The Norwalk Ordinance Committee voted Oct. 21 to send a proposed residential parking permit ordinance to the Common Council after a lengthy public hearing and committee discussion that included neighborhood residents, staff and several emails read into the record.

Diane Cece, identifying herself as a resident of Olmstead Place and speaking for the East Milwaukee Neighborhood Association, urged the committee to broaden the ordinance’s stated purpose beyond nonresidents parked on streets to include issues created by illegal apartments and households with multiple vehicles. “I think this needs to be reworded so it's not just non residents of a street, but it also would be looking to address overall, excessive parking on the street in relationship to the properties that are there,” she said.

Staff answered several of the public concerns during the hearing. Jim Travers, who led staff remarks about the draft, described a flexible approach: measuring available curb spaces on a street, counting residences (single-family, two-family, three-family), and allocating permits based on that street-level capacity. He said programs in other cities often allow more than one permit per household where space permits and that the program should include guest passes and business permits in some circumstances.

Committee amendments and next steps: Committee members and staff agreed the parking authority should develop the detailed program rules and that the Common Council would need to approve the parking authority’s proposed guidelines in full. The draft the committee approved to forward adds a requirement that the parking authority’s guidelines be publicly noticed for a 30‑day comment period and public hearing, followed by revisions and a second 30‑day public comment period and public hearing before the parking authority, and then a Common Council vote to approve or disapprove the guidelines "in whole, but not in part."

Public input: The committee read two written emails into the record from residents concerned about overflow parking from a new regional park and urging a pilot program and clearer petition and boundary definitions. Committee members also discussed outreach steps including flyers, councilmember mailings, and coordination with the city’s communications staff and a PR firm.

Disagreement and clarifications: Committee members asked how petitions would work where absentee landlords are common; staff said petitions will be resident-driven rather than owner-driven and that petition forms could be posted online and translated to address language barriers. Staff confirmed permits would be tied to the resident’s address and that guest and business permits could be accommodated; detailed rules will be developed by the parking authority and returned to the Common Council for approval.

Vote: The committee moved the ordinance to the Common Council with the changes described; the motion passed unanimously.

Ending: The parking authority will draft formal guidelines that will undergo two public comment rounds and public hearings before returning to the Common Council for final approval.