Some would say the current Norwalk ordinance have no teeth, but a review of the types of things that could make it a really bad thing for someone to tear down a piece of history, it might do us some good to examine what can be done. So from the National Preservation Trust’s website:
How are Demolition Review Ordinances Enforced?
Experience has shown that historic buildings will be demolished, without regard to pro-
tections against demolition, if the ramifications for non-compliance are minor or insignifi-
cant. Accordingly, communities generally seek to establish penalties that will, in fact, dis-
courage violations from occurring. Commonly used penalties, for example, include the impo-
sition of significant fines for each day of the offense, and the preclusion of a permit to de-
velop or occupy the property for specific period of time.
In New Castle County, Delaware, the county attorney is authorized by ordinance “to
take immediate action prosecute those responsible†for the demolition of structures deter-
mined to have historic significance prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. In addition,
building permits for the parcel affected may be withheld for a period of one to three years.
Violators of the demolition ordinance in Monroe, Connecticut, may be subject to a fine
amounting to the greater of one thousand dollars or the assessed value of the property for
each violation. In Highland Park, Illinois, a person who violates the demolition review ordi-
nance may be assessed a fine equal to “90 percent of the fair market value of the cost of the
replacement of such regulated structure.â€
Newton, Massachusetts, authorizes the imposition of a $300 fine and two year ban on
the issuance of a building permit against anyone who demolishes a historically significant
building or structure without first obtaining and fully complying with the provisions of a
demolition permit issued in accordance with its demolition review ordinance. However, a
waiver on the building permit ban may be obtained in instances where reuse of the property
would “substantially benefit the neighborhood and provide compensation for the loss of the
historic elements of the property†either through reconstruction of the lost elements or sig-
nificant enhancement of the remaining elements. As a condition to obtaining the waiver,
however, the owner must execute a binding agreement to ensure that the terms agreed to are
met.
Monroe certainly seems a much closer than Masschusetts, so a look at their demolition delay (passed in 2003) shows us that indeed:
E. Demolition of a structure without a permit shall subject the violator to all applicable
penalties under the law, including a fine of the greater of One Thousand ($1,000.00)
Dollars or the assessed value of the property demolished for each violation.
I kinda like the redundancy of this too:
The applicant shall mail such notice, by certified mail, with postal receipts provided
to the Building Inspector for incorporation into the applicant’s file, within seven (7)
days of filing, to the Historic District Commission, Town Historian and the Monroe
Historical Society.
Norwalk’s Demolition delay ordinance says this:
(2) Mail copies of such notice to the owners of all properties adjoining the property on which the structure to be demolished is situated.
(3)Mail copies of the notice to the Norwalk Historical Commission Executive Director of Planning and Zoning and any individual, firm, corporation, organization or other entity which has requested, in writing, from the Chief Building Official, copies of any such notices filed pursuant to this chapter.
And Norwalk’s fine is $100. It seems that Norwalk could have done better in March of 2003, but back then it was one party rule of the Mayor’s office and the Common Council, so clearly it was impossible to have put teeth into the demolition ordinance back then.
