Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fair Rent Cases topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fair Rent Commission rules on open cases; accepts one new rent-increase complaint
Summary
At its July 9 meeting, the Norwalk City Fair Rent Commission voted on eight docketed items: six were closed or not accepted and one new rent-increase complaint was accepted for possible hearing. Commissioners recorded unanimous or unopposed votes where noted.
The Norwalk City Fair Rent Commission voted on open and new cases at its July 9 meeting, taking no action on several long-running matters and accepting one new complaint for possible hearing.
The commission formally voted on eight docket items related to individual tenant-landlord disputes. The most significant outcome was the commission's decision to accept a complaint alleging a proposed rent increase from $2,100 to $3,000 for a two-bedroom unit; the commission recorded the acceptance and indicated the case could be set for hearing. For multiple other matters the commission either closed files or declined to take the case, generally on the grounds that the issues raised fell outside the commission's statutory remit or were better resolved by housing court.
The accepted and decided items were: 1) Acceptance of the minutes from the June 4 meeting (motion passed); 2) Case 1831-238 Union Avenue (Leslie Mallitz) ' no action taken; 3) Case 1860 West Drive (Eversley Avenue Apartment Unit 2) ' case closed; 4) Case 1862-2541 Wolfpit Avenue, Apartment 4K ' no action, set for potential hearing in September; 5) Case 1865-25515 West Avenue, Apartment 339 ' not accepted; 6) Case 1866-258 Union Avenue, Apartment 10H2 (toilet replacement charge) ' not accepted; 7) 6 Elm Street, Unit 2 (noise complaint) ' not accepted; 8) unnamed Street, Unit 2 (rent increase to $3,000) ' accepted for possible hearing.
How the commission described its role: staff and commissioners repeatedly distinguished between matters the commission can adjudicate as fair-rent issues (rent level in context of unit condition and market) and ordinary landlord-tenant disputes better handled in housing court. At the meeting, staff recommended declining several complaints where the central question was whether a landlord could recover attorney or marshal fees or charge for specific repairs; commissioners agreed those questions generally lie outside the commission's statutory authority.
Votes and motions (summary): - Motion to accept the June 4 minutes: motion passed (recorded as all in favor). Mover and seconder recorded during the meeting; detailed per-person votes not entered in the record. - Case 1831-238 Union Avenue (Leslie Mallitz): motion for no action; motion passed (mover: Commissioner Sonia Oliver; second: Johnny Weldon). - Case 1860 West Drive (Eversley Avenue Apt Unit 2): motion to close the case; motion passed (mover: Commissioner Sonia Oliver; second: Commissioner Peter Halliday). - Case 1862-2541 Wolfpit Ave, Apt 4K: staff recommended no action and to set the matter for a hearing in September as needed; motion for no action passed (mover: Commissioner Sonia Oliver; second: Commissioner Linus Constant). - Case 1865-25515 West Avenue, Apt 339: motion to not accept the case; motion passed (mover: Sonia Oliver; second: Peter Halliday). - Case 1866-258 Union Avenue, Apt 10H2 (toilet replacement charge): motion to not accept the case; motion passed (mover: Sonia Oliver; second: Peter Halliday). - 6 Elm Street, Unit 2 (noise/quiet-enjoyment complaint): motion to not accept the case; motion passed after discussion (mover: Sonia Oliver; second: Johnny Weldon). Commissioners noted that extreme noise affecting habitability could be considered in future, but this complaint was described as daytime noise not rising to that level. - Street, Unit 2 (proposed rent increase from $2,100 to $3,000 for a two-bedroom): motion to accept the complaint; motion passed (mover: Sonia Oliver; second: Johnny Weldon). The case was accepted for possible hearing.
The commission recorded motions and outcomes during the public meeting. Individual roll-call votes were not consistently entered; the record shows motions, seconders and that votes passed (often by unanimous voice vote). Where the transcript did not list individual votes, the article reports the outcome as recorded by the commission.
Ending: Commission staff said accepted cases will move forward to the scheduling and hearing process; matters the commission declined will remain subject to housing court or other remedies noted during the meeting.
