This is part of an ongoing series of guest posts about issues in Norwalk yourCT.com is a non-partisan site dedicated to airing all sides of an issu That can’t happen without valuable contributions from our readers.
This article originaly appeared in the Hour in 2003.
By Bruce Kimmel
The Hour recently carried a front-page story – with a very depressing picture of a backhoe at work — about the demolition of a home in Rowayton. The home was more than a hundred years old and was destroyed by its new owner, even though the previous owner had spent over a million dollars restoring it. This beautiful old house was inexplicably not on the city’s registry of old and significant structures and, according to the story, that’s why city officials signed off on the demolition.
I made a few calls to City Hall to find out how this had happened and quickly realized the city has a more rigorous program for preserving trees than homes. Last year, Norwalk adopted a “tree ordinance†that required the establishment of a tree advisory committee. Among the committee’s responsibilities is the creation of an inventory of city trees. (Having such an ordinance allows Norwalk to qualify for grants related to the preservation of trees.)
Norwalk also has a notification and appeals process that is supposed to be used when city trees are to be cut down or trimmed. Trees are marked with ribbons, neighbors are notified, etc. Although the city has been somewhat slow in implementing this process, at least we have it on the books. Since trees are a boost to any environment, it’s fair to say the city has finally gotten its priorities straight when it comes to this part of nature.
Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for our older homes. The core of the problem is the absence of an accurate and up-to-date registry. All demolition permits are issued by the Buildings Department, and the registry they use was compiled in 1975 — and has never been updated. Since the recently restored/destroyed Rowayton home was not listed, the existing registry is obviously not accurate. Thus, the first and most-pressing need is the production of a new inventory of Norwalk’s older homes and buildings.
Probably the most prudent way to proceed is to hire a professional consultant. I believe there is grant money available that is earmarked for this type of survey, and Norwalk would certainly qualify. After the registry is restored, the city’s Historical Commission would need to keep it accurate and up-to-date. To guarantee that this responsibility never falls through the cracks, the Commission should be required to make yearly reports to the Council’s Land Use and Building Management Committee.
Many towns in the state have demolition-delay ordinances. The usual benchmark is fifty years. Stamford, Darien and Westport have ninety-day demolition delays for structures older than fifty years. Some towns, such as Hartford, Bridgeport, New London and New Milford have demolition delay ordinances for any building regardless of age. The delay is designed to allow city officials and members of the community to discuss, examine, and possibly appeal any demolition proposal. Norwalk needs such an ordinance.
Norwalk has a somewhat looser process. If a home or building is listed on the registry, the Buildings Department is supposed to refer the demolition request to the Historical Commission, which can delay it. This procedure should be reviewed to make sure the benchmark date used by the commission conforms to current standards. There should be no room for subjectivity in this process; the public deserves the right to voice its opinion when the issue is the potential destruction of a piece of city history.
We on the Common Council, together with Mayor Knopp, should quickly address the registry problem and review our demolition-delay procedures. Our older homes deserve the same status as our older trees. Better late than never.
