|
| |
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
SPECIAL MEETING
OCTOBER 24TH, 2007
ATTENDANCE: Matt Miklave, Chair; Douglas Hempstead; William Krummel; Carvin
Hilliard (8:10 p.m.)
STAFF: Tim Sheehan, Executive Director of Norwalk Redevelopment Agency
The meeting was called to order at 7:50 p.m. by Mr. Miklave.
I. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There was no one from the public who wished to speak
II. BUSINESS
A. MASTER PLAN OF CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT
1. Review & Discussion
Mr. Hempstead referred to Section A. and asked if it would be a good idea as
part of the master plan requirements to have a yearly revision to account for
updates of demographic information.
Mr. Sheehan suggested that the staff could be asked to adjust the document on
an annual basis
Mr. Miklave said the incorporation of demographic information into the master plan of development would require a formal process of amending the master plan of development every year and suggested instead that because this demographic information was important for planning purposes that the information be made available on an annual basis to the Planning Committee, Planning Commission, Zoning Committee and Zoning Commission and all concerned agencies.
Mr. Hempstead referred to page eight of the Plan of Conservation & Development which he said used numbers that were correct at the time that the document was made but perhaps would not be in the future and suggested that as part of the Master Plan, an annual report on demographic information such as income and housing information be required.
Mr. Miklave thought it was a good idea to require such a report but didn’t think that requirement should be included within the Master Plan.
Mr. Hempstead referred to Section A.2.1.1 and A.2.2.1 on page 11 and said that he was not satisfied with how the plan addressed senior housing. He said that there was a lot of emphasis on affordable housing in the plan but not a lot on senior housing and thought there should be a stronger emphasis and an encouragement to build structured senior housing versus individual housing.
Mr. Miklave suggested that the creation of new housing was implicit in A.2.1.1 which said, “Encourage quality housing for a variety of tenures, family sizes, incomes, the elderly, and persons with special needs.”
Mr. Hempstead proposed that language be added to A.2.1.1 or A.2.2.1 to require the City of Norwalk to provide additional public and/ or private affordable senior housing.
Mr. Miklave said that A.2.4 seemed to cover this issue and while it didn’t distinctly include seniors, it didn’t exclude them.
Mr. Hempstead asked Mr. Sheehan if he could formulate language to specifically include senior housing.
Mr. Sheehan agreed.
Mr. Hilliard arrived at 8:10 p.m.
Mr. Hempstead referenced item A.2.1.8 where it said, “Continue to support public and private efforts to provide emergency shelter and transitional housing to Norwalk’s homeless families and individuals” and suggested that the language was not sufficiently inclusive.
** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO INSERT “NON-PROFIT, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS” BETWEEN
“PUBLIC,” AND “AND PRIVATE EFFORTS IN ITEM A.2.1.8.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hempstead referenced items A.2.1.4, A.2.1.5 and A.2.1.12 and said that language should be added to include repurchasing of existing affordable housing units once their affordable housing status had expired to keep them affordable.
Mr. Hilliard asked how often affordable housing units expired.
Mr. Sheehan answered that it was a frequent occurrence and that the City lost much of its affordable housing units to expired CHAFA mortgages. He explained that at the time of expiration, the owner could sell the unit back to CHAFA who could negotiate with an affordable housing developer, go back through the tax credit process and the unit would then stay in the affordable housing inventory for another 30 years.
Mr. Hilliard said that it was important to provide new units and asked for a list of expiring affordable housing properties. He was concerned that the process of repurchasing these properties could displace residents.
Mr. Miklave asked Mr. Sheehan to prepare language to include the concerns of both Mr. Hilliard and Mr. Hempstead.
Mr. Hempstead noted that he didn’t want to exclude the option of developing new affordable housing, rather he wanted to include the option of repurchasing existing affordable housing.
** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO ADD LANGUAGE TO ITEM A.2.1.12 TO USE THE ZONING REGULATION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO REPURCHASE OR ACQUIRE EXPIRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
Mr. Hilliard said that he was not comfortable voting on this until further information was provided.
Mr. Krummel stated that he wanted more information on all of the different types of affordable housing. He was especially concerned with deed restrictions and with the City’s role with regard to CHAFA housing.
Mr. Miklave said that while he agreed with the spirit of Mr. Hempstead’s proposed amendment, he did not feel that it changed what was already in the plan in any substantive way; rather he felt that it might unintentionally restrict it.
** MOTION FAILED WITH MR. HEMPSTEAD IN FAVOR AND MR. KRUMMEL, MR. MIKLAVE AND MR. HILLIARD OPPOSED.
** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE TO SECTION A.6.2.1 “THAT MEETS STATE STATUTES ON EMINANT DOMAIN”.
Mr. Hilliard said that he was uncomfortable changing the language without first reading the state statute on eminent domain and asked how the plan was not in compliance with that statute.
Mr. Hempstead said that he didn’t believe it wasn’t in compliance but wanted to simply add language to make sure that the statute was used as a guideline.
Mr. Miklave opposed the amendment on the grounds that the City had to comply with all state and federal laws and didn’t feel that one law should be singled out over others.
** MOTION FAILED WITH MR. HEMPSTEAD IN FAVOR AND MR. KRUMMEL, MR. MIKLAVE AND MR. HILLIARD OPPOSED.
Mr. Hempstead then referred to section A.6.3 and asked if there should be suggestive language there that the area of redevelopment might need to be expanded. He said that the Redevelopment Agency had a redevelopment area that was clearly defined and that Section A.6.3 alluded to areas outside of those already defined that would be drawn. Mr. Hempstead suggested that language be inserted to say that those already defined areas could be modified.
Mr. Miklave said that the way he looked at this provision was perhaps more simply than Mr. Hempstead suggested. He said that over the previous 20 years the City had identified areas of the City meriting redevelopment and had embarked upon what he thought to be very successful efforts to redevelop South Norwalk, West Avenue, Wall Street and other designated redevelopment areas of the City. He said that he saw this plan as saying that the City had embarked on those redevelopment projects and continued to be in the process of redevelopment and it was now time to focus on other areas of the City to consider whether new areas should be redeveloped. He said that it identified those areas outlined in Section A.6.3 as possible redevelopment areas. Mr. Miklave didn’t see how any language change would change the fundamental principal of Section A.6.3 and added that the document wasn’t committing the City to redevelop those areas but rather suggested that redevelopment would be considered and opportunities would be explored.
Mr. Hempstead explained that he was suggesting that the City should consider expansion of the existing redevelopment zone because they were currently restricted with regard to allocation of resources and funding.
Mr. Miklave asked if Mr. Hempstead was suggesting that this document urge the City to consider expansion of the Wall Street redevelopment area beyond that which the Council had recently approved.
Mr. Hempstead said that he was and noted that Mueller Park, which was referenced
as a possible additional redevelopment area was outside the current redevelopment
plan areas.
Mr. Miklave agreed that the areas outlined in A.6.3 were outside of current
redevelopment areas but felt that the language in A.6.3 already said what Mr.
Hempstead was trying to convey and if it did not asked him to suggest language
that did.
** MR. HEMPSTEAD MOVED TO ADD A.6.3.4, “THE CITY WILL CONSIDER EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AREAS THAT FALL IN THE PURVIEW OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
Mr. Hilliard asked if the City would have to go back and renegotiate existing LDAs and suggested that this would unintentionally delay redevelopment.
Mr. Sheehan answered that this would not affect existing redevelopment plan areas.
Mr. Miklave felt that it was inappropriate to open redevelopment to any area of the City.
** MOTION FAILED WITH MR. HEMPSTEAD IN FAVOR AND MR. KRUMMEL, MR. MIKLAVE AND MR. HILLIARD OPPOSED.
Mr. Krummel referred to Section B.5.1.3 which said, “Provide a cost-benefit analysis of sewer separation of combined sanitary and storm sewers before continuing to separate.” and stated that the separation of sewer and storm systems was 99% Complete according to Hal Alvord, Director of Public Works as of the time of this meeting.
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED TO DELETE B.5.1.3 AND REPLACE WITH “ENCOURAGE A PLAN AND
FUNDING TO INSPECT AND REPAIR THE STORM SYSTEM AND DETECT ILLEGAL CONNECTIONS.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Krummel then referred to Section B.5.1.6 which said, “Require sanitary pump out facilities at marinas or implement alternatives including expanding boater’s education to increase usage of pump out facilities and promoting the proper use of holding tanks and pump out facilities.” and said that he was unaware of any alternatives to sanitary pump out facilities and felt that the allusion to non-existent alternatives was a distraction that should be removed.
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED TO REPLACE “OR IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING EXPANDING BOATER’S EDUCATION TO INCREASE USAGE OF PUMP OUT FACILITIES AND PROMOTING THE PROPER USE OF HOLDING TANKS AND PUMP OUT FACILITIES” IN SECTION B.5.1.6 WITH “AND CONSIDER ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY MEASURES TO PROMOTE PROPER USE OF HOLDING TANKS AND PUMP OUT FACILITIES.
Mr. Hempstead said that he believed the item alluded to public pumping facilities at launching docks as an alternative.
** MOTION FAILED WITH MR. HILLIARD AND MR. KRUMMEL IN FAVOR AND MR. HEMPSTEAD AND MR. MIKLAVE OPPOSED.
Mr. Krummel then referred to Section B.6.2.1 which read, “Encourage contractors to set up recycling bins at job sites” and said he thought the City should be stricter on contractors setting up recycling bins at job sites.
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED TO REPLACE “ENCOURAGE” WITH REQUIRE IN ITEM B.6.2.1.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED TO ADD ITEM B.7.1.5, “DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM TO ENCOURAGE CITY RESIDENTS TO LEGALLY DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Mr. Krummel explained that residents were illegally disposing of hazardous materials such as batteries and propane tanks with their regular trash and this caused explosions and damage in the trash recovery center.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED TO ADD ITEM B.8.1.5, “ENCOURAGE THE STUDY AND APPLICATION
OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY GENERATION”.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
** MR. KRUMMEL MOVED TO ADD ITEM B.10.1.5, “ENCOURAGE THE STUDY AND PLANNING
FOR ALTERNATE MEANS OF DELIVERY AND DISTRIBUTION OF INEXPENSIVE AND RELIABLE
POWER TO THE RESIDENTS OF NORWALK.
** MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
III. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
ADJOURNMENT
** MR. HILLIARD MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** MOTION PASSED WITH ONE OPPOSED: MR. KRUMMEL.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jessica Schroder
Telesco Secretarial Services
 |
 |