|
| |
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
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 4, 2007
ATTENDANCE: Matthew Miklave, Chairman; William Krummel, Douglas
Hempstead, Rev. Phyllis Bolden
STAFF: Timothy Sheehan, Redevelopment Agency Director; Michael
Greene, Planning and Zoning Director
OTHERS: Al Raymond, Diane Lauricella, Torgny Astrom, Planning
Commission Vice Chair; Frances DiMeglio, Planning
Commission; Leigh Grant, Planning Commission
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Miklave called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
** MR. MIKLAVE MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULED TO ADD AN ITEM TO THE AGENDA REGARDING
THE AMENDMENT OF THE POKO PARTNERS LAND DISPOSITION AGREEMENT.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Miklave distributed copies of the POKO Partners Land Disposition Agreement to the Committee members.
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED THE AMENDMENT OF THE POKO PARTNERS LAND DISPOSITION AGREEMENT AS ATTACHED.
Mr. Krummel had several questions about the default agreement. Mr. Sheehan
explained that the defaults were basically the same for all three parties. The
various clauses are covered in the following: 19.3 for the developer; 19.5 for
the City and 19.7 for the City.
Mr. Sheehan then reviewed these sections with the Committee members. Mr. Sheehan
also commented that the Redevelopment Agency and the City are regarded as stand
along agencies in the agreement.
** THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF THE POKO PARTNERS LAND DISPOSITION
AGREEMENT AS ATTACHED PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Let it be noted that the following comments and remarks by all speakers have been summarized and are not necessarily verbatim.
Mr. Al Raymond came forward and stated that he was representing the Spring Hill Road/Hospital Area Neighborhood Association.
Mr. Raymond distributed copies of a document titled “Spring Hill/Hosp. Area Neighborhood Assoc. input on the Master Plan draft” to the Committee members.
Mr. Raymond said that he would like to clarify that he was portrayed as a critic in the newspaper article about the Master Plan Public Hearing. Mr. Raymond said that he did not oppose the Plan but would like to see some of the changes that he had highlighted in document included in the Implementation Section of the Master Plan.
Ms. Lauricella came forward and stated that she was addressing the Committee as a private citizen.
Ms. Lauricella then distributed copies of a letter to Chairman Miklave regarding the meeting that took place on October 1, 2007.
Ms. Lauricella said for the record that she felt that her comment was taken out of context by the press. Ms. Lauricella indicated that her statement was included in the letter to the Committee members. She stated that she did not declare that the entire document was useless, but merely that “Without adding more details about how to maintain and increase enforcement of our health, land use/zoning and building regulations, this document is just wish words and this section could be useless.”
In addition to Ms. Lauricella’s comments from the other night, she said that she would like to see her following comments added in:
Page 16, B.2.2.1 – Ms. Lauricella stated that she does support water dependent uses, but there needs to be language stating that it is not at the demise of the natural environmental needs. She said that there had been language included in the original document that shows a balance.
Page 17, B.3.1.5 -- Ms. Lauricella said that there might be other technologies available and had previously suggested that rain gardens be added to the document. She suggested that the phrase “and other innovated technologies as they become available” be added.
Page 18, B.4.1.1 – This section deals with the detailed aquifer map. Ms. Lauricella said that the private drinking water wells are located should be added.
Page 19, B.8.1.3 – Ms. Lauricella said that she was happy that the City was mandating energy efficient buildings, she felt that alternative energy generation should be included, such as geo-thermal, solar and other technologies.
Ms. Lauricella then said that she would like to see an item called “B.9.1.4 – regarding the addition of air quality via bike use, pedestrian use and rail use.”
Ms. Lauricella suggested that under Section F (pp 42-46) that a sentence be added addressing functionality. This would encourage increased communications between the Redevelopment Agency and the Planning and Zoning Department. Ms. Lauricella said there have been specific cases where the communication has not been as good as Ms. Lauricella felt it should be.
Ms. Lauricella said that there were numerous other documents that were not included in the Master Plan that should have been added on as appendices. She said those items were listed in her letter along with some other suggestions for changes to the Plan language.
Mr. Miklave asked if there was any other member of the public present who wished to address the Committee. No one else present wished to address the Committee. Mr. Miklave said that he would like to move the consideration and approval of the minutes to the end of the meeting. This was agreeable to all the Committee members.
BUSINESS
A. THE MASTER PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVEVLOPMENT
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED THE ITEM.
Mr. Krummel said that he had prepared a written summary of his comments on the Master Plan. He also said that the Master Plan was quite a production and needs to be moved forward. However, his remarks or anyone else’s remarks should not be interpreted as negative or detracting from the work.
Mr. Krummel then said that A.1.1 – Promote balanced growth in Norwalk was good, but that he felt that the development has to be made with consideration of protecting the environment. He then mentioned the Gault Tank Farm, where there were concerns about the proximity to the Harbor, wetlands and waterways.
** MR. KRUMMEL THEN MOVED TO AMEND THE MASTER PLAN BY ADDING A SECTION TITLED A.1.1.8 – ENCOURAGE THE BALANCE BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Krummel then suggested that Section A.2.1.1 be changed by removing the phrase “the elderly” from the proposal and include “senior housing”. There was a discussion about this. It was suggested that rather than change it to “senior housing” that the word “seniors” be included. Mr. Krummel agreed.
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED TO AMEND SECTION A.2.1.1 OF THE MASTER PLAN BY CHANGING
THE WORDING FROM:
“A.2.1.1 -- ENCOURAGE QUALITY HOUSING FOR A VARIETY OF
TENURES, FAMILY SIZES, INCOMES, THE ELDERLY, AND PERSONS
WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.”
TO: “A.2.1.1 -- ENCOURAGE QUALITY HOUSING FOR A VARIETY OF
TENURES: FAMILY SIZES, INCOMES, SENIORS, AND PERSONS
WITH SPECIAL NEEDS.”
There was a brief discussion about the procedure for making the amendments.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Krummel then directed everyone’s attention to A.2.1.3 and A.2.1.5 where the proposal only list the Wall Street and Reed Putnam areas, but did not include the Wall Street Development.
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED TO AMEND SECTIONS A.2.1.3 AND A.2.1.5 AS FOLLOWS:
FROM: A.2.1.3 – CONTINUE TO PROVIDE BUDGET FUNDING TO REDEVELOP THE WEST AVENUE AND REED PUTNAM AREAS WITH NEW HOUSING AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
A 2.1.5 – ENCOURAGE AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF HOUSING IN THE WEST AVENUE AND REED PUTNAM AREAS TO BE AFFORDABLE TO FAMILIES WITH INCOMES AT OR BELOW THE CONNECTICUT HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY’S INCOME LIMITS.
TO: A.2.1.3 – CONTINUE TO PROVIDE BUDGET FUNDING TO REDEVELOP THE WEST AVENUE, REED PUTNAM AND WALL STREET AREAS WITH NEW HOUSING AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
A 2.1.5 – ENCOURAGE AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF HOUSING IN THE WEST AVENUE REED PUTNAM AND WALL STREET AREAS TO BE AFFORDABLE TO FAMILIES WITH INCOMES AT OR BELOW THE CONNECTICUT HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY’S INCOME LIMITS
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Krummel said that he had some questions about Section A.2.12. where it addresses “expiring affordability”. Mr. Sheehan said that this would refer to a unit where the CHAFA mortgage was about to expire. When this happened it the unit would move back to the market rate. Mr. Krummel said that he believe that the affordability was written into the deed. Mr. Sheehan said this was true, but not all CHAFA financing includes deed restrictions.
Mr. Krummel then asked whether A.2.2.3 could be used to increase the affordable housing stock in the City. Mr. Sheehan said that the Redevelopment Agency has a rehabilitation program that provides certain services based on income levels of the occupants of the units. Mr. Miklave said that great caution needed to be taken with issues like this. If a homeowner were put in a position that in order to receive money that would be used to stay in his home, he would have to give up some property rights, that would severely suppress the usage of the funds by homeowners. The Committee then discussed the details of this issue. Mr., Krummel said that he was looking for a way to increase the affordable housing units in Norwalk outside of the conventional process.
The discussion then turned to adding a section titled “A.2.2.5 – Encourage the expansion of the number of affordable units through innovative methods such as incentive programs.”
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED TO AMEND THE MASTER PLAN BY ADDING A NEW SECTION – A.2.2.5-
ENCOURAGE THE EXPANSION OF THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THROUGH INNOVATIVE
METHODS SUCH AS INCENTIVE PROGRAMS.”
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Krummel then said that he would like to see the Wall Street development added to A. 3.1.2.
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED TO AMEND A.3.1.2 FROM:
A3.1.2 -- STRENGTHEN THE REVITALIZATION OF THE WEST AVENUE AND REED PUTNAM AREAS BY ENCOURAGING MIXED RESIDENTIAL USE DEVELOPMENT (I.E. OFFICE, STORES, SERVICES, RESTAUARANTS AND THEATERS TOGETHER WILL HOUSING, PARKS AND CULTURAL FACILITIES).
TO: A3.1.2 -- STRENGTHEN THE REVITALIZATION OF THE WEST AVENUE, REED PUTNAM AND WALL STREET AREAS BY ENCOURAGING MIXED RESIDENTIAL USE DEVELOPMENT (I.E. OFFICE, STORES, SERVICES, RESTAUARANTS AND THEATERS TOGETHER WILL HOUSING, PARKS AND CULTURAL FACILITIES).
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Krummel said that he had difficulty with the photograph on page 13, which shows a Restoration Sandblasting, but the caption reads, “Water Dependent uses should be protected along the Norwalk River”. Mr. Krummel said that he did not think that the caption went along with the photo because Restoration Sandblasting was not a water dependent use.
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED TO DELETE THE PHOTO ON PAGE 13 OF THE NORWALK MASTER PLAN
AND REPLACE IT WITH A PHOTO OF BARGES.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Krummel then referred to a letter from the Mayor about the Gault petroleum tank farm. He then directed everyone’s attention to A.5.1.1, which is the Restricted Industrial Zones report and A.6.3.3, which also addresses the issue.
Mr. Krummel said that it would be important to have redevelopment that was compatible with the neighborhoods, the proximity to the Sound and wetlands, etc. Mr. Krummel said that there had been great concern raised in the community over the tank farm, he thought it was natural to ask what would have to be done with the Zoning and the Master Plan to recognize what the community is saying.
A discussion about the issues surrounding the tank farm proposal then followed.
Mr. Krummel said that he felt that the tank farm location was discriminatory because it was located in an area where the residents might not be able to defend themselves like other areas of the town. He pointed out that Ely School was nearby along with other developments.
Mr. Miklave said that he did not agree with the idea that there was intentional discrimination by City officials. He said that he did not think that there was any malevolence by the placement of the tank farm. Mr. Miklave said that he did agree that there was a strong correlation between former industrial zones in areas that might be considered “more affordable”. The former industrial zones have uses that are less desirable than others to the surrounding community. Mr. Miklave said that he thought that this would be something the committee would have to consider.
Mr. Miklave said that he had been considering whether the concept of a heavy industrial zone in Norwalk a thing of the past. He said that he had not come to any firm conclusion regarding this. Mr. Hempstead said that he was concerned about getting involved in a particular application and writing specific things into the Master Plan. The important thing was balance.
Mr. Astrom said that he had not received the Mayor’s letter. He also said that the Gault application had been denied.
Mr. Krummel said that he was using the Gault tank farm as an example and never intended that the application would be specifically used to incorporate language into the Master Plan. Mr. Krummel also said that he did not wish to imply in any way that any member of the City administration was involved in any discriminating activity.
Mr. Krummel then mentioned the Mayor’s public release on August 29, 2007, where the Mayor announced that he would be requesting the Planning Committee of the Common Council to ask the Planning Commission under Charter Section 1-371 to revise the Master Plan prior to it being adopted by the Common Council. Mr. Miklave commented that the Mayor had not communicated with the Committee regarding this. He also pointed out that the Committee has no authority to send a document back to the Planning Committee. That is the Council’s responsibility under the Charter. Mr. Miklave then reviewed the process. A lengthy discussion followed.
** MR. KRUMMEL THEN MOVED TO AMEND SECTION A.6.3 OF THE MASTER PLAN BY DELETING A.6.3.1 THROUGH A.6.3.3 AND ADDING THE FOLLOWING:
A.6.3. EXPLORES OPPORTUNITIES TO DESIGNATED REDEVELOPMENT AREA AS A MEANT TO ACHIEVE THE PLAN GOALS.
A.6.3.1 – IDENTIFY AREAS FOR REDEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE COMPATABLE WITH NEIGHBORHOODS, PROXIMITY TO SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS SUCH AS LONG ISLAND SOUND, NORWALK HARBOR, WETLANDS AND THE LIKE.
The Committee then discussed the wording of this proposal.
** MR. KRUMMEL WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
** MR. KRUMMEL THEN MOVED TO INSTRUCT THE STAFF TO PROPOSE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD
INCORPORATE THE CONCEPTS THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD DISCUSSED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Miklave said that there was a great deal more discussion regarding the Master Plan to do. Mr. Miklave said that scheduling a special meeting on October 15th had been discussed by Mr. Sheehan for the purposes of continuing this discussion.
Mr. Hempstead said that the Master Plan took a long time to be developed and he did not want to give it less attention than it deserved. The Committee then discussed possible dates for a Special Meeting.
** REV. BOLDEN MOVED TO TABLE THE REST OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE MASTER PLAN
TO THE NEXT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE.
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH THREE IN FAVOR (MIKLAVE, HEMPSTEAD, AND BOLDEN) AND
ONE AGAINST (KRUMMEL).
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
JUNE 7, 2007
** REV. BOLDEN MOVED THE MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2007.
The following correction was noted:
Page 1, ATTENDANCE: Please add “William Krummel” to the attendees.
** THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2007 AS CORRECTED PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
JUNE 18, 2007
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED THE MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2007
** THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2007 AS SUBMITTED PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
JULY 10, 2007
** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED THE MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2007.
** THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2007 AS SUBMITTED PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
JULY 16, 2007
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED THE MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2007.
The following correction was noted:
Page 4, under ADJOURNMENT: please change “Mr. Miklave adjourned the meeting
at
9:25 p.m.”
to “After consulting with Mr. Hempstead, Mr. Miklave adjourned the meeting as a result of the disruption by Mr. Kydes.”
** THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2007 AS AMENDED PASSED WITH THREE IN FAVOR (MIKLAVE, HEMPSTEAD AND KRUMMEL) AND ONE OPPOSED (BOLDEN).
AUGUST 2, 2007
** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 2007 AS SUBMITTED.
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH THREE IN FAVOR (MIKLAVE, HEMPSTEAD AND BOLDEN) AND
ONE ABSTENTION (KRUMMEL).
SEPTEMBER 6, 2007
** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 AS SUBMITTED.
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH THREE IN FAVOR (KRUMMEL, MIKLAVE, HEMPSTEAD) AND ONE
ABSTENTION (BOLDEN).
ADJOURNMENT
** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Soltes
Telesco Secretarial Service
 |
 |