At a public hearing, the Norwalk Historical Commission heard multiple residents and commissioners debate revisions to a proposed demolition delay ordinance intended to protect buildings of historic or architectural significance.

Rich Stein, a subcommittee member who helped draft the ordinance, opened the hearing by stressing the commission’s preservation mission and asking for concise public input: "This public hearing is your opportunity to affect public policy in your community, and your input is critical," he said.

Among the speakers, Noreen Delskegner, who said she remains a city council member for "about 20 days," argued the draft ordinance “is not currently serving the best interest of housing affordability in Norwalk” and urged narrowing the ordinance to properties of clear historical significance. She proposed the commission create a registry of designated properties so buyers would know in advance which parcels are subject to delay, and suggested a fixed look‑back date (she suggested about 1940) rather than a rolling years-based cutoff.

Tanner Thompson said he "second[ed] everything" Delskegner raised and cited a recent example at 1 Cemetery Street (a 1968 building) where the ordinance was used late in the development process. "It was unsuccessful, and I think ultimately led purely to higher costs for the developer," Thompson said, arguing that late-stage delays add cost that are passed on to renters.

Resident Diane Cece delivered a detailed list of implementation questions, asking what the term "pre-demolition application" means in practice, how and when an application is "deemed filed," whether owner names (not just agents or general contact information) must be listed in notices, and how timelines (10, 14, 21 days) are measured (business vs. calendar days). She also raised enforcement concerns about clandestine demolitions and asked whether code enforcement could restrict demolition activity to daylight hours. On third-party peer review, Cece asked whether the commission will maintain a vetted pool of consultants, how conflicts of interest will be handled, and whether the proposed fee schedule would be covered by a budget or require a new line item.

Commissioners responded with a mix of agreement on the need for clearer language and pushback on assertions that the ordinance routinely blocks housing. One long-serving commissioner said the commission "pass[es] through 99.999% of demo applications" and that delays — when they occur — are typically resolved quickly; that member noted the commission has lifted delays within roughly 30 days in past cases. Commissioners also emphasized that a demolition delay can be a negotiation tool that leads developers to incorporate historic fabric rather than simply stopping every project.

Staff told the commission the written comment period will remain open until Jan. 22 and offered to compile written and verbal feedback into a cover sheet for the commission. Commissioners asked staff to invite Bill Ireland (code enforcement) to a future meeting to explain how demolition permitting and enforcement interact with the historic review process and to provide a decision-flowchart that maps the ordinance’s trigger points and timelines.

Commissioners also discussed an imminent upgrade to the city’s online permitting system and the digitization of property field cards, saying automation may change how pre-demolition flags and notifications are handled and that the ordinance text should align with those new technical capabilities.

The commission took a procedural vote to allow discussion of the public comments at this meeting; the motion passed after one member registered opposition. The body scheduled further action: staff will compile comments, present a proposed flowchart and administrative clarifications, and consider a joint meeting with the council’s ordinance committee. The commission’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Jan. 28.

The hearing combined technical questions about drafting and implementation with broader policy arguments about the balance between protecting historic resources and enabling housing production. The commission left the record open for written comment and identified specific process items — notification content, timing language, consultant selection and fees, and coordination with permitting systems — that staff will address as the draft is revised.