ATTENDANCE: Amanda Brown, Chair; Andrew Conroy; Carvin Hilliard;
William Krummel; Kelly Straniti

STAFF: Linda Gulliuzza, Assistant Corporation Counsel

Ms. Brown called the meeting to order at 8:08 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Ms. Brown called the Roll. She said that she would like to suspend the rules to allow members of the public to speak.

** MR. CONROY MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ADD AN ITEM TO THE AGENDA
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

** MR. CONROY MOVED TO ALLOW PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

Mr. Todd Bryant, Morgan Avenue spoke about the demolition delay ordinance. He suggested adding 180 days and to fix some procedural issues that exist in the ordinance. He said that would buy time to work with everyone and bring in other resources.

Ms. Laurel Lindstrom said that Mr. Bryant is a valuable resource.

ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES

September 18, 2007

October 23, 2007

** MR. HILLIARD MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES
** MOTION PASSED WITH TWO (2) ABSTENTIONS (MR. CONROY AND MR. KRUMMEL)

OLD BUSINESS

Review of Proposed Demolition Delay Ordinance

Ms. Brown explained that the demolition delay ordinance is not intended to hinder either party. Ms. Straniti submitted written revisions to the demolition delay ordinance. Ms. Brown said that in talking with the Building Department they informed her that less than one third of all requests to go to demolition.

Mr. Hilliard said that he recalled that a fine of $500.00 per day was charged and heard that was a problem. He said that he would like to see the data. Ms. Gulliuzza said that if no particular fine is set forth in the statute, the maximum amount that could be charged is $250.00 per day. Ms. Straniti said that in her draft she included a tax abatement where the property owner would have a tax freeze on their taxes.

Ms. Brown said that after talking to important influential people the demolition ordinance has to go hand in hand with the Historical Commission. Ms. Brown suggested providing an incentive to the property owner to maintain the integrity of the structure. In addition, there should be a coalition between Planning & Zoning and the Building department to determine who is responsible. Finally when the owner decides they want to sell and demolish the property after 180 days, then that is the end of the matter. Ms. Brown said that it is their property and she does not want the ordinance to be intrusive.

Mr. Hilliard said that they had to keep in mind that the reason of extending the demolitions to 180 was because residents were concerned about buildings being knocked down and building condominiums. During the public hearings they heard that people did not want Norwalk to become “condo city”.

Ms. Brown said that she had an idea for structuring the demolition delay days. Mr. Hilliard said that was an interesting idea, but wanted to see the ages of the homes. He said that they need to confer with the historical people to see if the structure is worth keeping. He added that he understands that a 50 year old building can still have historical significance.

Mr. Krummel said that they did not have a means by which to assess the historical value of each building. She suggested looking at an architectural review board to determine the value of a building. Mr. Krummel wanted to know how many of the demolished buildings were 50 years or older.

Ms. Brown said that there were approximately 6,000 homes that were 50 years or older; that is whey she wants to do a tier. A tier would ensure that no one destroys a home that is over 75 years without doing due diligence.

Mr. Hilliard said that he was not willing to support this until he hears from the public. He said that he did not see the merit of the tier system. Mr. Krummel said that the tier system was interesting, but weakens the ordinance.
Ms. Straniti said that if the 50 years has not been an issue, they why would 75 years or the tier system be an issue. She commended Ms. Brown for coming up with a creative idea to preserve the historical structures in the City.

Mr. Conroy said that he had not heard about the tier system until the Chair brought it up. He said that he likes the 100 number and hopes that a list of buildings that are 100 years old or less would be developed. Mr. Conroy said that he did not want to impose anything but wants to preserve historic value.

Ms. Brown recognized Mr. Bryant. Mr. Bryant said that the age of a structure is an administrative threshold. The real significance is the historical value, not the age.

Mr. Hilliard suggested that they need an updated inventory of historical structures. Mr. Bryant said that the Preservation Trust received a grant to begin a resource inventory which starts at 50 years of age. Ms. Straniti suggested adding that to the ordinance.

Mr. Conroy said that a list was necessary to make the ordinance work. He said that he would not vote for 50 years, but thought 100 would do the trick.

Ms. Brown said that she would think about trying to incorporate the National Registry criteria into the ordinance and incorporating the list once it is complete.

Mr. Bryant read the definition of a significant building from a Massachusetts ordinance. Mr. Krummel suggested taking what Mr. Bryant read and incorporating it into the ordinance. Ms. Brown pointed out that they would have to be able to enforce the ordinance. She said that they need to define how they want to deal with houses. Mr. Krummel said that at any point it is going to be a matter of judgment.

Mr. Hilliard said that they held three public hearings and the public requested 180 days. Ms. Straniti said that the reason for 180 days was to provide more time for all parties to negotiate. Mr. Conroy said that there had to be a very good reason to write something into law. He said that they need to find out why 180 days is better than 90 days and what methods need to be taken to be sure there is a consistent flow of the process.

Mr. Hilliard said that this Common Council has not held a public hearing on this matter, but this is what the former Council heard. Mr. Conroy asked what were the criteria for 180 days.

Ms. Straniti suggested that the minutes of the public hearing be e-mailed to the new members so that they could get up to speed on the issue.

Ms. Brown said that for the next meeting, she will provide two drafts – one with the proposed tier and the other without the proposed tier. Ms. Brown suggested starting fresh on this ordinance.

Review of Living Wage Ordinance

Mr. Hal Alvord, Director, DPW said that he had concerns about the Living Wage Ordnance and would submit his concerns in writing.

ADJOURNMENT

There was no further business and the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rosemarie Lombardi
Telesco Secretarial Services