Thank you for taking the time to listen to Catalyst for Connecticut’s testimony in December regarding the amended language to section 7.3 of the Zoning Regulations and for agreeing to hold the vote until the general public was able to learn more about the language. As we move closer to future public meetings, we would like to reiterate some of our points made during our testimony and raise additional concerns. At Catalyst, we believe that the suggested language would affect small businesses and other property owners in the following:
Over the last 10 months, small businesses across the state have fought to remain open due to the global pandemic. Unfortunately, too many have been forced to close their doors. The Stamford community is no different. Our restaurants and other businesses have faced the same challenges as others because of the COVID-19. Businesses throughout the downtown area are just trying to survive in a struggling economy. Creating additional regulations to these engines of our local economy, would only be adding more of a burden during an already difficult time. These new regulations could put a halt to the significant economic growth we have seen over the last 10 years. We encourage the Commission to avoid taking steps as we wait to overcome this global pandemic that could hinder the growth of our community’s economy at such a vulnerable time.
As mentioned in our previous testimony, the public should have the opportunity to educate themselves on what the amended regulations would have on their properties, specifically for homeowners. The process will add significant time/delay and cost to a homeowner’s renovation project (assuming it is visible from the street). At a minimum, it will take a few months to make it through the review process and homeowners will likely be forced to hire consultants to appear before these boards. In order to ensure that the residents are a part of the process of deciding what happens to their properties. This should be a process that involves the community. While Boards and Commissions are in place for the betterment of the community, this type of regulation would give the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission excessive oversight of what residents and property owners choose to do with their businesses or homes. Language such as “or which are deemed significant by the State Historic Preservation Office or the State Historic Preservation Council,” is a broad sweeping statement that folds all of these properties into one. We believe that the city owes property owners the opportunity to understand what being a part of the Cultural Resource Inventory entails and what their responsibilities as owners would be and to make their own decision. We strongly encourage the Zoning Board to remove this language from the regulation and make this a more democratic process.
What Catalyst is asking for is that we don’t put the cart before the horse. Under these new regulations any building that is 50 years old or younger would automatically be placed into the Cultural Resource Inventory, along with what the evaluation criteria would be to consider these buildings for the inventory. For us, we should not be creating any regulations before we know what any of this means. We ask that the city do an inventory first before we create regulations before we sweep everybody under one umbrella.
Again, we are very grateful to the Commission for allotting the additional time to learn more about these new regulations. We hope that we will be able to continue these conversations so every resident and property owner in the District will be able to benefit from being a part of our beautiful community.