.
Feedback

Public Hearing Set for Demolition Delay Ordinance

Measure would call for the delay of up to 180 days the demolition of 'significant structures.'

The Town Council on Monday set a public hearing for Sept. 4 for residents to weigh in on a proposed ordinance that would delay the demolition or deconstruction of buildings that are at least 75 years old.

The proposed ordinance is designed to protect architectually or historically significant buildings by encouraging owners to explore options other than demolition or structural modifications, according to Town Attorney Kari Olson.


“The proposed ordinance is not to prohibit people from demolishing or refurbishing in any way altering their property,” Olson said at a recent Town Council meeting.

The ordinance, if passed, would be triggered if, at any time, a proposal is made to demolish or deconstruct all or part of a building that is 75 years old or older.

The owner of that building would have to apply to the town’s building official, who would then refer the application to a demolition delay committee comprising members of the planning and zoning commission, the historic district commission and other town residents.

The demolition delay committee has 20 days to decide whether the building is a historically “significant structure.” If the committee makes that determination, a public hearing will be held within 35 days of the application to determine whether demolition should be delayed.

A public hearing can also be set if a member of the public, after the application is filed (notice is given upon the application’s filing), requests one.

If the committee determines that the structure is historically significant, the building official is prohibited from issuing a demolition permit for 180 days from the date of the application.

According to the proposed ordinance, “[d]uring the demolition delay period of 180 days from application, the Applicant of a Significant Structure shall pursue and give due consideration to all possible alternatives to demolition, including preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation or detailed recordation of the affected building or structure.”

The ordinance requires that the owner make “a good faith effort to accommodate reasonable requests” to prevent demolition.

The ordinance, which has been in the works since at least January, represents a compromise from what was originally proposed.

Town Councilor Kevin McCann, who read the motion into the record to bring the ordinance to a public hearing, said that he initially opposed the measure because he viewed it as another restriction on private property owners.

But McCann said that the ordinance has “evolved” over the last several months - the initial ordinance called to protect structures that were 50, not 75, years old or older - such that it now is “very much a compromise.”

And while he still had “some concerns” with the ordinance, McCann said that he supported bringing it to a public hearing.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from South Windsor Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Gail Cloutier June 15, 2013 at 04:20 pm
One Mr. Yagaloff I was not rude to anyone else I was talking about you and was not in no mean rudeRead More to you. If you take it that way then so be it. Do I wish to talk to you no, cause it won't do any good. Everyone has given their own comment and the damage is done and now it's time for eveyone to learn from it and move on.
keith yagaloff June 15, 2013 at 05:11 pm
Gail, I agree that its time for everyone to learn from this incident. It is a teachable moment asRead More well. Both the Boy Scout and Cub Scout oaths can be the source of guidance in this instance. Scouting asks its youth to obey the rules of the pack and the law. Here is a direct quote "DUTY TO GOD AND COUNTRY: Your family and religious leaders teach you to know and serve God. By following these teachings, you do your duty to God. Men and women of the past worked to make America great, and many gave their lives for their country. By being a good family member and a good citizen, by working for your country's good and obeying its laws, you do your duty to your country. Obeying the Scout Law means living by its 12 points." The fundraising committee made a mistake. Choosing to adopt the mean spirited rhetoric of the Chair of the Republican Town Committee is not what these children expect or deserve. The BSA leadership stepped up and are leading by example. I met my responsibility as a community leader. Can you say the same?
Gail Cloutier June 15, 2013 at 07:11 pm
If you feel the same as me as everyone needs to stop and move on. I can clearly see you can't, causeRead More of the long letter above. I was always told by my wonderful parents to mind your own busy and not someone else. God Bless to us all and Good Bye.............
Rick Usifer June 11, 2013 at 06:38 pm
I agree that these statements seem inappropriate. I wasn't at the meeting and didn't see it, butRead More from this account an apology is certainly in order. I'm surprised that Dr. Anwar, a thoughtful and reasonable man, would say that to someone who absolutely did the right thing. One of South Windsor's biggest attributes is that is NOT a "large" town. That would have cost us revenue in other areas such as housing. I'm very disappointed in both men.
Dana June 12, 2013 at 09:22 am
It seems to me that Dr. Anwar and Mr. Delnicki do not like the truth and would rather the town liveRead More a lie than to let the public know reality. Hopefully the public sees this and votes for those who tell the truth.
Hank Cullinane June 12, 2013 at 03:45 pm
While I do think Deputy Mayor Bazzano said "funny" I think his opponents are trying toRead More take his statement out of context. I believe he said it was funny that the magazine has us in large towns. That is funny as is strange not it ha ha. Is he going to get an apology from Council Anwar I doubt it. As to losing business, I hope any business planning on coming to South Windsor is not doing it solely on a Hartford Magazine article. Now we can also publicize the integrity of our town officials who wanted the information to be correct.
Kevin McCann:  Don't we deserve better?
Darren DeMartino June 7, 2013 at 03:51 pm
Mike, While I too would like to address thew schools we cant change the fact that are town isRead More slipping in comparison to other towns around us. do you still feel the same way that the ratings didnt come at a convenient time? The truth is we need to invest in in our town to maintain the quality of life people are looking for today. If we dont do it we will not remain an attractive place to live. There are a number of towns in our area that have faced these choices. Some of those town have decided to look to the future and others have fallen behind, not very surprisingly some of our surrounding towns have fared much better over the past 15-20 years than others. The key questions is what does the town of South Windsor want to be? I want it to maintain the quality of life it had since I was a small child. That means growing and investing not letting others pass us by because people are short sighted. I think we need too challenge our town council to look at the towns around us and figure out how they do so much more yet our taxes aren't much different that ours. We pay a lot for very little in comparison to other towns in our area. We get trash and leaf pickup, not that big of a deal cost wise yet we dont get new schools, rec center, senior center, or neccessary fields. We should all want more for our tax dollar!
Michael Sullivan June 12, 2013 at 01:19 pm
Mr. DeMartino - I will stand by what I've said earlier, even after Mr. Bazzano corrected SouthRead More Windsor's rankings in Hartford Magazine. Yes I think this is (still!) good news and as such always welcome and convenient. My earlier comment was that these favorable rankings come at a rather inconvenient time for THOSE WHO PREFER to propagandize and insist that our salvation will come only in the form of more athletic fields and further that we must borrow more money to build them! These revised rankings don’t change anything in my opinion (with the exception of the crime statistic – that’s alarming if not an error!) and meanwhile the TC politics and propagandizing over our “status” is deplorable. I maintain these rankings STILL represent great news for South Windsor. We’re ranked no. 3 in our medium towns group (if not overall). We’re ranked no. 2 for families and schools in our medium group. And STILL we’re in top 10 overall for the county. And still that's just not good enough for some folks?!?
Michael Sullivan June 12, 2013 at 01:25 pm
WRT wanting more for our tax dollars - oh yes there we can agree! But how might we agree onRead More priorities? I don’t see the need for borrowing money NOW to build UNNECESSARY (there I said it!) athletic fields no matter which other towns are perceived to be better/worse than South Windsor by our athletics enthusiasts who might prefer to bypass public referendum to get their desires. I feel strongly that the Town has other priorities – particularly if we must borrow! You cite two prime examples in the elementary schools due to their obsolescence – and the need for taking care of our seniors for rec/community space and aged-care social services that will surely be needed with predictable demographic trends. Let’s do those before we talk about more athletic facilities.
Bert Marchael June 15, 2013 at 09:00 pm
It was Bush's fault. He let the IRS stay in business. In the words of Nancy Pelosi, this will be theRead More most transparent administration, what she failed to say out loud was, this administration looks at the constitution and the laws of our country as suggestions. They pertain to everyone else. Gangsta Chicago politics in Washington. Peace