 |  |  |
| | |
|
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
PUBLIC HEARING AND SPECIAL MEETING
OCTOBER 23, 2007
ATTENDANCE: Michael Coffey, Chair; Carvin Hilliard, Richard McQuaid,
Douglas Sutton.
STAFF: Linda Guliuzza, Assistant Corporation Counsel
OTHERS: Douglas Hempstead, Council Member; Atty. Amy Livoisi,
Kirschner Developers; Gail Wall, Marija Bryant, Deborah
Mathias
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Coffey called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Coffey called the public hearing on the Demolition Delay Ordinance to order at 6:20 p.m.
The first speaker was Atty. Amy Livoisi from Kirschner Developers. She said that she was happy to hear that there was going to be a change in the demolition ordinance.
Atty. Livoisi said that she believed that fifty years was a little too young and that the 180 day holding period was a bit too long. There were 68 filings for demolition but only 11 had received objections.
There was no process for the objective determination of the historic value of the structure. She said that not every thing built in the last fifty year was historic. One of the 11 objections was a parcel developed by Kirschner. The core of the building was old, but there had been many renovations over the years by prior owners. Because of the extensive renovations, the original structure was no longer evident. A letter was filed against the demolition, but there were no subsequent actions. When Atty. Livoisi asked the group what was going on, they explained that they hadn’t been able to rally enough support to save the building, so they were just going to let the delay run out without doing anything more.
Atty. Livoisi said that she did not think that the new ordinances addressed these issues. There is no way for the owner to ascertain where the issue is in the process.
Ms. Gail Wall of Partrick Avenue addressed the Committee next. She said that she would like to commend the Committee for taking this issue on. She said that it would be important that Norwalk be on the same page as the State. The State Legislature unanimously passed the 180 day delay. She said that she liked the ordinance but would like to see the inclusion of telephone numbers of owners. She also pointed out that Norwalk has a municipal historian rather than a Town Historian.
If there would be approved plans before the demolition would help to discuss potential reuses. The other towns often place the onus of the documentation and the history of the building to the Planning and Zoning to the best of their ability. This helps with making a decision regarding the resources.
Ms. Wall said that she believed that the ordinance was similar to what was passed at the state level and how the residents of Connecticut would like to see their state preserved.
Ms. Mariji Bryant came forward and said that she would not be speaking for the
Norwalk Preservation Trust, but as a private citizen. She said that she was
uncomfortable, but that the motivation for this ordinance was started by the
demolition of 124 East Avenue. She said that this was a failure of the developer
to live up to the agreements that were made with the Zoning Department, not
a failure on the part of the ordinances. The point of the delay is to give the
owners and the community time to talk about adaptive reuse.
Ms. Bryant said that she tended to agree with Atty. L. about the blanket ordinances about all the buildings that were fifty years old. This should be the starting point and that this should be also considered with the State and Local historic registry. A reasonable standard in the current ordinance is good. The point is to allow the public to be heard and to have the chance to have negotiations. “In or eligible for” would be a good phrase to include in the language.
She encouraged the Committee to have more discussions with the preservationists. She said that it would be important to include some teeth in the ordinance.
Ms. Debra Mathias, of 177 West Norwalk Road came forward and said that she
was not all that familiar with the process. Chairman Coffey briefly reviewed
the process with her.
She thanked the Committee for the 180 days to help the work to preserve the
buildings. She said that many people had objected to the 50 year limit, and
while there are many buildings that are not historically significant, she mentioned
that things like the Remington Rand building where computers were developed
and Douglas MacArthur was on the board.
Chairman Coffey asked three times if there was anyone else from the public present who wished to address the Committee. Seeing that there was no one else who wished to address the Committee, Chairman Coffey closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
Demolition Delay Ordinance.
Chairman Coffey pointed out that there were historically significant buildings that were not fifty years old yet, like the Philip Johnson buildings and there was nothing that the City could do to protect it. He said that the State Legislature approved the 180 day rule was done to give the municipalities a tool. The City was not trying to prevent people from taking down their garage, but trying to determine what is relevant and what is not relevant.
Chairman Coffey said that it would be important to add the type of building and the age of the building to the application. He then reviewed the specific changes that were made in the ordinance. One key change is that the applicant is made to verify that the forms are accurate and true.
In the event that an objection is filed with the Chief Building Official, then the permit will be held for 180 days. Otherwise, the applications will be issued in a timely manner. The discussion then moved to the fact that the Norwalk Historical Commission shall hold a public hearing as soon as possible to make recommendations. This is where the transparency is and tells the public how the process works.
The following amendments to the proposed Sections would be adding a current photograph of the structure to be demolished, the telephone number of the owner for the said structure, the age and type of the structure and the date on which the said demolition is to begin.
Mr. Hilliard said that he felt that 90 days wasn’t getting the job done, but 180 days would get things accomplished. He then thanked the Historical Commission for their persistence and tenacity.
Mr. McQuaid said that he would prefer that the contact person’s number be requested.
** CHAIRMAN COFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCES:
THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 55-3 – FEES AND THE RENUMBERING OF THE SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS ACCORDINGLY.
SECCTION 55-3 – FEES – THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY A MINIMUM FEE OF TWO HUNDRED FIFTY ($250.00) DOLLARS, OR ONE PERCENT (1%) OF ASSESSED VALUE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, FOR SAID DEMOLITION PERMIT.
SECTION 55-5 (FORMERLY 55-3) APPLICANT CONTENTS:
NO PERMIT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF ANY STRUCTURE OR PART THEREOF WHICH IS FIFTY YEARS OR OLDER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS “STRUCTURE”) SHALL BE ISSUED UNTIL AN APPLICATION CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILED WITH THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR;
(1) THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE STRUCTURE TO BE
DEMOLISHED;
(2) THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE STRUCTURE TO BE
DEMOLISHED;
(3) THE NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) OF THE OWNER(S) OF
THE STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED.
(4) THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON UNDERTAKING
THE DEMOLITION OPERATION;
(5) THE REASON FOR THE DEMOLITION;
(6) THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE OWNERS OF ALL THE
ADJOINING PROPERTY ON WHICH THE STRUCTURE TO
BE DEMOLISHED IS LOCATED; AND
(7) A COPY OF THE CURRENT ASSESOR’S MAP SHOWING THE
ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND THE PROPERTY ON WHICH
THE STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED IS LOCATED.
(8) A CURRENT PHOTOGRAPH OF THE STRUCTURE TO BE
DEMOLISHED.
(9) TELEPHONE NUMBER OF A CONTACT PERSON FOR SAID
STRUCTURE.
(10) AGE AND TYPE OF STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED.
(11) DATE ON WHICH SAID DEMOLITION IS TO BEGIN.
SECTION 55-6 (FORMERLY 55-4) SUBSECTION 3 AS FOLLOWS:
(3) MAIL COPIES OF THE NOTICE, BY REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL, TO THE NORWALK HISTORICAL COMMISSION, NORWALK HISTORICAL SOCIETY, THE NORWALK PRESERVATION TRUST, THE MUNICIPAL HISTORIAN AND ANY INDIVIDUAL FIRM, CORPORATION, ORGANIZATION OR OTHER ENTITY WHICH HAS REQUESTED IN WRITING, FROM THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICER, COPIES OF ANY SUCH NOTICES FILED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER.
SECTION 55-6 (FORMERLY 55-4) THE ADDITION OF SUBSECTION 5 AS FOLLOWS:
(5) WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER THE INITIAL SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICATION SHALL FILE WITH THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL A STATEMENT VERIFIED UNDER OATH ON A FORM APPROVED BY THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL CERTIFYING THAT ALL THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND ATTACHING THERETO A COPY OF THE NOTICE AND EVIDENCE OF PUBLICATION. UPON FILING THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED FILED. IF ANY NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL SHALL REJECT THE APPLICATION AS INCOMPLETE.
SECTION 55-8 (FORMERLY 55-6) AS FOLLOWS:
A. IN THE EVENT THAT A WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT IS FILED WITH THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICER WITHIN 21 DAYS AFTER FILING THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 55-3, ABOVE, THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL SHALL NOT ISSUE PERMITS UNTIL 180 DAYS AFTER THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED FILED. IF NO WRITTEN OBJECTION IS FILED THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL MAY ISSUE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT PROVIDED THAT ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.
B. THE NORWALK HISTORICAL COMMISSION SHALL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ON ANY APPLICATION TO WHICH AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN FILED AND MAY ISSUE RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALTERNATIVEDS TO DEMOLITION TO THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL.
** THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS STATED PASSED WITH THREE IN FAVOR (COFFEY,
HILLIARD AND SUTTON) AND ONE ABSTENTION (MCQUAID).
Atty. Guliuzza pointed out that there may be a problem with the application filing requirements. She also said that the Corporation Counsel’s Office had not reviewed the new changes in the document. There was a discussion about the details of the filing and when the actual filing would be set. Atty. Livorisi encouraged the Committee to set a firm schedule, because leaving it open ended is much more difficult.
There was also a brief discussion about the fines. Chairman Coffey pointed out that the fines have been sent to the Corporation Counsel’s office for review already.
The discussion then moved to back to the point that once a letter of objection is filed it does not allow the Building Official to issue the permit if the Historic Commission has no objection to the building.
Chairman Coffey thanked everyone for their participation in this matter from both sides. Atty. Guliuzza repeated her statement that the office had not had the opportunity to review this. Chairman Coffey said that the Corporation Counsel’s Office had warned the Committee that there was no statutory support for $1,000
RECESS
Chairman Coffey declared a recess at 7:16 p.m. and resumed at 7:22 p.m.
** CHAIRMAN COFFEY MOVED TO APPROVE CHAPTER 55 - THE DEMOLITION ORDINANCE AS
AMENDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH THREE IN FAVOR (COFFEY, HILLIARD AND SUTTON) AND ONE
ABSTENTION (MCQUAID).
ADJOURNMENT
** MR. HILLARD MOVED TO ADJOURN
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Sharon L. Soltes
Telesco Secretarial Service
 |
 |