Ronnie Coley (8:25 p.m.)

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

The following correction was made after ATTENDANCE: Delete "Commissioner" after each Member’s name and insert Council Member.

Mr. Wrenn arrived at 7:30 p.m.

Mr. Wilms stated that the Finance Committee had recommended a $500 senior citizen tax relief to the Common Council, which they then raised to a tiered relief of $550 and $600 based on income. He noted that senior tax relief was part of the City Ordinance and any changes to the City Code had to have a public hearing before being passed on. Mr. Wilms then explained that the Ordinance Committee was not set up to deal with the subsative issues of senior tax relief, as they did not have an analysis of its impact on the budget. He further explained that the Finance Committee had recommended the actual number and added that they did have the resources. Mr. Wilms commented that both Committees would meet next Tuesday with regard to what the numbers should be and then the full Council, which meets afterward, would vote. He then invited anyone who wished to speak concerning this issue to address the Committee.

Maryann O’Sullivan, Coordinator of the Senior Advocacy Group, spoke first. She stated that there had been a modified agreement to the income guidelines raising it to $40,000. She went on to state that many Members of the Council had promised this along with a deferral program and the changes were to be retroactive since they were negotiated late in the season. Ms. O’Sullivan commented that the State was generous to people in the lowest income bracket and added that the income levels set by Hartford were not realistic for Fairfield County. She said that the State subsidized incomes up to $29,000 and anyone who was over that level needed to be taken into consideration by the City. She mentioned that last year there was a cap of $800,000 for the senior tax relief fund and only $464,179 had been used. She commented that it would not bankrupt the City of Norwalk to help people who had been paying their taxes for up to 50 years. She stressed that she felt this was a commitment the City must make by providing for it in the budget. She also stressed that there were only 995 people in the program and she felt the City could be more generous so they did not go into contingency adding that they did not want to have to return to the Committee every year.

Mr. Ernie Brewer spoke next and said that the income the guidelines provided related more to a renter than a homeowner. He stressed that the base had to be increased adding that if a senior citizen could not afford the taxes the City would be subsidizing their residence in a nursing home.

Mr. Nolin arrived at 7:45 p.m.

Melanie Strong spoke next and distributed information to the Committee regarding a tax deferral program. She stated she felt this would be more helpful than a cash boost year by year. She noted that in order for some seniors to keep up with their taxes they were paying 18% on the amount in arrears, which deterred them from being able to pay the costs of maintaining their homes. Mr. Wilms advised her that the Finance Committee was looking into a deferral program.

Ms. O’Sullivan commented that the a Bill had been submitted asking that the Governor issue a bond to cities that had a tax deferral program in place and that bond would carry the City over until the back taxes had been paid. She said that the deferral program should be opened to people who had a higher income ($60,000) and she noted that if the program passed and Norwalk did not have a deferral program in place they would not be able to take advantage of it. She noted that Westport had the most people enrolled in the program and Darien had 5 people enrolled. She stated that it was a worthwhile program to initiate and even if only 5 people were helped it was worth it.

Mr. Conroy arrived at 7:50 p.m.

Next, Charles Wilhelm addressed the Committee and stated that he endorsed the deferral program and the bond. Mr. Wilms stated that the Committee would follow it with interest.

Mr. Wilms then stated that the Public Hearing on Senior Tax Relief was closed at 7:55 p.m. He added that the next step would be the joint hearing on Tuesday of the Finance and Ordinance Committees at which time there would be another discussion about where the numbers should go and if any changes should be made to the relief plan. After that meeting the issue would then be discussed by the full Council.

Mr. Wilms advised that the Committee began reviewing this Ordinance in September of last year when condominium owners complained about the noise from the construction of Merritt 7. He went on to state that after hearing from various people the main change that the Committee made was to propose the banning of nighttime construction from 8:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. He noted that the State allowed municipalities to ban nighttime construction and added that there were already many cities and towns that had done so. Mr. Wilms assured all present that his personal goal was to strike a good balance so that it was a winning situation for everyone.

Ms. Karen Casey spoke first and stated that a change in the start time from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. would deprive her of her right to quiet enjoyment. She commented that the workers arrived on site at least one hour before the start time and noted that their trucks had the reverse alarm, which added to the intrusion. She asked if this affected every district and Mr. Wilms replied that it did. Mr. Wilms also said that in addition to banning nighttime construction the Committee moved to ban the operation of construction equipment before 7:00 a.m. Ms. Casey asked what recourse citizens had if the law were violated and Mr. Wilms replied that the Police Department should be called and they would investigate the situation. He also noted that the offender would be given a $99 fine for the violation and that citizens had the right to request a Cease and Desist Order.

Mr. Wilhelm then addressed the Committee by stating he felt the amount of the fine should be proportionate to the cost of the project. He also felt that a $99 fine would not affect a large project. He commented that if this could not be done on an economic level then some other penalty should be added, i.e. compromise of future work, time delay of current project, or anything that would make the contractors pay attention. Mr. Wilms pointed out that this issue was something that the Committee had grappled about and they had spent a lot of time trying to make the penalty more offensive. He pointed out that unfortunately this was the highest fine they could legally impose on an offender and he added that the entire Committee had expressed much frustration regarding this issue.

Ms. Lasberg advised that nighttime construction had been permissible and now the proposal was to ban it. She commented that someone could not have their right to earn a living taken away from them. She pointed out that the Committee had made a reasonable standard in addition to stipulating that the work must be conducted in a reasonable manner. Mr. Wilhelm commented that a contractor that violated the Noise Ordinance was flagrantly abusing the law and they should be made to sign a statement that they understand the Noise Ordinance so they cannot say they did not know it. Ms. Lasberg pointed out that ignorance of the law was no defense and Mr. Wilms stated that if the Ordinance was passed and there were further abuses the Committee could revisit the issue.

Mr. Brewer asked if the violations were addressed individually and Mr. Torrano stated that they way the Ordinance read there could only be one infraction per site per day. Mr. Wilms stated that the Committee had asked Corporate Counsel to investigate this point and Ms. Lasberg stated that a fine could be imposed upon each individual violation. Mr. Torrano commented that he did not recall that to be the case based on the Committee’s previous discussions. Mr. Wilms concurred with him but stated that if it were in fact permissible they would enforce the law as such. Mr. Wilms then said that was defined in the Ordinance as "per person for each day that the violation continues" and suggested that "each day" be stricken.

Attorney Waters, representing Merritt River Partners, LLC, stated that he had 3 issues of the proposal to address with the Committee.

1. The complete outright ban of all construction after 8:00 p.m. Attorney Waters said that this would prohibit a homeowner from operating a table saw at 9:00 p.m. He felt an exception should be made to exclude construction activity that was completely indoors that did not generate discernable noise outside the structure.
2. The proposed modification that would eliminate the automatic approval of a variance if the Health Director had not made a decision in 30 days. Attorney Waters said that the modification did not state that the Health Director had any time frame in which to complete the application for variance process. He commented that without the time frame a request for a hearing would make the process meaningless.
3. The language of the General Prohibition (68-5F). Attorney Waters said that even if all the standards were met there could still be a violation of the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Wilms stated that certain noises were exempt subject to the General Prohibition. Attorney Waters stated that an exemption was an exemption. He felt that 68-5F should be stricken as 68-6 listed the exemptions and was more informative.

Mr. Wilms noted that Councilman McCready arrived in the audience at 8:25 p.m.

Attorney Tom Flaherty, representing Hewitt and Merritt 7 stated that he had indicated some of their objections to the proposal draft back in December. He went on to state that his clients felt a start time of 7:00 a.m. was reasonable. He then said that General Conditions 68-6 could be interpreted several different ways and the General Prohibition was not appropriate for noise that simply bothered someone. Mr. Wilms read, out loud, the General Prohibition language.

Ms. Laurel Lindstrom stated that the noise rules in the General Prohibition blanketed all noises outside of the specific listing and she felt it could work if it were used sensibly. She went on to state that it was not only for construction and as long as it was balanced it could work. She added that she liked that section.

Mr. Wilhelm stated that he was sensitive to the ability to control noise if it did not fit into the decibel level but the noise may be of an excessive or an abusive nature.

Mr. Kimmel left the meeting at 8:45 p.m. and Mr. Wilms closed the public hearing.

Mr. Torrano stated for the benefit of the attorneys present that he wanted it to be clear that the Committee was addressing these issues because of willful violations by contractors that citizens had brought to their attention. He commented that he did not want the efforts of the Committee to appear to be for any other reason that what it was – the Committee was addressing the needs of the citizens.

Mr. Wilms suggested the following changes to the Ordinance:

1. The $99 Per Day Fine – Strike per day and multiple fines per day so that the offenders would have to pay for multiple offenses. Mr. Torrano stated that it would not make much difference because by the time the police arrived the time would be within the limits of the law. Mr. Nolin stated that after 8:00 p.m. the law continues and was not limited to construction. Mr. Bonenfant noted that fines could be doubled or tripled if several different crews were on the site.

Another discussion ensued among the Commissioners regarding in-house construction and Mr. Torrano stated that it had become apparent that they were not going to have a perfect Ordinance. Mr. Wilms stated that he agreed and ultimately they would have to rely on a good deal of common sense. He noted that from a commercial perspective if construction work was needed inside a structure a variance could be obtained and he did not see this to be an issue with residents and homeowners.

Mr. Conroy stated that it seemed that it had been made clear that the purpose for this Ordinance sprung from a noise complaint. Mr. Nolin remarked that Mr. Wilms wanted anyone performing construction, noisy or not, before or after the permissible times to be in violation. Mr. Torrano pointed out that common sense had to prevail.

Ms. Lasberg noted that it would be the burden of the applicant to make certain that his application was complete so that the Health Director was not chasing down documents or notices of applications.

1. General Prohibition Under 68-6 Supersedes The Prior Exemption – Mr. Wilms stated that the language did not supersede the exemption. He stated that General Prohibition should be stricken out in 68-6 to alleviate the problem. Mr. Nolin stated that he could envision circumstances where someone was doing extensive construction work and making unreasonable noise during the day. He went on to state that even though some things might be done during normal construction hours they might fall into the General Prohibition. Mr. Wilms commented that an exemption was such because the activity needed to go on but it had to be reasonable. He suggested that they keep "supersede exemption" but change the prohibition. Then he suggested that the Committee not make a motion on that point.

Mr. Nolin asked if the Committee felt they needed to keep the word "unreasonable" in their definition of noise. Mr. Wilms replied that with the General Prohibition in place they did not need a definition of noise. He noted that 68-8A was a reference. He also noted that he felt 68-5B was no longer needed in the Ordinance and he proposed to have it eliminated. Mr. Nolin said that the definition of noise should be amended to add the word "and" after ordinance and cross out "noise disturbance" and make the word "a" a small "a" as it was all one sentence. Mr. Conroy stated that the implication of the Noise Ordinance was that there was legal and illegal noise. He pointed out at times in the Ordinance there were adjectives before noise and other times when it was beyond a certain decibel. He advised that somehow the Committee had to wrap that in and make it consistent throughout the Ordinance. Mr. Wilms stated that the definition of noise should be made to state noise pollution or unlawful noise and then the legal department should review the Ordinance and make the additions.

Mr. Wilms stated that Corporate Counsel needed to go through the Ordinance and make the corrections by slotting the appropriate word (noise or unlawful) in the appropriate place.

Mr. Bonenfant questioned that "Blasting" in 68-6E would be under the jurisdiction of the Director of Health due to the fact that the Fire Marshall regulated all blasting. He noted that the Committee might want to delete Director of Health from that statement and insert Fire Marshall. Mr. Wilms commented that had been a topic of discussion not only for blasting but also for all emergencies. Mr. Nolin stated he agreed with Mr. Bonenfant but Mr. Wilms pointed out that this Ordinance was limited to noise and did not give him the authority to allow blasting. Ms. Lasberg advised that the Director of Health had emergency protocol to follow and he would consult with whomever was appropriate, depending on the nature of the emergency. She explained that this afforded a blanket of one person to contact and once he was contacted he would know where to proceed. Mr. Nolin commented that he felt it would be appropriate to state that in the Ordinance.

A discussion followed regarding emergency permits and under whose jurisdiction decisions would be made in an emergent situation where constriction or demolition work had to be done to avoid a collapse of a building.

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Ann Marie DeLuca

Telesco Secretarial Services