ATTENDANCE: Amanda Brown, Chair; William Krummel; Andy Conroy; Fred Bondi.

STAFF: Attorney Linda Guliuzza, Corporation Counsel

OTHERS: Laurel Lindstrom, Council; Diane Cece; David Park; Todd Bryant.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by the Chair.

ROLL CALL

Roll call was taken and it was determined that a quorum was present.

ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES

The following corrections were made:
Laurel Lindstrom was present at this meeting.

**MR. BONDI MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 2008 AS CORRECTED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

OLD BUSINESS

DISCUSSION OF BLIGHT ORDINANCE

Ms. Lindstrom reported that a meeting was tentatively scheduled for March 28 at 10:00 a.m., to be confirmed by Corporation Counsel’s office, to further discuss the ordinance.

Mr. Krummel said he would like to attend.

Mr. David Park, a citizen resident at 66 Strawberry Hill, asked to speak. He reported that he had e-mailed several weeks ago, regarding his experience with properties that become blights. He cited as example a nursing home near his residence. The nursing home had been shut down and subsequently owned by two owners. Throughout that period, the property was subject to multiple incidents of vandalism, escalating in nature from defacing and vandalism of the exterior, breaking, entering and destruction of the interior, and culminating in an arson involving the City’s fire department and resulting in an injury to firefighter. Mr. Park stated that blight prevention ordinance would have forced absent owners to better maintain and secure the building. He also cited a dumpster fire at one of the schools and a bombing [near City Hall] that required response by the Stamford Bomb Squad. Mr. Park stated he believed all could have been prevented if owners could be held responsible on a preventive, pro-active basis rather than a reactive basis.

Mr. Park urged the Committee to consider the cost to the taxpayers of blights. He further stated he did not think the Health Department rules were sufficient to prevent potential blight from occurring or to correct current blight situations. He noted that blight could range from uncut grasses causing a hazard to properties held by developers deteriorated over long periods while they waited for approvals on their projects. He cited the Town of Fairfield’s blight ordinance as an example that Norwalk might consider.

The Chair thanked Mr. Park and asked if there was any further discussion or comment. There being none,

** THE CHAIR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION.
** THE MOTION PASSED WITH FOUR IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION (CONROY)

NEW BUSINESS

1. Presentation by Staff: Ms. Guliuzza made a presentation on ordinances in general, entitled Eight Steps to an Enforceable Ordinance. Her introduction emphasized that the State does not allow broad interpretation of the statute, which limits the concept of municipal law. Pursuant to the Charter, Section 1.1.91- the general health, peace, good order – very general language and seems like you can legislate in any area. However the Supreme Court of Connecticut will tell you you cannot do that. Municipal ordinances can only be enforced where the ordinance has been created by proper authority with proper authority. The courts look to the statutory authority for a municipality to determine whether the ordinance if valid and enforceable. What the State has not expressly given to a municipality, the municipality does not have. Mr. Krummel points out that the municipality exists as a creature of the state. Ms. Guliuzza agrees and quotes: is a creation of the state can exercise only such powers that are as are granted to it or such powers that are necessary to

Mr. Conroy asked that Ms. Guliuzza check on this point with respect to “home rule”.
Step 1: Identify the enabling legislation. If there is no enabling legislation, the ordinance will be very difficult to use and may be unenforceable.
Step 2: Identify the municipality’s goal.
Step 3: Examine alternative options and determine the best vehicle to achieve the goal. It may be an ordinance is necessary, but not always. The goal may be achieved, for example, by resolution or establishing a procedure in a department.
Step 4: Examine the cost – enacting is expensive and time consuming, publishing is very expensive. Of all actions, it is the most difficult and expensive to change or repeal.

Step 5: Drafting the ordinance. The most effective way to draft the ordinance is “backward”, that is, to consider first how the courts will interpret the ordinance as drafted. Therefore, in drafting the ordinance, the City should adhere to the same statutory rules of construction that will be applied by the courts. The process begins with a reasoned search to learn what is intended by the legislature. Look to:
a. the words of the statute itself
b. legislative history and circumstances surrounding this enactment
c. Minutes will illuminate the original intent of the municipality in creating and enacting the ordinance, and the more discussion, the more likely the ordinance will be enforced the way you intended. The legislative history is rooted in this discussion and embodied in this record
Step 6: Look to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, that is, say why the City has chosen to put an ordinance in place and what policy the City intended to implement by doing so.
Step 7: Examine the relationship to legislation and common law to avoid preemption by State statute and determine if State statute clearly intends to occupy the entire field of law (resulting in conflict) or if concurrent jurisdiction exists (and no likely conflict)
Step 8: Utilize the municipality’s internal resources at every step possible and as much as possible to facilitate the process. The people here have tremendous institutional history available and it is very important to include them and keep them in mind at every step of the way.

In closing, Attorney Guliuzza cautioned on two points: First, while outside resources such as CCM are useful, the Committee and the City should not stop with them and should check and review ourselves, and second, the process can be very time consuming. The Committee needs to take time to think through and draft enforceable ordinances.

2. Flood Erosion and Control Board Ordinance: Mr. Bondi said that as no one has been appointed by the City to the project, the Flood Erosion ordinance could be removed for the time being from the schedule.

3. Film Ordinance: Ms. Brown called upon Ms. Lindstrom for a report on the Film ordinance.

Mr. Bondi made preliminary remarks. He said there is no reason to over regulate the film industry at this point. It brings a lot of business to town. A studio has been established on Healy Avenue and another studio is being contemplated. He understands that the hotel and restaurant business benefit from the film industry and asked Ms. Cece, of the Norwalk Inn to provide her experience. Ms. Cece said it was not her experience that the Norwalk Inn benefited.

Ms. Lindstrom stated the intention of the proposed film ordinance was to make the town more film friendly and promote film production opportunities in Norwalk. Right now, the process of obtaining permits is very fragmented and it is difficult to get through all City Council offices and departments such as police, parks, public works, for all the necessary approvals. The intent of the ordinance would be to clearly state the process, facilitate coordination and keep film producers and regulating departments all on the “same page”. It would also ease the negotiation process. She believes such an ordinance could both promote film opportunities in Norwalk and provide for the protection of its citizens.

Mr. Krummel pointed out that the Film Ordinance is a fine example of Ms. Guliuzza’s discussion – does the City need it or not? Is it only coordination that is needed? If so, does the City need an ordinance for that? He does not think so. He cited an example of film production at the Lockwood Mathews Mansion, where the film company did not take care with antique rugs and ignored restrictions with respect to areas where food was prohibited. He stated an ordinance was not required, just a tough historical commission.

Mr. Bondi stated that Norwalk does have a set up right now to handle issuance of permits where Mary Roman brings the department heads together and anyone who needs to get permits can come that day to obtain the relevant signatures.

Ms. Brown stated that there appears to be a process in place and that it may need improvement. Therefore, if the committees that are currently working on the process fix the process, an ordinance might not be necessary at this point. The question could be reexamined in the future.

Mr. Conroy added “if the need emerges.”

Mr. Krummel added that if something is not working right and it is not being handled right in the City, the Committee can look into it.

4. Discussion of Timetable for Ordinance Projects: Ms. Brown reviewed a draft schedule for review of proposed ordinance projects, followed by discussion of timing to accommodate project needs and consensus on a revised timetable.

The revised proposed Timetable for Ordinance Projects is:

1. OTC – OFF due to lack of enabling statute
2. Senior Citizens/Disabled Citizen Tax Relief Credit – DONE
3. Hybrid Automobile Tax Credit – June-August 2008
4. Living Wage Ordinance – June-August 2008
5. Demolition Delay Ordinance – September-December 2008 to coordinate with Demolition Tax
6. Blight Ordinance – March-May 2008 and possibly June-August 2008
7. Flood Erosion and Control Board -- OFF
8. Film Ordinance – OFF
9. Demolition Tax – September-December 2008
10. Possible Public Hearings

5. Film Ordinance OTC Ordinance: Ms. Brown noted that there was no enabling statute for the OTC Ordinance, which must come from Planning.

6. Living Wage Ordinance: Ms. Brown noted that the proposed Living Wage ordinance is currently not enforceable. Ms. Guliuzza will need the lead time to work on it.

7. Demolition Delay Ordinance: Ms. Brown wanted to keep the proposed review of the Demolition Delay ordinance moving forward as the issue is in the news all the time.

Mr. Bondi stated he thought the Demolition Delay ordinance is working pretty well.

Mr. Bryant was recognized by the Chair. He commented that the City did not have the Demolition Delay ordinance on West Main Street, and the owners demolished the property.

Ms. Brown stated she would prefer to put discuss of the Demolition Delay ordinance off until September-December. There are a number of properties involved. She would like to hold another public hearing perhaps in May-June.

Mr. Bondi referred to the 193 East Avenue property, noting an impact on taxes owed by owners who will be affected by the delay. Is this putting off developers.

Ms. Brown stated that there is a system in place, but it is broken. The City needs to fix it.

Mr. Bondi pointed out that with other properties, such as Norwalk Hospital and West Avenue, owners are cooperative, but the Committee must realize that saving property is expensive to developers. He notes concessions made to the developers on Main Street and cost of housing to buyers.

Mr. Conway said that there is also a practical side. The Mayor vetoed the proposed ordinance the last time and made suggestions. It is not practical to go back before reviewing the proposal and making significant changes.

Mr. Krummel agreed stating there is a lot of discussion that should take place. He also added that the public hearing should be closely integrated into the development of the ordinance.

Ms. Brown stated that when the meeting is to be held, she will actively go out and seek input from developers and builders, as she recalls the prior hearings being attended primarily by the historical preservation groups.

There was general concurrence from the Committee therefore move the Living Wage discussions to June/August 2008 and the Demolition Delay discussions with hearings to September/December 2008.

8. Demolition Tax: Mr. Bondi suggested that the Committee schedule the Demolition Delay and Demolition Tax (a rebate to developers who experience demolition delays) concurrently. The Committee concurred.

** MR. BONDI MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kristie Rubendunst
Telesco Secretarial Services

Back to Previous Page	Back to Home Page

Business & Economy

City Departments

City Services

Government

Living in Norwalk

City Calendars

How Do I ?

Job Openings

Tourism & History

Other Sites

Feedback

Site Outline