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
OCTOBER 1st, 2007

ATTENDANCE: Matt Miklave, Chair; Douglas Hempstead; William Krummel; Jack Burritt

STAFF: Mike Greene, Director Planning & Zoning

OTHER: Kim Jones, AICP; Chan Krieger Sieniewicz; Torgny Astrom, Chair, Planning Commission; Fran DiMeglio, Vice-Chair, Planning Commission; David Park; Steven Cristofor; Al Raymond; Bill Nightingale; Giuseppe Cinque; Diane Lauricella; Andy Conroy

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mr. Miklave.

I. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Mr. Astrom explained that every 10 years there was an update to the Master Plan and that there were about 400 bullet points for goals and policies noted in the 2002 Plan. He said that the new Plan would be based on 4 geographical quadrants. The Planning Commission had held public workshops and hearings and had met with all neighborhood associations and it had taken all of 2004 and some of 2005 to gather all the data. He said that the Planning Commission had not worked alone on the development plans; there were 12-15 person committees and consultants with neighborhood association representation. Chan Krieger was hired to put the data gathered into a digestible format.

Mr. Krieger started a slide presentation, saying that it had been presented to the Planning Commission twice before but that an implementation piece had been added to it which included short, medium and long-term efforts and the costs associated with them. The last addition would be to hear the comments of this meeting and to blend those into the final draft for approval.

Mr. Greene added that any necessary changes found by this Committee would be sent back to the Planning Commission through the Council and if they agreed with the changes they would send back the document with the agreed upon changes to this Committee and if an agreement was reached on one plan then the plan would be sent to the Mayor for approval.

Mr. Krieger continued with his presentation, saying that he’d met with the department heads of the City once to go over the mission and goals and again to get a better sense of the cost of those improvements. He said that there were 10 initial areas of concern and that those had been consolidated to 6. Mr. Krieger said that the plan had been based on the 1990-2000 censuses. He acknowledged that there had been a population increase in the community but noted that the population was aging. He said that household incomes had been declining and individual incomes had been rising and this could be accounted for in some larger lower income household units which were increasingly under the poverty line. He said that the City had a larger lower income population and an aging wealthy population which was not unusual for the East Coast but was creating strains on the middle income families. He said that Norwalk was currently a very desirable community to live in but that it was becoming increasingly difficult for people to afford to live or buy in Norwalk. He went on, saying that 74% of the City’s residents commuted by car while only 8.5% took mass transit. He said that there was a lot of open space in the City and that the plan didn’t call for a lot of new open space, but for the connection of the existing open spaces. He said there were issues in Norwalk related to storm water and run off which would become more important as time went on and there would be ways to reduce the impact of those issues. He said that the City had some very beautiful neighborhoods and the best way to preserve those while maintaining affordability was to find ways to increase population but not in established neighborhoods. He said that the areas in the city that were in transformation needed to be filled and the best thing about that was that affordable housing units would be located within transit and in areas that could be better served by future transit. He said that the Maritime industry was a very important aspect of the City both for the sense of character it gave and for its economic contribution. Mr. Krieger said that the development that was occurring had to be considered in relation to the natural systems that it was imposing upon. He said that there was a certain amount of carrying capacity that the land could take and that capacity was close to being met. He said that there were ways to use waste as a resource in terms of recycling and that there was a waste treatment plant in California that used grease from kitchens to produce energy to run the treatment plant. He stated that protecting natural resources that made living in a place like Norwalk so wonderful, such as the islands, shorelines and the Harbor was very important. He noted that the Harbor was both an economic and a recreational resource for the City and would have to be managed in a way that supported both of those goals. He said that as the City’s population became more diverse, other recreational resources would have to be found for at-risk youth. He said that one recommendation being made was to better link the Harbor to eliminate gaps. He said that a person living in the Wall Street area could get to Oyster Shell Park or Veterans Park but there needed to be alternative systems of traveling around the City that didn’t involve a car. He went on to say that as the City’s aging population grew it would have more need of services and improvements would have to be made to hospitals, public transportation and emergency response systems. He said that growth would occur in areas that could support transit but that the corridors of the City would still have to be managed better in order to support more care traffic and hopefully that could be done in a way that balanced vehicular and pedestrian needs such as the Merritt Parkway in Stratford which had been widened to allow pedestrian crossing over the river and Richmond, VA where there was a walkway hung from the bottom of a bridge. He said that rezoning and design guidelines would be important with the increased development in the core areas of the City, particularly the village, conservation and historic districts. Mr. Krieger said concluded, saying the implementation list was broken down into short, medium and long-term actions and added that there would be ongoing actions related to enforcement and finding affordable housing opportunities and looking into the possibility of additional design controls where they made sense.

Mr. Park opened public discussion, saying that he had three issues he wanted to address: open space and recreation, affordable housing and traffic. He said that he lived in Norwalk for the use of the Harbor and parks. He produced a letter that he sent to Mr. Greene pertaining to kayak launches and a second letter promoting the Norwalk River Valley Multi-Purpose Trail. He also brought up his concerns of the abuse of the islands including garbage, campfires, alcohol, dogs and fireworks. He said that the rules that were set up were not being enforced. Mr. Park agreed with everything he’d heard with regard to affordable housing issues, but added that taxpayers would be subsidizing the affordable housing and asked if that would make it more expensive to live in Norwalk and force people to leave.

Mr. Christofor stated that he was there to represent Cedar Street Merchants and to support the rezoning of Cedar Street.

Mr. Raymond said that he represented the Spring Hill Norwalk Hospital Neighborhood Association and wanted to speak about one issue on Page 25 of the document under Open Space C.1.3.12, where it said “Identify areas that lack local public open space (i.e., Spring Hill/Hospital Zone) and work to establish parks in those locations)”. He said that the implementation section on page 49 referenced this as an ongoing project and he wondered how the City would work towards getting this done. Mr. Raymond reported that the Hospital had written a letter to the Planning Commission in the past asking for the wording to be changed to include areas that were as densely populated as the Spring Hill/Hospital Zone. He said that there were over 7,000 people living in that area and there were no parks and the Spring Hill Norwalk Hospital Neighborhood Association wanted to be included in the neighborhoods that would get something they could enjoy in their neighborhood instead of more density.

Ms. Lindstrom stated that she was supportive of the drainage issues being funded and was happy to see the update in the Master Plan of the parks. She was also in support of increasing pedestrian access in the City. She said that sidewalks needed to be considered when new roads were being built and streets needed to be managed to allow traffic to flow slow and steady rather than faster.

Mr. Guiseppe Cinque, owner of the Marina d’Amalfi Trattoria in Norwalk submitted a written statement instead of speaking. He stated in his letter that he was in favor of the plan and especially supportive of Section F.4.2 where it said “Design streets for people as well as vehicles” and included the promotion of sidewalk cafés. Mr. Cinque believed that his patrons would enjoy and appreciate the ability to take advantage of al fresco dining.

Mr. Miklave noted that this was a working document and suggested that the Public and Committee members be aware that this was not to be an action item for this meeting as there was no quorum available. He said that the item would be on the Agenda for the meeting being held the following Thursday night and suggested that any amendments suggested by this Committee or by the public be submitted in writing to the Committee for discussion at the next meeting. He said that there would be a public participation section in advance of that meeting at which comments would be limited to three minutes.

Mr. Nightingale spoke in support of planting more trees and he wanted to see that added to the plan. He stated that the first section of the plan was almost entirely dedicated to affordable housing and he believed that the primary agenda of this document was promoting affordable housing. Mr. Nightingale was concerned with how affordable housing would be financed and what impact it would have on the property tax payers. He said that market rate taxpayers subsidized four thousand units and there was a dramatic shift over the previous ten years of the property tax burden going from the commercial sector to the residential sector, adding that his taxes in Rowayton had gone up nearly 10 fold and he was very concerned about that trend continuing. He wanted to see something in the plan to mitigate property tax burdens and cited the West Avenue Development as an example. Mr. Nightingale said that he’d sent an email to the Mayor and Council Members with regard to that development in which he stated that the developer was looking for the City to put up approximately 104 million dollars to finance this project. He stated that there was a special tax being assessed for these new 350 housing units which would be added to the standard yearly property taxes and 30% of those units were going to be affordable units which would not be paying the total taxes for the area which would shift the tax burden over to the remaining two thirds of the units. He believed that the total amount of taxes would be unrealistic and the plan did not demonstrate how it would work or how it was going to be paid for. He then asked how the City’s sewer, electric and water systems would handle this development and how many additional units the City’s infrastructure system could handle before it needed to be upgraded. He wondered if there should be more conservation and less development and thought that the desire for open space in the document seemed to conflict with the desire for development and affordable housing.

Ms. Lauricella said that there were two documents that she’d mentioned at a Planning Commission hearing that should have been given by the staff to Mr. Mountjoy. The first document was the Norwalk River Action Plan. She explained that former Mayor Frank Esposito signed off on this Plan about 9 years ago and that the Norwalk River Watershed Initiative Committee was made up of local and state staff and non-government agencies. She said that she did not hear about it being mentioned in the Planning Commission Hearing but she knew she mentioned it and felt it should be given out to all Planning Commissioners as part of their training. The second document was Brown Fields Task Force List. Ms. Lauricella said that this document was important because it listed several contaminated sites. She said that she’d been appointed as a member of the Task Force because she was a professional environmental consultant. She went on to say that the list helped to prioritize what sites should be cleaned up and turned it into industry or housing. She then moved on to section A.2.2.2 on page 11 of the document where it said “Improve endorsement of zoning, building, and health codes to protect the public from unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions”. She said that Norwalk was a very large city with very complicated issues and projects and there was nothing in this document that told how to improve enforcement of zoning and building. She said that the City could change through ordinance and zoning regulations the possibility of adding fees for professional assistance to the City Staff and Commissioners when there was an environmental issue at hand. She was shocked when she learned that while the Conservation Commission most recently included that in their regulations, the Zoning Commission did not have that capability. She said that the Zoning Commission and Staff through the Board of Estimates under special prorating could have special professional assistance on an as-needed basis. He felt that this should be added to the plan as it helped the staff, the Land Use Planning Board and the City Council. She felt that if it was not included, then this was not a usable document. She said that the city had a Zoning enforcement issue and many of the neighborhoods agreed that enforcement was needed not only in Zoning Staff but also in the Health Department Staff and the Building Department Staff there needed to be more discussion with the staff to make that happen. She then cited Section C.1.1.5 on page 24 where it said “Provide additional public space along Norwalk River in the next 10 years; provide open spaces leading to the Norwalk River” and said that the City needed to only allow public access to the River and Harbor when appropriate to make sure the environmental balance was included. Ms. Lauricella went on to cite Section C.2.4.8 on page 26 where it said “Maintain an Open Space Fund and consider acquisition of critical parcels as they become available” and said that to her knowledge the City had not chosen to institute what the State Legislature allowed the City to do which was to implement a funding mechanism that took a small percent off of real estate transactions. Ms. Lauricella felt that this should be added to the plan. She went on to say that there was a misconception that open space was untouched space and cited Section F.3.2.8 on page 43 where it said “Update the plan of parks and open space within 2 years of adopting this Plan, and include public participation and specific master plans for major parks”. She thought all the parks should have master plans of development and one way to offset the costs of caring for the parks was to have Friends of the Parks to facilitate master plans of all the city parks. She cited Section B.1.1.4 on page 16 where it said “Require new development to expand infrastructure capacity where needed” and B.1.1.1 where it said “Conduct an ongoing assessment of infrastructure” and said that the City needed natural resource assessments and those assessments should be included in this plan. Ms. Lauricella concluded, saying there needed to be more emphasis on green roofs and rain gardens. She said that 20% of the City was on private drinking water wells and government assistance from the Health Department or the Conservation Commission was needed to educate the public on the wells and the importance of not polluting them.

Mr. Andy Conroy said that he agreed with Mr. Nightingale in that affordable housing was sometimes overemphasized. He stated that as affordable housing expanded, the tax base did not necessarily increase with it. He said that other cities were not participating in following the State’s intent to provide affordable housing and were allowed to get away with it. Mr. Conroy went on to say that the sidewalks in Rowayton were creating a safety problem and need to be fixed and that footpaths needed to be considered when looking at the roads.

At this time, there were no other members of the public who wished to speak, so Mr. Miklave turned the discussion over to the Committee, recommending that any changes to the plan document be held over until the meeting on the following Thursday when action could be taken.

Mr. Hempstead asked why there was not a timeline in this process and why there was not a section included to revisit this on a yearly basis.

Mr. Kreiger said he had no objection to a recommendation to keep looking at it and would encourage communities to do so.

Mr. Hempstead said that there was nothing in the document that he saw that promoted additional senior housing and asked why this was left out.

Mr. Krieger said that senior housing was not specifically addressed but would be included in affordable housing. He said that there was an item in the plan for 10% affordable housing for new development which was logical to do in order to keep to the State’s statute of 10%. He said that though the plan didn’t mention how it was going to be funded, many of the developers in the City were providing 10% affordable housing as part of their development packages as part of the consideration of getting the developer rights to build.

Mr. Greene added that the Common Council could add senior housing to the plan.

Mr. Hempstead said some parcels in California were now creating 500 sq. foot mini homes on properties to encourage seniors to live with their children versus putting them in expensive homes and asked if that had been considered for Norwalk.

Mr. Krieger said that there had been some discussion of secondary units but that there was a concern that the system could be abused as the occupant of the secondary unit could not be restricted by relationship with the homeowner or by age.

Mr. Hempstead stated that there was a conflict in the document in that one aspect discussed restricting the amount of square footage of properties and another aspect encouraged accessory apartments to offset affordable housing for seniors.

Mr. Krieger said that the size of units was directly contributable to the character of the neighborhoods.

Mr. Greene stated that only 150 square feet could be added.

Mr. Hempstead said that there wasn’t encouragement to meet the new DEP regulations for treating of storm run off, i.e. rain gardens and asked why there wasn’t strict reference to following those guidelines.

Mr. Krieger said there was a strong reference to lead certification for all publicly funded buildings and that covered the ability for building owners to include water conservation within a project in order to achieve that rating. He said that there was a leadership in energy efficient design program which was not yet an official program but would reward builders for a variety of environmental and energy efficiency.

Mr. Greene said that there was also a Section referring to the implementation of all feasible measures for improving and maintaining water quality, which was open enough that anything specific could be added in under that Section when the Zoning Commission chose to implement a specific regulation.

Mr. Hempstead said that he thought there should be more specificity with certain items in the plan, including rain gardens.

Mr. Greene said they had implemented rain gardens but if only rain gardens were included in the plan, that would be all that would be delivered and in the following ten years there would be a lot of other things that the City would want to add besides rain gardens.

Mr. Hempstead cited Section A.6.3 on page 13 where it said “Explore opportunities to designate additional redevelopment areas as a means to achieve plan goals” and asked if that alluded to a desired expansion of the territory of the Redevelopment Agency and the Redevelopment Plan. He then cited A.6.3.1 where it said “Consider redevelopment of industrial property north of Muller Ave. and west of the Danbury branch line” and stated that there were other areas that would be considered over the following 5 years and asked if there were currently other areas that should be identified.

Mr. Krummel said that he couldn’t find any mention at all in the document of the Community College. He said that Norwalk Community Technical College was the largest Community College in the state. He said that it had been getting private support with the Computer and Information Technology program and that it had Culinary Arts and Nursing programs. He thought the City had the potential for developing programs that would make better use of the Community College resource including professional improvement programs for school teachers and computer and information technology as a resource for job creation in the community. He thought this should be a whole section in the plan but at the very least the Community College should be on the map.

Mr. Krieger stated that this had come up before but overlooked in discussion with City Agencies.

Mr. Krummel cited Section A.5.1, where it said “Implement recommendations of the Industrial Zones Committee report” and mentioned the concerns with the Gulf petroleum tank farm on Martin Luther King Boulevard. He said that the Mayor had written this Committee a letter saying that they should be able to deal with this situation in this Master Plan.

Mr. Greene said that the tank farm issue was not on the table at the time of this plan’s adoption.

Mr. Krummel said that he was citing the tank farm as an example and asking if there were certain basic principles that should be considered that would enable the City to deal with a problem like the petroleum tank farm.

Mr. Krieger stated that he was not that familiar with the issue but if there were issues with brown fields, he would recommend the City look to its brown fields for supplying additional needs for other uses.

Mr. Krummel cited Section C.3.1.1 on page 23 which said “Encourage the building of a municipal golf driving range” saying that the Oak Hills Park was in the Norwalk Association boundary and they were opposed to it and asked why this was in the plan.

Mr. Miklave stated that the Planning Commission thought it should be included.

Ms. DiMeglio stated that there was a discussion among the Commissioners regarding a need for a driving range in Norwalk but it was never suggested to have it at Oak Hills.

Mr. Krummel said that he would have modified that statement saying where appropriate.

Mr. Miklave said that there was an explicit reference to a new train station on the Danbury line at the Reed Putnam location and there had also been discussion about another train stop in the Wall Street area or at West Avenue and there was a train stop at the Merritt 7. He said that the Danbury line could not be stopped every three minutes and asked why Reed Putnam was being considered versus anywhere else.

Mr. Krieger said that in the SoNo Plan there was a recommendation to use shuttles between Merritt 7 and the SoNo station and he believed that this was worthy of further study because it completely depended on the mode of transit. He said the system would not work with diesel powered trains but would work with electric trains. He said he would not recommend it right now but he thought it was something that should be considered as a part of any future development.

Mr. Astrom said that for some time there’d been a need for a stop somewhere along the line and for the past few years there’d been discussion of putting a stop in the area from Wall Street to Commerce Street but that now the area of the 95/7 Project was being considered as an alternative.

Mr. Hempstead cited Section B.1.1.2 on page 16 which said “Encourage new development around transit access, and allow new development which does not exceed the capacity of infrastructure systems (roads, sewers, water, etc)” and asked if a plan to continue development while not exceeding the capacity of infrastructure systems had been made and if that plan was complete.

Mr. Krieger said that the way he read that was on a case by case basis. He said there were many types of infrastructure that needed to be assessed in order to determine that a project was not overloading the City’s infrastructure and in the case of the Wall Street and SoNo Plans, in the initial planning the carrying capacity of the existing infrastructure was not identified but was done on a project to project basis and was part of the approvals process.

Mr. Krummel said if 95/7 was being looked at to spur other development around the area there should be some understanding that there would be more infrastructure improvements needed,

Mr. Miklave said there were infrastructure i