November 19, 2008 11:36 am

Demolition Delay Back From The Dead

The Hour is reporting that the ordinance committee brought back to life the Demolition Delay ordinance. When we last looked at the issue, it was campaign 2007, the Common Council passed a strengthened ordinance that formalized reporting procedures, increased fines, and lengthened the review period. Then Mayor Moccia vetoed it, and with the election changing the council the item expired.

The issues that were successfully passed on that ordinance are not ones that are currently being looked at. Mind boggling as that is. The Hour reports:

Members of the Common Council’s Ordinance Committee weighed Tuesday night the role
of the Norwalk Historical Commission in the city’s demolition delay ordinance.

At the end of the meeting, they decided to hear from Historical commissioners themselves. A joint meeting between the Ordinance Committee and Historical Commission is set for Dec. 16.

“We should definitely have a meeting and invite the Norwalk Historical Commission to our next meeting,” said Councilwoman Amanda M. Brown, Ordinance Committee chairwoman. “We need to determine what their role is and make sure they’re comfortable with it.”

Zoinks, is there any other commission in a position to figure out whether a building is worth preserving?

At issue is whether to amend the city’s existing 90-day demolition delay ordinance, which was adopted during the administration of Mayor Alex Knopp to bring preservationists and property owners together in search of alternatives to demolition of historic properties.

Under the ordinance, individuals may invoke a 90-day demolition delay.

Some believe the ordinance has been misapplied.

“What was happening in the past is that there were (Historical) commissioners on there who were being judge and jury. And that can’t happen,” said Coun-cilman Fred A. Bondi, council president and Ordinance Committee member. “You’re there as a commissioner listening to the person that’s complaining, but you can’t make a judgment and be the judge and the jury.”

WTF. The demolition delay ordinance, and I’m sure someone out there has a list, has barely been used. The issue has never been about how the delay ordinance has been used, it’s been about what people think it can be used for.

On Tuesday night, committee members concurred that the Historical Commission is the appropriate body to hold public hearings on properties where a demolition delay has been invoked. At the same time, committee members said the Historical Commission cannot be the body to “trigger” a delay.

“I can’t think of any body in the city that can better (hold such a public hearing) than a Historical Commission,” said Councilman William M. Krummel, council majority leader and Ordinance Committee member. “I think the public hearing is necessary, and the best body to conduct it is the Historical Commission. And sure, we can forbid the Historical Commis-sion from initiating the demolition delay and go from there.”

This is a fairly interesting legal question. Then corporation counsel Peter Nolin, outlined that issue in a memo, which I happen to agree with. A system of checks and balance requires that you can’t have the body that sits in judgment on the issue, also be the body that initiates the review. It makes the proceeding prejudicial biased. I’ve always thought that it was better to have the initiation of a review and hearing be as automated as possible, that way there’s a fairness to the equal application of the law, and the ability for the commission panel to decide whether a delay should be enacted or not. That was sort of the key there, having the panel decided something, right?

Last fall, Mayor Richard A. Moccia vetoed a tougher, 180-day delay ordinance as passed by the 2005-07 council. Preservationists supported the extension, as allowed under revisions to state law. Moccia and others also questioned whether 50-year-old structures are historical.

Under the proposed revisions to the city ordinance, the granting of a demolition permit shall not be delayed more than 180 days, if a building is at least 75 years old. For structures between 50 and 75 years, the demolition permit issuance cannot be delayed for more than 90 days.

According to David W. Park, Historical Commission chairman, commissioners lack a yardstick by which to determine if a building has historical, architectural or community significance. He suggested that the city’s Historic Resource Inventory be revised and serve as that yardstick.

Could it be that people on the commission currently don’t know Norwalk history or architecture history? Or that they just don’t have an interest in it?

“I don’t think you should allow sitting commissioners to make that judgment because the commissioners change,” Park said. “If you tell us that we should make a judgment, based on the historical, architectural or community significance of a building, then we have something to refer to. (For example), the structure shouldn’t be torn down, because it’s on the historical inventory list.”

Park said the Historical Commission requested $30,000 annually over the next five years to update the inventory. The last changes to the list were made in 1979. The commission currently has $20,000 in its capital budget for the revision, he said.

The issue got sparked into heated discussion over 124 East Ave last time. What is historically significant?. Demo delay is back in early January 2008. The Origins of the Demo Delay Ordinance. The recap of the 2007 ordinance revisions. My take on what needed to change in 2007.

source: The Hour,� Norwalk Common Council reviews demolition delay ordinance, By Robert Koch, 11/18/2008

anonymous

Either way, the local ordinance, both existing and proposed, as well as state law, is pretty lame regarding historic preservation. All that happens is a public hearing is held (the owner is not even required to attend) and there is some extra time to negotiate with the owner, whether it is 90 or 180 days. In the end, they can tear it down anyway (see Stuart Ave).

How many years has it been since a public hearing has been held – two years?

No doubt there will be lots of snarky sniping by the usual nattering naysayers about this one, but at the end of the day, this is all much ado about nothing.
anonymous

They should take a look at the ordinance that was passed by the 2005-2007 Council. Why haven’t they looked at it in the past year. What differences from the passed and vetoed ordinance is Mrs. Brown proposing ? She should be focusing on bigger issues since the local economy is falling apart. Why now ? No one is building anything in this town and she does not have the votes to pass a bill tougher than the current one.
Straight Talk

Simply, the demolition delay ordinance that would work best is the one that would be least invoked. That means it should be clear to ownersz what will trigger the delay and that – once invoked – it stands for the full 180 days. Alternatives must be considered and serious fines included for violating the Ordinance. The goal should be incentive to preserve rather than stopping bulldozers.

Unfortunately, neither the HC nor its staff have the expertise to determine historical or architectural signifiance. They do not have the expertise to perform a comprehensive survey of historic buildings in Norwalk (which would take years anyway).

By authorizing them to lift a delay, the current ordinance is asking that they “judge” whether a building has historic value or not. What criteria would they use? What expertise resides in the Commission that enables them to make an informed decision? This Ordinance (far more than the original) puts the HC in a position of deciding property issues without any fact-based benchmarks.
Say it ain’t so – I dare you.

There are more people on the Historical Commission with expertise in these matters **today** than there have been in the past 20 years.
amonymous

The person or organization requesting the delay should also be required to post a significant bond to reimburse the owner for any incurred costs resulting from the delay.
Straight Talk

What will be the HC’s criteria for lifting the 180 delay? What will make it defensible in court if a preservation organization chooses to appeal the HC decision?
Old Timer

Time is money for a builder. Giving anybody a blank check to impose a delay on demolition without some safeguard for the builder is just not fair. Unless there are published objective standards, a builder never knows when a delay will be invoked. When you are working with borrowed capital, three month’s interest while others talk about what you should do with your property hurts, unless those others pay the cost of the delay. If a property is not on a published list of significant historical properties, there should not be an ordinance allowing anyone to hold up a builder for three months, much less six.
Regardless of what you think about the owners of 93 East Ave, the delay they are forced to deal with could bankrupt some builders.
Diane C: no problem here

#1 – this is worse than “much ado about nothing”: it appears to be another example of the committee with a solution looking for a problem! And that, my friend, is a monumental waste of time, effort and money. If someone could clearly articulate the problem, perhaps the answer would be a little easier. They seemed really entrenched in the whole how, who, where and when, but I couldn’t make heads or tails out of the why and whats! Truth be told my eyes start to glaze over during their discussions – it just shouldn’t be this darn complicated, really.
Straight Talk

The demolition delay is simply another way to ensure that Norwalk grows in an orderly way — like zoning, open space, conservation and other neighborhood issues. It provides an opportunity to retain neighborhood character, historic characteristics, and enhance the city we live in. Norwalk tends to bend over pretty far to make sure that the developers get what they want; this could be a good tool to put some more pwoer into the hands of the neigborhoods.
Anonymous

Your right #9 some cities tore it all down and for what kinda makes you wonder after your tear it down the taxes change for the property right?

New London (WTNH) — It’s been quite awhile but not much is going on in a section of now vacant land in New London that was the heart of an eminent domain battle.
Before that battle began, people were building and there was a lot of development. But now, 10 years later, the city may have the land to build on. But, the economy has changed.
The construction of this ‘would be’ luxury condo complex has been stalled.
The developer tells News Channel 8 that rising prices of building supplies have put the $16 million project over budget prompting construction companies to pull out.

But this would never happen in Norwalk we know what we are doing must have been a lot of losers in New London.
anonymous

Turfgirl what do you think should be in the new ordinance ? What did you think of the current ordinance and the 2007 one that was passed by the old council and vetoed by the Mayor ? Please tell us. Thanks
Secondhand Rose

I think that a caveat for this ordinance should state that simply because a building is over 50 years old, that does not make the building “historic”.

There should be a criteria in place giving guidelines on what constitutes the meaning of the word “historic”, such as whether the home was the scene of a historic event; a business that developed or invented something of prime importance to the state or the nation; or if the owner or resident of the building was a truly notable person such as a mayor, governor, senator, Congressman, inventor, published author, famous artist, and so on.

Simply existing for 50+ years is not a guideline for making a building “historic” and should not be thought of as such, unless the building is a prime example of some famous architect’s talent like the homes built by Frank Lloyd Wright, for example.

The problem with the demolition delay is that in the past, people were jumping to conclusions that any old building that was about to be demolished required massive amounts of research and investigation to determine its “historic” priority simply because it was an old building.

If something of import happened within a home or business, it would be noted by the general public; same goes for a home lived in or owned by someONE of import. Other than that, just because your house is old doesn’t mean it is “historic”. There is far too much knee-jerking hysteria over that word.
Old Timer

Homes are not the only “historic” properties. If there is no published list of historic properties a builder is taking a huge gamble with his own money buying a building for the land and then having somebody claim it is historic and freezing the project in place for months while he pays interest on the construction money, etc. Demolition delay claims of historic value need to be filed on the land records so a potential buyer will know what he is getting into.
Secondhand Rose

Old Timer, that’s exactly why I said there needs to be a caveat that EXPLAINS exactly what “historic” means.

Obviously from the brouhaha that 93 East Avenue has been involved in, the word “historic” means different things to different people.

Once the definition of “historic” as it pertains to buildings in Norwalk is on the books, there will be less knee-jerk hysteria over any old building that is about to be torn down as we have seen in the recent past.

But before we can get to that place, we need to have the definition of “historic” written in stone and without the ability to be amended to suit the whimsy of whatever special interest group decides to take umbrage with it.
Old Timer

Even if they never get a definition set in stone, they should file paperwork on properties they want preserved, as they are identified, so a potential buyer can know ahead of time what he is getting into. 93 East Ave was not thought to be historic when the present owners bought it, but preservationists have held up demolition for a long time. Hendrinos claims to have asked City lawyers before he bought it and been assured demolition would not be a problem.
Anonymous

Turfgirl- “Could it be that people on the commission currently don�t know Norwalk history or architecture history? Or that they just don�t have an interest in it?”

I totally agree with you. We have a Commission totally put together by Fred Bondi, consisting of his son (no conflict of interest there) Peter Bondi, and Peter’s good friend Dave Park and Soo Gunn’s Friends on this hysterical commission. It is a lot of cronyism for one commission. I heard that they have even asked the “Magician” to be on the commission. Can he make them all disappear? They are the biggest joke to the museum community on the whole East Coast. That is except the people wh have made money on the deal.
Straight Talk

RE historic. Definitions exist for listing of buildings on the national register of historic places (see the website) and the CT Trust for Historic Preservation. Re 93 East Avenue…per those definitions it has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Norwalk Green National Register District since 1985. Inn bought it in 2001. Any proper title search would have brought up the status and, in fact, the Inn’s attorney referred to the listing and the role of the State office of Culture and Tourism in any proposed demolition. Check the minutes of zoning for (I think) February of 2001, the public hearing. So, if the owners claim ignorance, they must have had their fingers in their ears. Also, the definitions of historic that work for Federal and State should suffice for Norwalk. The question remains, though, are the current Historical Commissioners savvy enough to make the determination based on those standards? Do they know enough about Norwalk’s history to determine if a significant person or event is associated with a building? For example, do they know who the Grummans were (of the Grumman St. John house – 93 East Avenue) and why Samuel Grumman is a significant figure in early Norwalk history? Pop quiz!

I think the demo delay needs to ensure that the decision to lift the delay is based on some sort of expertise — not simply political expediency.
Publius

A 50 year threshold is crazy. A house built in 1958 is not historic. Nor for that matter is a house built 75 years ago in 1933. The miniumum threshold should be 100 years. I could support a 180 day delay for a 100+ year structure.
norwalker

18 Publius – dear publius – you have no idea what significant architecture would be missed with a minimum of 100 years. The whole Moderne period would be excluded. Whether you like the architecture or not is immaterial – zap away Frank Lloyd Wright, Bauhaus School, Philip Johnson, IM Pei, just for starters. Less significant architects were working in small towns following the philosophies of these great, cutting-edge architects and making history in places like Norwalk, New Canaan, Darien and Westport.
Straight Talk

as they say, “age is only a number”. If 50 years or 75 or a 100 years old were the ONLY criteria to preserve something, it would indeed be stupid. Not everything built in 1908 merits preservation either. Age is not the main criteria; it is simply a guide. In fact, some buildings of less than 50 years might be significant, so folks shouldn’t get all uptight about the age. A 50 year old threshold is a good starting point because it gives you a guideline of when to start thinking about significance (whcih of course is the real reason you would want to delay demolition — not age.)
ear shot

Lets go green. Knocking down a drafty old piece of junk with newspaper stuffed between a 2 by 4 and build a “GREEN ” house with modern constuction materials. this will save enormous amounts of energy V.S saving every unspecial house in town. Old doesnt mean Historic. old more thsn not means “Junk”. lets Knock It Down.
Straight Talk

When you drive through a New England town or city, what grabs your attention — nicely preserved older homes or new developments? Do you stop and admire the strip malls, motels, or condos? Or do you like the town greens, restored downtowns, and 19th century homes? For me, the historic stuff is the stuff that makes a city look good and be more livable. There are other points of view and that’s why we should have a balance…but all new stuff? Ugh…makes for a soulless city.
anonymous

What makes New England historic to me is the fact that the colonial people stood up against a government that was trying to tell them what to do with their property. I wonder how they would feel now if they knew a few people were trying to prevent the current owners from improving the property the way they see fit.
Anonymous

Yep. Not only that, the people who are trying to knock it down are immigrants from another country who could give a shit about our history. Shame on them.
#24 Thats bullshit

Most immigrants know what it is like to live under a government that gives them NO rights. I bet they care more for this litigious country more then you do. They come here and many work for little money and for many hours and eat little more than beans 3 times a week. Then because of this in 5-10 years they save enough money to invest in this country. For that you knock them. The only mistake made here was not to have had a bulldozer accidentally run that shit house down a day after the demo permit was given. IF that piece of garbage is REAL NORWALK History then we should invite the British to come back and finish the job, that they were very doubtfully supposed to have done in the first place. If I was the guy who owned the Inn, I would turn it into a Hells Angles Bar, and let them sleep in the Crack House in front of the new club.

That thing is a disgrace to East Ave. It drags down the look of the street from one end to the other. I look at the cemetery near the dump and no one seems to give a damn. Why, because the same jerks who want to bankrupt the inn, can find no one to express their hate to, that will listen.
in the case of that and many more historic places in Norwalk that are still able to be saved. This is a vendetta against the Inn, no more and no less.

You are making a laughing stock of yourself and have become known as the Norwalk Hysterical Society.
Straight Talk

Hell’s Angles? A group of people interested in Satanic geometry?
Anonymous

#25, in his haste to condemn all historically-oriented organizations, has once again made the same mistake as the rest of the haters in Norwalk, and that is this: the Norwalk Historical Society has NOTHING to do with this issue.

#25, who no doubt is one of Handrinos’ political surrogates, makes the same mistake of confusing vitriol with the facts, which to that crew are irrelevant.

#26, I have been to the Norwalk Motel and it indeed is hellish.
HAD ENOUGH

Enough already!!!!!! #27 You are truly an asshole whose left wing dribble makes me sick!
This whole topic is really about a business owner here in Norwalk who LEGALLY purchased & LEGALLY obtained ALL the neccesary permits to demolish a run down piece of crap building with the intent to expand his hotel. No more nuisance lawsuits by groups of wacko’s, no more interference by “I love the camera’s” Blumenthol. Just let the owner of the the Norwalk Inn use HIS PROPERTY as he he see fit.
Old Timer

If preservationists want to save significant buildings, they should assemble a data base. Owners who feel their building is special, for whatever reason, could list a building.Non-owners who think they know a good reason to protect a particular building could also list in the data base. With a little publicity, and a little work, the list would develop and could be made available to the public through the internet at very low cost. Potential buyers could then look at the data base before committing to a purchase and problems like 93 East would be avoided. A quick look at the National register description of the green would appear to limit that historic area to Morgan ave north and exclude 93 East. A local database, maintained by preservationists, would be much more detailed and avoid such confusion. The historical society could be an excellent partner in such a project.
Old Timer

Straight Talk: The National Register listing, from their website, is copied below. It shows listing date as Dec 14, 1987 and shows Morgan Ave as the southern boundary. 93 East is well south of Morgan Ave. Is it any wonder Hendrinos didn’t know it was included ?

Norwalk Green Historic District Roughly bounded by Smith & Park Sts., Boston Post Rd., East, & Morgan Aves. Norwalk 1987-12-14
#27 wtf

You are right and maybe I am wrong, that is PROOF that i have nothing to do with either side. I could give a shit less if this mess was started by the Wackos or the Jackos. You seem to know everything and have some sort of interest in causing problems. Once many years ago I was putting in a patio in back of my home in this city. When we were digging the footings we came upon an old farm type stone well. We even found a few old coins and some other iron artifacts around it. I said to the contractor, hey! this must be pretty historic and must be at least 200 years old or so. He said to me “just keep quiet and cover it with cement, and you will stay out of trouble.” THIS WAS 30 years ago and even then he knew. Thank God I listened to him. It is now sitting under 3 feet of concrete. No 93 East Avenue BS for this property owner. I guarantee that any historical site that might be found, will be kept quiet by its owner and just buried to stay out of any problems with the PRISONVATIONISTS.

The Connecticut Office of Tourism has started to advertise bus trips to see 93 East Avenue. They are called the “When Preservationists Go Bad” Trips.
Anonymous

The entire house is NOT “historical”. Only ONE BASEMENT WALL is historical. The rest of the house isn’t even one smidgen original.

Because the house was rebuilt and remodeled several times over during its lifetime, any claim to being “historical” is completely irrelevant and nonexistant.

And Old Timer is right, the Historical District ends at Morgan Avenue, which is nowhere near the 93 East Avenue house.
Straight Talk

Map on file with National Park Service outlines District. 93 is and has been in the District from the start. Court ruled that it is protected and listed. Them’s the facts…
Straight Talk

here’s the link to the official map of the Norwalk Green Historic District as obtained from the National Park Service.

http://www.yourct.com/new/2007/04/11/norwalk-93-east-ave-in-historic-district/