|
| |
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
For copies
of the previous minutes please contact Sally Johnson at
Phone: 203-854-7810 x 6778 or Email sjohnson@norwalkct.org
CITY OF NORWALK
PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 1. 2006
PRESENT: Matthew Miklave, Chairman; Douglas Hempstead, William Krummel,
Nicholas Kydes, Rev. Olmstead-Sawyer
STAFF: Timothy Sheehan, Redevelopment Director; Susan Sweitzer,
Senior Development Project Manager
OTHERS: Herbert Grant, Common Council; Douglas Sutton, Common Council;
Attorney John Louizos, Curtis, Brinkerhoff & Barrett; Attorney
Edward Schmidt, Curtis, Brinkerhoff & Barrett; Timothy Currie, Currie
Tires; Lee Levey, Norwalk Association of Silvermine Home Owners
(NASH); Tony Dimilio, Nancy Esposito, Allan Raymond, Keil Evans,
European Auto Repair; Attorney David Waters, Lepofsky, Lepofsky
and Lang; Dianne Witkowski, Spring Hill Hospital Neighborhood
Association; Maribeth Becker, Clay Fowler, Spinnaker Development;
Attorney Stephen Conover, Devon Acura
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Miklave called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. He stated this special meeting was called because of the lengthy agenda at the last meeting. Chairman Miklave also stated that he had request that Mr. Sheehan, the Director of Redevelopment, schedule a walking tour of the West Avenue Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Sheehan announced that the tour was scheduled for Saturday, May 6th at 9:00 a.m., beginning at the Carver Center. Chairman Miklave also stated that the West Avenue Redevelopment would not be voted on until May 15th because of the amount of information that the Committee had received and also to accommodate the walking tour.
One of the attendees submitted a letter to Mr. Sheehan for the Committee from the Spring Hill Hospital Area Neighborhood Association regarding the West Avenue development and Stanley Siegelson.
Mr. Hempstead commented that the Committee was not looking for action on Agenda Items A or C. Chairman Miklave and Mr. Sheehan agreed. Mr. Sheehan stated that the Committee would need to move Agenda Item B and put it to a vote at this meeting. Mr. Hempstead said that it needed to be noted if there were more than seven people. Mr. Sheehan stated it was so noted.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chairman Miklave stated that since this meeting was a continuation of the previous meeting, Public Comment was not listed on the agenda. He stated that there were a number of people present that would like to make presentations. Since there were a number of speakers at the previous meeting, Chairman Miklave asked that if anyone had already presented information on any of the items on the agenda previously, that they wait until the vote on the 15th. He also requested that the remarks be kept to three minutes.
Let it be noted that the following comments and remarks by all speakers have been summarized and are not necessarily verbatim.
Attorney Louizos from Curtis, Brinkerhoff & Barrett, located in Stamford, introduced himself to the Committee and stated that he was present to represent his client, Mr. Currie of Currie Tires. Attorney Louizos submitted a letter to the Committee for inclusion in the record. Attorney Louizos introduced Mr. Currie, the owner of the business to the Committee.
Attorney Louizos stated that he would be addressing some of the pending legislation in Hartford and their recommendations for action. Chairman Miklave stated that if the information was already contained in the letter, perhaps it would be better to let the Committee and the Redevelopment Agency review the material and return on Thursday night for the next meeting.
Attorney Louizos stated that his client feels that based on Chapter 130 of the Statutes which governs redevelopment, which are mandatory statutes that must be followed in terms of what the Committee would be acting upon, there appears to be some procedural defects in the project. 8-124 speaks about enabling the legislation on blight. It addresses conditions that contribute to the spread of blight which necessitate the excessive and disproportionate expenditure of public funds for the preservation of the public health and safety. He reference a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding blighted areas which are possessed of a disease. This is really the heart of the matter. The statutes speak to remediating blight. This refers to slum areas and areas that appear to be diseased, where by the normal allocating of fund, the situation does not improve.
The second aspect that Attorney Louizos wished to focus on was the definition under 8-125 of Redevelopment Areas. Redevelopment area is defined as an area that is determential to the safety, health and welfare of the residents and can consist of properties that are not in an of themselves blighted, if it is found that these properties are essential to complete the development. Attorney Louizos stated that by looking at the plan, especially in respect to Area B-1, there are large parcels which have development there. These areas do not fit under the 8-124 blight definitions.
Statute 8-127 states that a Redevelopment Agency can prepare a redevelopment plan or a redeveloper can submit a plan. The steps that are required must be done in order. Before approving any redevelopment plan, the Redevelopment Agency shall hold a public hearing. A Redevelopment Agency may approve the plan if following the hearing, it finds that the area in which the proposed redevelopment is to be located is a redevelopment area. Attorney Louizos stated that his client does not believe that this has happened. He stated that the Committee was being asked to make finding that were procedurally defective. With all due respect, Attorney Louizos stated that scheduling the walking tour was not really the job of the Committee, it was for the Redevelopment Agency to allow for public hearing to permit testimony to determine if it is a redevelopment area.
Attorney Schmidt then approached the Committee and stated that he was representing Currie Tire also. He then stated that it was an issue of what the law is today and what will happen in the next few days. There are two bills currently pending in the State Senate, which will radically change the law. These laws address the issue when the property is in the state of deteriorating. Other changes would require a private developer to provide for public use. It was not clear, Attorney Schmidt stated, which portions of the legislation would pass. However, approval would require a super majority by the Common Council.
Secondly, one of the bills states that the owner occupied residential units for economic development. A third factor is that there is an increase of compensation of 150% for private economic development or commercial enterprise, like Currie Tire. In addition to that, one of the bills shifts the burden of proof from the property owner to the City. Attorney Schmidt then reviewed the legal details of this legislation for the City and the owner. Both bills also provide not only compensation for the land but also compensation for “good will”. This will be a significant impact on the decisions regarding the condemnation laws in Chapter 130. Attorney Schmidt recommended that the Committee defer the decision again until the legislation has been set. The Common Council under the Statutes can’t vote in favor of this because the Statutes are currently biased towards the Redevelopment Agencies. Now the Redevelopment Agencies must make a finding of blight, and then must present the finding of blight to the Common Council, which would confirm that finding or not.
Attorney Schmidt recommended that the boundaries lines be adopted without bestowing upon the municipality any power of eminent domain. It could be a planning area, but it is important to review the existing statutes, which are quite clear. Attorney Schmidt stated that eminent domain was really for the public nuisance with grievous situations, unsafe conditions and dangerous public health. He stated that during the walking tour, the Committee members would see that the properties in B-1 were all substantial properties with active locations. There were one or two properties in Area B-2 that were already owned by the developer. Based on this, Attorney Schmidt maintained that there was no factual basis for citing blight.
Chairman Miklave stated that the Committee has a hefty legal opinion from legal counsel. He then asked Mr. Sheehan to have the Redevelopment counsel to look over the document by Thursday.
Attorney Steve Conover from Sandak, Hennessey and Grecco in Stamford, stated that he was present to represent Devon Acura. He stated that he and his partner were presenting comment at every opportunity to object to this plan as drawn. Under the law, the statutes apply to properties that are found to be essential to complete the adequate unit of development. Attorney Conover stated that he believed that the boundaries of the plan as designed includes properties which are not substandard and he was asking that the Agency and developer exclude those properties with an adequate level of development.
Mr. Levey, a former Common Council member, greeted the members of the Committee and stated he was present as a representative of the Norwalk Association of Silvermine Home Owners(NASH). Mr. Levey read a statement issued by the Board of Directors of NASH into the record.
“NASH supports the revitalization of West Avenue through diverse private investment without the use of eminent domain. We continue to ask for full disclosure of the cost of the project and if any public funding that will be required to bring it to completion. We support the construction of on grade parking throughout the Redevelopment area and oppose public funding for a parking garage. We envision a pedestrian friendly area that preserves existing neighborhoods and links to emerging (inaudible).”
Mr. Dimilio stated that he had previously spoken and promised not to speak at length. He stated that the West Avenue project raised important questions such as subsidies and eminent domain. Mr. Dimilio has heard that those who raise these types of questions have been labeled “anti-development”. He stated he disagreed with that label. At an meeting earlier this year regarding Reed Putnam, Mr. Selleckson made a public comment about the projects 23 million subsidy. Mr. Dimilio stated that he stands shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Selleckson in the exercise of the public’s rights. He also referred to some comments made by a representative at the last meeting. He stated that there are numerous doctor’s offices on West Avenue and they represent an investment of hundred of thousands of dollars in medical, diagnostic and computer equipment. Mr. Dimilio asked that the Committee keep that in mind when considering the issue of whether the area was hopelessly blighted.
Mr. Dimilio stated that he had a handout of the property list from the tax assessors office and a copy of an Advocate article regarding parking to the Committee.
He then reviewed the information on the list and stated that one of the reasons for the underdevelopment of West Avenue project. He stated that he had three points regarding this. Any commercial property owner in the area would be reluctant to make an investment in the property. Secondly, on the second page of the handout, the West Avenue properties appear to lack the parking for most commercial tenants. On page three, Mr. Wrinn stated that owners have the options to invest in additional parking. Another option would be to let the City provide the parking. And finally, one of the attorneys representing the Acura dealer stated that the business would be operating under a cloud. That would be same cloud that every property owner in the plan area would be living under. Mr. Dimilio stated that while underinvestment is present, he believes that the Redevelopment plan is the cause, not the solution.
On page one of the handout, each of the properties in the plan area as of 2004 is listed. The 2002 and 2003 changes in the numbers represents the effects of the Redevelopment Plan on the area. The property values went up by an average of 81%. The city wide increase was about 60%. This blighted area actually out performed the rest of the city in terms of property taxes by 20%.
Finally, at the last meeting, Redevelopment had a sign up sheet for those who wished to get the blight data via email. It was never sent. The information on the three pages that Mr. Dimilio distributed represents more information in his opinion than Redevelopment Agency has provided.
Ms. Esposito introduced herself to the Committee and stated that she was a property owner at 4 Merwin Street in Norwalk. She also wished to discuss Chapter 130 of the General Statutes, Section 8-124, which defines blight. Ms. Esposito distributed copies of the Statute definition of blight to the Committee. She stated that the West Avenue redevelopment plan area is not blighted. There are fifty one properties listed, all of which are listed average, good or fair, with the exception of five properties, two of which she would argue on the rating. Out of fifty one properties, there are five that have been rated as poor. Everything else was rated higher than that. She concluded by reading over this list, which she left copies of for the Committee and the public present, that there was no blight in this section of West Avenue.
Attorney Schmidt submitted a hand-out to Mr. Sheehan for inclusion in the record.
Mr. Raymond commented that he had read in the papers about blight and also seen that no one is down in the West Avenue area. He stated that every Friday night, he spends some time with friends at the Dunkin’ Donuts and sees a steady stream of people down there. On the 25th, at around 8:30 p.m., Mr. Raymond was in the area being discussed and observed a number of people walking up and down West Avenue. He stated that there were eight to ten businesses open and customers there. He commented that Mr. Sheehan was scheduled to give a presentation on blight in the area. Mr. Sheehan explained that he was planning on doing the presentation tonight.
Mr. Evans, who is the owner of European Auto Center, spoke next. He informed the committee that he has not seen much crime in the area and that he is on the premises often until the early morning hours. Customers come and going constantly. There has never been a problem. He considers it to be a safe area and wondered about the definition of blight. He stated that his business brings people to Norwalk from the surrounding communities. In his mind, blight is a burned out building. Now he was hearing that Norwalk blight can’t be compared to blight elsewhere. Blight is blight and Mr. Evans does not believe that his area has blight.
Chairman Miklave asked if there were any other members of the public that wished to comment. Finding none, he asked the committee if there additional comments. Mr. Sheehan stated that for the record that this response was not indicative of the full public issue. Mr. Sheehan stated that most people did not know that there was going to be public participation. Chairman Miklave stated that he understood that there was no public participation listed on the agenda. He stated that the public should be aware that he always allows members of the public to speak, if possible.
Mr. Krummel asked to make a comment. He stated that he valued the information given at the meeting because it was one of the rare times that factual information was being presented, particularly regarding Mr. Dimilio’s materials. Mr. Sheehan replied that he was just observing that the Agency had not included a public comment period because there had been an extensive public comment period at the previous meeting. Because of this, Mr. Sheehan stated that it was important to realize that the comments made tonight do not represent all the potentially interested parties.
Chairman Miklave stated that he believed it was safe to say that this project has drawn the attention of the community on both sides of the aisle.
1. BUSINESS
A. WEST AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. PRESENTATION OF THE WEST AVENUE CORRIDOR AS A “REDEVELOPMENT AREA” IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETERIORATED, DETERIORATING AND SUBSTANDARD CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN THE CGS CHAPTER 13 --(CD MAILED UNDER SEPARATE COVER).
2. REQUEST TO FORWARD THE PROPOSED WEST AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE COMMON COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
Mr. Sheehan stated that he was pleased to present to the Planning Committee of the Common Council the West Avenue Redevelopment Plan for full consideration and advancement to the Council for approval. The plan before you represents the culmination of seven years of work on the part of the Agency and during that time, the Agency made some awkward mis-steps regarding how this plan was formally presented to the public at large. He stated that the Agency has learned from these mistakes but two decisions made by the Agency three years ago that were correct. The first involved bringing the public in to the process of developing the plan and the final product has been improved by the public dialog that has surrounded the plan for the last year and a half. Secondly, the decision was made to advance the plan under Chapter 130 of the CT General Statutes as opposed to Chapter 132. This is the difference between a redevelopment plan and a municipal development plan. This may seem insignificant but Chapter 132 allows municipalities to undertake development plans primarily to increase the municipal tax base and requires no additional public purpose. This was the method used in New London and ultimately resulted in the Kelo case. He stated that development plans such as West Avenue require a greater public purpose rather than just what they contribute to the grand list. The basic question is whether the plan area in a deteriorated or deteriorating condition by Norwalk standards. Mr. Sheehan also asked if the existing physical, economics and social conditions within the proposed plan area reflective of what the majority of Norwalk residents deem acceptable within their downtown district. He raised the question of whether the downtown currently an active community center and provide the citizens with vibrant commercial, institutional, residential or recreational activity. He also asked if the uses in the downtown area define the Norwalk community. The answers, Mr. Sheehan stated were unique to each community and defy a codification of law or definition. Such determinations must be made by each community through the elective representatives. These determination are not static and change over time. Two years ago, the Common Council determined that the Wall Street plan met the same public purpose objectives which are being sought for West Avenue. The Agency believes that the deteriorating conditions in this area meet, if not exceed the standards set by the previous Council. He stated that the deterioration has gone beyond what can be reversed by the normal regulatory process of zoning and limited public improvements. The 1986 Business Master Plan show the evidence of the City’s concern with this area. In 1998, the Common Council approve the application for 1.5 million planning grant from the State. Finally, in 2002, the Common Council adopted a capital budget action authorizing the investment of 5 million dollars into the plan area. If left unabated by this Common Council, the area will continue to deteriorate further into a mix of divergent uses which are the by product of weak market conditions and marginilized unregulated development activity.
Mr. Sheehan then played a five minute video of the area which was filmed on April 29, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon. This was followed by a PowerPoint presentation.
Ms. Sweitzer stated that 55% of the residents in this plan area earn less than $55,000 and the area has not met the downtown expectations since the 1970’s.
Chairman Miklave asked about the various steps of the program and Mr. Sheehan reviewed them for the Committee.
Mr. Hempstead wished to know if any green space was planned for the area. Mr. Sheehan stated that there was not. Mr. Hempstead stated that he needed more information and also wished to look at the eminent domain statements.
Mr. Krummel stated that he was concerned about the low income and affordable housing and would like to see that type of housing supported rather than destroyed.
Chairman Miklave pointed out that he did not fundamentally disagree but that if there is not a plan for development, then the development is left to market forces. He reminded the Committee that Avalon Bay at the Riverview Plaza was done without any City input.
Mr. Sheehan stated that the next meeting would be on May 15th at 7:30 p.m. in Room A300 regarding this issue.
** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO TABLE AGENDA ITEMS A 1 & 2 :
A. WEST AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. PRESENTATION OF THE WEST AVENUE CORRIDOR AS A “REDEVELOPMENT AREA” IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETERIORATED, DETERIORATING AND SUBSTANDARD CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN THE CGS CHAPTER 13 --(CD MAILED UNDER SEPARATE COVER).
2. REQUEST TO FORWARD THE PROPOSED WEST AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE COMMON COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL
UNTIL THE SPECIAL MEETING ON MAY 15, 2006.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
C. WASHINGTON -SOUTH MAIN IMPROVEMENT AREA II
Mr. Sheehan reminded everyone that this was for informational purposes only. The project relates to the Urban Renewal Plan which was approved in 1981 and is now 25 years old. The original idea was to stimulate development in the area. Mr. Byrd reviewed the history of the area and the urban renewal plan. Until recently, the area cooperated with the Norwalk Company, which was a factory and the area was still zoned for industry. Now the Norwalk Company has closed and it is time to re-evaluate the situation. Mr. Byrd produced some maps of the area and explained that one portion of the amendment would be the updates and corrections on the original plans. The key change is the change to the building heights. The Norwalk Company is only two stories but is 35 feet high rather than 25. An additional story would result in a building 71 feet high, The building is worth preserving. Mr. Byrd stated that the project is not at a point where the Redevelopment Agency would be asking for a variance, but they will be back at a future time.
Rev. Olmstead Sawyer and Mr. Krummel had to leave at 9:40 p.m., so Mr. Miklave stated that the vote on the Reed Putnam project would be moved to Thursday’s agenda.
A discussion ensued about the building heights and the zoning changes. Mr. Miklave reminded everyone that there was no formal plan developed yet for the building.
B. REED PUTNAM URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
1. Request for Special Capital Appropriation for Property Acquisition (R.O.W) Reed Street Extension and Underpass.
Chairman Miklave stated that there was not a quorum present and therefore the vote would be moved to the Special Meeting on Thursday, May 15th. He stated that an agreement with Maritime Motors had been reached and the City needed to acquire funds to build an underpass for access to a portion of the property on the far side of the tracks. Mr. Byrd reviewed the property location on the maps with the Committee members. A discussion of the financial obligations followed.
RECESS
Chairman Miklave declared the meeting in recess at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Soltes
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |