee for looking at this ordinance and for their commitment to preservation. In reference to the Monroe ordinance, he said that Norwalk’s ordinance works very well but could use two modifications:
1) A 180 day demolition delay
2) Increase penalties for violations
Mr. Bryant said that the Monroe ordinance calls for a penalty of $1,000 or a percentage of the existing value of the property. There are penalties used in Massachusetts, such as the rejection of permits for five years and actions on the State level to define “demolition”. Another problem to be addressed is that of leaving buildings open and calling that remediation.
Gail Wall said she agreed with Mr. Bryant and also noted that the State recently overwhelmingly, and unanimously, passed the 180 day delay. There is a concern about saving the character of their town and wanting more discussion before losing their buildings. Many of the difficulties regarding demolition with a permit happen because when people come in to file for demolition, they believe they have received permission, which is not true. There should be more transparency on the application. They also need to speak to the principals of these LLCs. She would also like to see where, if someone razes the property, there would be a 2-5 year ban on any building on that property. That was the only thing that would stop that practice. Also, if they are going to lose a building, there should be an approved building plan in place. If there is an objection to demolition and the building is vacant, the property should be completely secured and utilities left on and the fire department should not conduct any exercises in the building.
Jackie Lightfield, 21 Ann Street, Zoning Commission, spoke about 12 East Avenue. She said that the application came before the Zoning Commission, which was given a plan to preserve the façade and told they would receive the necessary sign-offs. The building was then torn down. Mr. Greene told her there was no recourse for the City to penalize the company that razed the property. She researched various demolition ordinances throughout the State, one of which was Monroe’s, which contains a penalty and is a strong statement. Norwalk’s ordinance also needs to provide greater communication throughout the City. The Monroe ordinance does a better job than Norwalk’s current ordinance. P&Z does not have the purview of demolition. It normally notices the Historical Commission and the Historical Society. The Monroe permit codifies the information that the applicant has to provide. The Monroe ordinance is also easy to read. In addition, she said that 50 years is not as important as architectural reasons or other criteria.
The Chairman asked if an ordinance could say “determined to be historically significant” rather than “50 years”. Mr. Bryant said that could be done. Having a public hearing is where this would come out. Public participation is key. He said that the Historical Commission and the Preservation Trust should be on the notification list. Ms. Lightfield said that the public hearing process is important. There needs to be a more automatic way to determine if a property should be reviewed, based on certain criteria.
The Chairman asked what percentage are going to public hearings, and Mr. Bryant responded that it is 5 to 15% at most. Ms. Wall said it one point, the Historical Commission was working closely on applications to demolish. Most owners allowed them to evaluate the properties. However, they have recently been told that this does not fall within their parameters.
The Chairman said that the permit cost has stayed at $250 for many years and asked what it should be increased to. Ms. Wall said this permit should be much more. There should also be a stiffer fine for a renegade developer. Ms. Lightfield said that the Zoning Commission raised all of their fees 2-1/2 years ago.
Regarding 124 East Avenue, Mr. Bryant said that developer had a legal demolition permit. He made a deal with the Preservation Trust, the Zoning Commission and the building department. He violated the zoning process, for which there is no penalty. Ms. Lightfield disagreed, saying that the developer had no violated anything technically until he starts building. The demolition permit should have specified what he was going to demolish, which the Monroe ordinance does. Ms. Wall said other communities have a demolition inspector in their building department. Ms. Lightfield said having a penalty for enforcing the permit should make sure things go the way they should.
The Chairman said there should be a public hearing next month, after which they can tweak the ordinance. Mr. McQuaid said he favored the Monroe ordinance. It was noted that Corporation Counsel should put the Monroe and the Norwalk ordinances together.
** MR. COFFEY MOVED THAT A PUBLIC HEARING TAKE PLACE AT NEXT MONTH’S MEETING
AND THAT IT TAKE PLACE AT MILL HILL.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. COFFEY MOVED TO INCREASE THE TIME FRAME TO 180 DAYS.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. COFFEY MOVED TO INCREASE THE PERMIT APPLICATION FEE TO $1,000, OR 1%
OF THE ASSESSED VALUE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. COFFEY MOVED THAT THE FINE BE AN AMOUNT AT THE GREATEST EXTENT OF THE
LAW, AS DETERMINED BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. COFFEY MOVED TO CHANGE “MAY HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING” TO “WILL HOLD A PUBLIC
HEARING” IN THE ORDINANCE.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. COFFEY MOVED THAT THE APPLICATION MUST BE MAILED TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION,
THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND THE PRESERVATION TRUST.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. McQuaid said there should be something in the ordinance to secure the building during the demolition delay process. Mr. Bryant said that the Ct. Trust is working on a better definition of demolition. He will obtain this information and provide it.
** MR. COFFEY MOVED THAT THE DEMOLITION INCLUDE THE “SCORCHED EARTH” DEFINITION.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The Chairman will distribute the revised information within the next 1-1/2 weeks.
NEW BUSINESS
PREDATORY FINANCING
The Chairman said he would order a CCM packet.
The responsible contractor item will be on next month’s agenda. It was noted that Councilman Poruban had provided the New Haven ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryl Telesco
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |