The Norwalk Historical Commission voted to schedule a public hearing on a revised demolition-delay ordinance and asked staff to widen public notice and invite building-department staff to explain how demolition and renovation permits are handled.

The vote came after a resident urged the commission to allow more time for public review and to change the draft ordinance so age alone (70 years or older in the draft) would automatically trigger a referral to the commission. The commission agreed to hold a public meeting/hearing that will include a building-department overview and an opportunity for public testimony; the hearing was set for the commission's November 19 meeting.

Why it matters: Commissioners and members of the public debated how the city can prevent “back-door” demolitions — projects that start as renovations but remove historic fabric — and whether the ordinance should let the commission require outside professional reviews and preserve the city’s older buildings by lengthening the statutory delay period.

At a public-comment slot, Diane Cece, a Norwalk resident, said she had only received the draft two days before the meeting and asked who drafted it and how the public would be notified if the city moves the draft to ordinance. “One of the things I’d like you to consider is that where you’ve made the modification to 70 years … I would recommend that the age alone then trigger an automatic referral to come over,” Cece said, arguing that an automatic referral prevents historic properties from “falling through the cracks.”

Commission members raised related concerns. Commissioner Rich Stein and others said the current process depends on the building department notifying the commission when a pre-demolition application affects a building 50 years or older; commissioners argued the proposed change to a 70-year trigger should be coupled with an automatic, staff-driven referral so residents would not have to spot threatened properties.

Members also debated the delay period. Commissioner David Westmoreland urged the commission to seek the full 180-day delay permitted by state statute — up from the draft’s 120-day proposal — “because particularly with investors, six months makes their economic outcome … a lot more uncertain,” he said. Other commissioners worried a six-month delay could be onerous for typical homeowners seeking renovations and recommended clearer thresholds and faster internal review by the commission so the delay is not used to stall legitimate projects.

Commissioners addressed the problem of projects that start as renovation permits but effectively demolish older sections of buildings. Commissioner Eric Chandler and others proposed clarifying the ordinance’s definitions so that “major exterior alterations” or “significant structural changes” would trigger historic review the same way a demolition permit would.

The commission additionally requested:
- That the building department (Bill Ireland was named repeatedly) present at the hearing to describe the permit workflow, when and how pre-demolition notices are issued, and what the building department checks on site;
- That staff widen public notice beyond legal newspaper notices, using historical-society and preservation-group email lists and city social media so the historically interested community receives the agenda and draft in advance; and
- That the ordinance include clearer language about third-party professional reviews (how vendors are selected, budget/funding for reviews and whether fees are part of annual budgeting) and about enforcement provisions including fines and permit lapses.

At the end of the discussion Commission member (motion maker not specified in the record) moved to schedule a public hearing; a second (identified in the transcript as “Brian”) supported the motion and the commission voted in favor. The commission directed staff to circulate a cleaned draft and formal public-notice materials and to invite building-department staff and preservation consultants to the Nov. 19 meeting.

The commission also discussed logistics for the hearing: commissioners recommended limiting expert testimony, placing a time limit on public speakers, and publishing materials at least two weeks in advance. Commissioners said they prefer a combined format: a short informational presentation by staff and invited experts followed by a formal public hearing for comment.

Next steps: The commission asked staff to prepare a revised, “clean” draft incorporating issues raised at the meeting, to confirm the November 19 meeting date for the hearing, and to coordinate legal/technical review with the city attorney’s office before formal ordinance referral to the city’s ordinance committee.

Ending note: Commissioners emphasized outreach and education — not just circulating the draft — so residents and property owners understand how the permit process and the proposed ordinance would affect renovations and demolitions.