Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwalk ZBA backs tiered fee approach, forwards recommendation to council and approves two 180‑day permit extensions
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals debated a proposed fee schedule update on May 21; after benchmarking and discussion it agreed on a tiered structure (a low base fee with $50 increases per $25,000 of project value up to a cap) to send to the common council, and it approved two 180‑day permit extensions for projects at 222 West Rocks Road and 8 Belmont Place.
Norwalk’s Zoning Board of Appeals debated and then voted to forward a tiered recommendation for ZBA application fees to the common council on May 21, and approved two 180‑day extensions for previously granted variances.
Staff and proposed increases: Planning staff read a revised fee schedule that proposes increases from a long‑standing fee table (last changed in 2006). Staff listed examples such as a residential variance/appeal fee proposed at $560 (up from $260) and a proposed $810 fee for commercial/multifamily cases. Staff emphasized the need to update fees to reflect administrative cost and inflation.
Board focus on fairness and implementation: Several board members urged fairness for lower‑value homeowners and suggested a stepped or tiered fee that would keep small projects affordable while asking larger projects to pay more. One commissioner framed the goal as keeping the process accessible for small, often low‑income applicants while recovering staff costs on larger projects.
Staff research and proposal: Steve Kleppin, planning director (speaker 11), presented benchmarking from nearby Fairfield County municipalities and suggested implementation mechanics. During deliberations members discussed using assessed value versus project value as triggers and the administrative burden of post‑project appraisal. Staff proposed a practical mechanism discussed by the board: set a low base fee for small projects and add increments (e.g., $50) for each $25,000 of project value up to a ceiling near the proposed commercial fee.
Board decision and next steps: After negotiation the board agreed directionally on a tiered approach (during discussion the agreed base figure was recorded at $2.60 in the transcript as the negotiated low base for very small projects, and an increment of $50 per $25,000 of project value was described) and voted to forward the recommendation to the common council for ordinance drafting and final action. Staff will prepare the exact ordinance language and fee table for council consideration.
Permit extensions approved: The board also handled two variance extension requests. For 222 West Rocks Road (a previously approved pool/yard project), the board approved a 180‑day extension to allow the applicant to secure permits after addressing retaining wall and engineering issues; the new deadline is 12/13/2026. For 8 Belmont Place (applicant Eva Zhang), the board granted a 180‑day extension after survey and CAD delays prevented the civil engineer from completing the site and drainage plans; the new permit deadline is 12/13/2026.
Public comment and administration: Staff opened the floor for public comment on the fees; no members of the public raised their hand. The board asked staff to prepare a concise proposal that incorporates the agreed mechanics for transmission to the common council. The board approved the recommendation by voice vote and recorded its direction for staff to draft ordinance language.
