In the continuing saga of trying to steer aggressive developers from taring down the few remaining quaint period buildings left in Norwalk, the ordinance committee has revisited the demolition delay ordinance. When we last saw this ordinance, Mayor Moccia essentially veto’d it by sending it back for review. And review was not quite what the new sessions’ ordinance committee managed to do. They chose to create something that essentially recommends a tax giveaway to people who file demolition permits. Why anyone would think that is a good idea is beyond me. From the Hour:
“We going to take the original (90-day demolition delay ordinance) that’s on the books, which we’re still bound by, and we’re going to incorporate (suggestions raised tonight),” said Amanda K. Brown, committee chairwoman, afterward. “We’re definitely going to increase the delay period. We don’t know how much yet.”
On Tuesday night, committee members posed more questions than answers. William M. Krummel asked the ages of buildings, where the city’s existing 90-day demolition delay ordinance has been applied.Andrew T. Conroy, new to the committee, said he hasn’t “anyone express a real good reason for 180 days.”
“You didn’t attend the public hearings,” said Carvin J. Hilliard, also on the committee.
Tuesday night’s discussion marked the first meeting of the Ordinance Committee, since Mayor Richard A. Moccia in effect vetoed the 180-day demolition delay ordinance approved by the 2005-07 Common Council.
Moccia questioned whether 50-year-old structures are historical — the age threshold within the ordinance — and if the $500 violations fine written into the toughened ordinance was legal.
“There isn’t anything specific in state statute talking about a demolition delay violation. So that brings you back to the general statute,” said Linda Guliuzza, assistant corporation counsel. “In the general statute, the maximum fine imposable by a municipality under their ordinance is $250.”
On Tuesday night, Brown and other committee members offered ideas aimed at producing an ordinance that will be acceptable to the public, the council and the mayor.
Kelly L. Straniti handed out copies of the existing ordinance along with suggested revisions, such as boosting the age applicability from 50 years to 100 years. In another area, Straniti added language that would give the affected property owner a “prorated tax abatement” for property taxes on their structure during the delay period.
“That would be another incentive,” Straniti said. “If $250 really doesn’t mean much to the property owner, then hopefully they’ll be encouraged by at least getting a break on their taxes.”
Brown, a paralegal, proposed a tiered demolition-delay ordinance as a “compromise.” For structures 75 years or older, a delay of no longer than 180 days could be imposed.
For structures 50 to 75 years old, 90 days would be the maximum.
Two committee members, while not against a tiered ordinance in principle, found Brown’s proposal overly focused on building age.
“This 50 years, 100 year, isn’t really what we’re after. We’re looking for something of historical significance, architecturally, historically,” said William M. Krummel. “Really, we should be looking at an architectural review board.”
Norwalk Preservation Trust President Tod Bryant described age as an “administrative threshold.”
Bryant asked committee members to consider a draft demolition delay ordinance from Massachusetts.
It addresses buildings that are 50 years or older and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or are important “in terms of period, style, method of building construction or association with a recognized architect.”
Bryant said 600 buildings are listed on The Norwalk Historic Resources Inventory, which was prepared in 1977. That inventory needs to be updated, he said.
An elegant solution to the issue would of course be to have a list of structures deemed architecturally or historically significant. Then describe how a structure gets on the list. Then limit the delay to only those structures on the list. Those then on the list, can then go through a process that determines whether a public hearing should be held and encourages talks to save the structure. Those not on the list can get demolished unimpeded.
It is utter nonsense to create legislation based on a tier of age. Age is just one of many criteria used. Critics of the ordinance were right to point out that it was worded in a way that applied to all structures. Language did need to be tightened and specific. It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.
source: The Hour, Common Council committee sends demolition delays back to the drawing board, By ROBERT KOCH, December 19, 2007
