Last night’s common council meeting was looking like it was going to be an exciting one. It was the last council meeting before the election, and so all the committees were busy wrapping up the things that needed wrapping up and more. The reality facing this council was that not all members were coming back, some by choice (Coffey, Romano and Grant) and some by voters choice.

The meeting opened with Mayor Moccia describing and officially recognizing the heroic actions of two EMT people. Then it was the long reading the long consent calendar which was filled with authorizations to spend money. The first item off consent was the funding of infrastructure improvements for the Reed/Putnum 95/7 project. You’d think when the city was committed to spending $4.4 million that there’d be some open discussion. It was left to Bill Krummel to ask the what-if questions. His main point, what-if all those rosy scenarios didn’t materialize, what if there’s high vacancy, what if the $4.4 million isn’t enough? These are good things to be talking about, and one hopes that they were in committee. Tim Sheehan and Tom Hamilton answered some, but shied away from talking about the hypothetical bad case scenarios. Norwalk is truly at a crossroads here, in any case. In order to compete economically in Fairfield County, Norwalk has to grow into something different from the sleepy small town that many think Norwalk still is. Without economic activity other than residential housing, Norwalk could slide into the property tax disaster that is Bridgeport, double penalized because of higher property values on top of a lack of tax base diversification. So, Norwalk has to invest in its own future.

Then the council tackled an ordinance to authorize giving $30k to the Norwalk Land Trust for the purchase of the Hart property.

Which bring us to what was working up to be a showdown of sorts. The next two items seemed to gell along party lines last night, the Demolition Delay Ordinance and the Mill Hill Historic District. The Mill Hill Historic District got pulled, so it never was discussed at the meeting. That left the demolition delay ordinance to be debated.

First, the text from the existing demolition delay ordinance:

§ 55-3. C. Application procedure. In the event that a written objection to the issuance of a permit is filed with the Chief Building Official within 21 days after filing the certification statement as required by § 55-3, above, the Chief Building Official shall not issue the permit until 90 days after the application is deemed filed. If no written objection is filed the Chief Building Official may issue the demolition permit provided that all other requirements have been complied with.

And here’s the new section, more or less, I had to type this up form the meeting having no electronic copy.

§ 55-8. Period of delay.
A. In the event that a written objection to the issuance of a permit is filed with the Chief Building Official within 21 days after filing the certification statement as required by § 55-3, above, the Chief Building Official shall not issue the permit until 180 days after the application is deemed filed. If no written objection is filed the Chief Building Official may issue the demolition permit provided that all other requirements have been complied with
B. The Norwalk Historical Commission shall hold a public hearing as soon as possible on any application to which an objection has been filed and may issue recommendations on alternatives to demolition to the Chief Building Official.

You will note, because I’m going to point this out, that the only change in the process is that 90 becomes 180 in the first part. Then there’s a new section that forces a public hearing if the a written objection is filed.

I’ve been fascinated with this legislation for a couple of reasons. One is that when 124 East ave. was demolished, I was dismayed when I discovered that there really was no penalty in Norwalk for demolishing a historic property. That led to my researching which towns in Connecticut had penalties and posting here, the Monroe Demolition Ordinance. From there, this issue took a life of its own. In the end the updated demolition delay ordinance will not address the issue of a fine for demolishing a historic property. Part of that has to do with the reluctance of codifying what a historic property truly is in this town.

Yet that wasn’t the argument set forth as the Republicans (mostly) decided that process, was the problem. Yegads, the death knell of problem soliving is the debate about process, and that’s what we got last night.

The play by play:

Council President Mike Coffey handed out the ordinance that came out of the public hearing that was held at 6pm this evening. While there was much contention at that meeting, somehow they got the ordinance out. Republicans McQuaid and Hempstead are upset that the ordinance got rushed through and that the final ordinance was not presented before the common council meeting. Hempstead said, “This is government at its worst.”

Coffey opens with the, “Not every building is historic in Norwalk.” He goes on to explain that this ordinance would be a tool is sparingly used. he outlines some changes they’ve adopted from the current ordiannce; that people would certify what they are saying. That it limits further that when the delay is happening. That a vast a majority of homes are outside the process. That it provides a due process for both sides. And lastly that it gives more teeth to the ordinance and elongates it.

Rick McQuaid opens the council discussion with stating that he is in favor of the 180 days, but he is concerned that “we do right, it’s a huge ordiance.” He outlines the process that he’s concerned about; At 6:10 first ordiance version. 6:20 changes were made. 8:00 new version in packet. The state may have passed the 180 days, but not in an hour. The law department has not had a chance to review it. We should slow this down.

Doug Hempstead brings up process. “A good intent is a great thing, a good intent without proper content is a bad thing.” He says it should have the proper debate at its usual meeting and its usual time. Hempstead has grave concerns when a public hearing is held at 6pm before a council meeting. He says there are thousands of homeowners who will be affected by this ordinance. He wants to slow down and have more transparency on this. This action should be tabled, and reviewed by the law department.

Hempstead makes a motion to table:

Roll call:

Coffey No
Poruban No
Romano Y
Sutton N
Grant Y
McQuaid Y
Bolden N
Hillaird N
Bondi Y
Kydes Y
Hempstead Y
Brigs N
Krummel N

The tabling motion Fails 7-6.

Doug Hempstead: Suggests they take a recess.

They take a recess. All council members go scurrying into their caucus chambers. They come back and …

Joanne Romano has the floor. She has a big problem with it, not enough time to look it over. The few minutes that they looked over isn’t enough, and she thinks they need more public participation. She says this is a huge burden on a homeowner. 50 years is not historic. Everyone needs more time to take this into consideration, how it should be written. She is not supporting this ordiance.

Carvin Hilliard responds next. he says the ordinance committee started on this in the summer. Committee meetings are open to the public, and that the public did participate. He thinks there was a level of transparency.

Nick Kydes is next. Kydes says, no there wasn’t any transparency in the process. Neither the public nor the council had time to review. He makes the argument that the council is giving special agency rights to 501c agencies that are not city agencies. 55-46-3, he says that the NPT and the NHS are not city agencies. He’s concerned that other non profit organizations are not included. A 50 year home is not historical. He suggests that it be more of a minimum of 75 years. He says the number is arbritary. The period of the delay, and he cites the section, is as soon as possible, is too wide open. Will not support it.

Bill Krummel responds to that, he does have understanding and sympathy about the issues of a lack of transparency. “In many cases we don’t. We can always changed ordinance later on, that this council passed ordinances that could be changed later on. The major change here is on accordance with the state statute. The things complained about were already there. Let’s look at things on the ground, there are many houses that are historically significant that are not 50 years old.” He cites a house of the an associate of Frank Lloyd Wright. He says that the 50 years was there before. Its’ not a significant change. We are merely looking at extending the delay.

Mike Coffey clarifies some of the points. “The 50 years is a national standard that is used. Its not unique to Norwalk and its used throught the state. This is a small baby step in an ordiance, not a major change. I think transparency has been a hallmark of this council. This was on in August, it went on in September and then submitted to corporation council, then it was discussed and reviewed. It was on the city web site, there were newspaper articles on it in Septemeber, it was sent to the council members the next day after it came back from corporation council.”

Carvin Hilliard then moves move to amend item 55-7-c violation in fines, to amend the fine from $100 to $500 because the town of Plainville has it.

Doug Hempstead questions which one was being amended.

Rick McQuaid agrees that a a public hearing was held but he questions whether the law department reviewed it. “The law department has not reviewed this. We are opening a big mess if we don’t do right.”

Then Mayor Moccia calls on Joanne Romano. Joanne is surprised by this.

Moccia points out, “I can’t tell you if you are scratching your ear or raising your hand.”

Joanne Romano retorts, “Next time I’ll jump up and down on the table.” She then adds that she thinks law department should review it.

This has been the only levity on display thus far. They are all looking grumpy.

Doug Hempstead agrees with Coffey on the open transparency being met, but still doesn’t like the way the this ordinance happened. He is troubled. “One of the purposes of this we have is to protect homes and neighborhoods. There’s no mediation on this, no one acts as a mediator to put the parties together. It’s everyday homeowners that will be affected. There’s a lot of missing parcels that can’t be done later. In the wrong hand this can run amuck.”

Kevin Poruban says, “I find it somewhat ironic that when I brought up issues with some other items in the past. We said, we’ll amend it later. In this particular ordinance, this is already what we have.” He asks about what version it is. Poruban cites fee, address, photograph and thinks that these are small changes.

Mike Coffey reminds the council that there are no complaints on the current ordinance to date. He states that this follows the current ordinance, this is not a fundamental change here.

Carvin Hilliard adds to that explanation that they started with the ordinance of Monroe. The fine was not part of a timeline. Confirms that it was August that they started.

Doug Hempstead puts his last cards on the table, “If you believe that there is transparency then put it out for a vote in 2 weeks. You can still vote on it at that meeting, the charter only says that you can’t make appointments.”

Naturally they go to a roll call vote but there’s some confusion because Mayor Moccia says they are calling the question.

The Roll Call vote:

Coffey Y
Romano N
Poruban Y
Sutton N
Grant N
McQuaid N
Bolden Y
Hillaird Y
Bondi N
Kydes N
Hempstead N
Briggs Y
Krummel Y

Roh-roh, Mr. Sutton, the motion fails. Doug Sutton raises his hand and says he thought they were voting on another questions, not the ordinance. There’s discussion on what to do. Nolin says they have to move a reconsidered vote from the prevailing side, so Sutton makes the motion, Hilliard seconds it and they do another roll call.

Roll call on motion to reconsider

Coffey Y
Romano N
Poruban Y
Sutton Y
Grant N
McQuaid N
Bolden Y
Hillaird Y
Bondi Y
Kydes N
Hempstead N
Briggs Y
Krummel Y

Now they get to do do a New Roll Call On main motion:

Coffey Y
Prourban Y
Romano N
Sutton Y
Grant N
McQuaid N
Bolden Y
Hillaird Y
Bondi N
Kydes N
Hempstead N
Briggs Y
Krummel Y

The Demolition Delay Ordinance is finally approved 7-6.

Now let’s circle back to the what the ordinance changed. Mostly it was additional info required to file a permit, the fees for a permit and the fines. The heart was in fact the delay and setting what happens following a a written objection.

No one, from those opposing the ordinance addressed that portion of the change. In fact there was no designation of what historic property consists of in what they passed. Not a single council member bothered to look at the current statute while they were busy objecting to the process. If they had, they would see the current:

§ 55-2. Permit requirements for certain structures.
When the building, structure or exterior part thereof to be demolished is at least 50 years old (hereinafter referred to as the “building or structure”) then no permit shall be issued except in compliance with the provisions of this chapter in addition to Section 29406 of the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended.

is the same as as the proposed:

§ 55-4. Permit requirements for certain structures.
When the building, structure or exterior part thereof to be demolished is at least 50 years old (hereinafter referred to as the “building or structure”) then no permit shall be issued except in compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the State of Connecticut Demolition Code.

I was set to dismally conclude that the valid concerns that should have been debated, were not going to be, and that the opposing members were more interested in preserving their political hides, then actually making the ordinance better. Cynicism in government was once again at an all time high. But then something strange happened. Once past the demolition delay ordinance, Hempstead moved a resolution on NEON.

The NEON resolution was essentially a restatement of faith in NEON as led by Joe Mann and that the city of Norwalk stood behind the mission of NEON.

[The] Common Council supports NEON’s development and adoption of a comprehensive strategic plan to reduce poverty and aligning itself with the state’s policy to reduce child poverty.

WHEREAS, NEON, Inc. revises and adopts bylaws, develops new ethics policies and procedures for board members and staff and continues to make significant progress in addressing budget deficiencies to establish a balanced budget.
WHEREAS, the NIQCA Peer Review Team has observed that NEON, Inc. has, during the past year, taken decisive steps to address issues and deficiencies which were clearly documented in agency audit and funder monitoring reports and that important progress has been made in addressing the challenges facing NEON, Inc relating both to governance and financial management and reporting.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Norwalk supports the efforts and vision of the NEON, Inc. administration and will work together to assure that this community action agency continues to receive the necessary support to fulfill its important community mission moving forward.

And many council members spoke on the importance of NEON and that the City of Norwalk back it. My battery had dies at this point, so I don’t have good quotes, but the heartfelt statements were a thing to marvel.

Airforce vet Mayor Moccia then allowed Phylis Bolden to suspend the rules so that an update on the FAA lawsuit regarding flight plans could be discussed. Moccia spoke briefly about the importance of joining the 11 other municipalities in their suit against the new flight paths that moved air traffic lower and over towns to our north. He wisely pointed out that Norwalk would need to be in the loop should that suit cause the FAA to go back and redraw flight paths. After a brief discussion, mostly concerning what the open ended lawsuit fees could turn out to be, the council unanimously approved the idea of joining the suit, with details to follow and the next council meeting.

With these last two items, this common council showed just how good they can be when they are thinking about Norwalk the whole, instead of paying games with legislation. They are at their best when they seek stakes in working out common ground solutions. This council has an extraordinary amount of good work to be proud of. While its easy to get distracted when they go off the rails, when it works, it truly is a thing of beauty.