When we last paid attention to this issue, it was the heat of the election season and Mayor Moccia, instead of signing the council approved revised ordinance, sent it back for review based on a technicality. The technicality, corporation council claiming that a fine could not exceed $100 for violating the ordinance. Meanwhile, the swirling debate that pitted Republicans versus Democrats on the issue was about the age of the buildings that would be affected by ordinance.

The ordinance committee of the common council is attempting to revive the ordinance with the 180 day delay. From the Advocate:

The revised ordinance would have extended the maximum delay from 90 days to 180 days, which can be requested when the city issues a demolition permit for a building at least 50 years old. Mayor Richard Moccia vetoed the proposal in October.

The demolition delay would trigger a public hearing that preservationists have said is essential for showing developers ways to save older buildings or incorporate them into projects. After the waiting period, developers still may choose to demolish the building.

The revision would increase the fine for wrongful demolition from $100 to $500, and charged those applying for a demolition permit $250, or 1 percent of the assessed value of the property, whichever is greater. There had been no fee.

“We really have to discuss what they mean about age. What’s historic?” committee chairwoman Amanda Brown said.

The preservationists “say they want to preserve buildings two generations old, but that’s a number, right?” she asked.

Norwalk Preservation Trust President Tod Bryant said significance is the issue in historical preservation, not age, but updating the historical inventory would be costly and time-consuming. The list of 600 buildings has not been revisited since 1977.

Brown said revisiting the list is not unreasonable, but that is not a practical solution by itself.

“By the time it’s done, other buildings could be added to the list,” she said. “I want to come up with a number.”

The issue really centers on a handful of buildings that are historically significant, that should have an opportunity to be preserved. That’s the essence of the 180 days of delay, no one knowns that a building will be demolished until someone gets around to filing the paperwork.

The paperwork filed for a permit, was in need of revision. Notifications of demo permits currently do not include the details that make it easy to assess whether a property is historically significant, or even who to contact regarding the ownership of the property. Including photos, as part of the demo permit, is just a good idea.

The issue of age confuses many people. Opponents of extending the delay were adamant that 50 years would mean that most properties in Norwalk would be subjected to a 180 day delay. The reality of the enforcement of the 90 day delay was the complete opposite. A solution floated, was that ordinance only apply to properties listed on a historically significant list of properties in Norwalk. For some reason, our crack council legislators haven’t grasped that the fees for filing Demolition permits can fund an ongoing funding for creating such a list of historically significant. With that list in hand, everyone would be aware of which properties would be subjected to the delay, and which ones could be demolished immediately.

If the debate about the issue continues to focus on the age of building issue, this ordinance revision is pretty much dead.

source: Advocate, Panel to discuss demolition delay regulations, By Alexandra Fenwick, January 14 2008