Sex Offender, Noise Ordinances On Hold

By John Voket

Two local ordinances, one up for recommendation to the full council, and another up for enactment were put on hold September 16. A local sex offender ordinance, which was recently approved by the Police Commission and moved to the Legislative Council’s Ordinance Committee for discussion and possible recommendation this week, will require further vetting.

After some discussion among ordinance committee members, it was decided that Police Chief Michael Kehoe would be called to meet with the panel to give a practical explanation about why Newtown requires such an ordinance, and to detail information on how he would direct police personnel to enforce it.

Subcommittee chair Frances Pennarola, who is also an attorney, said there are only a handful of towns in Connecticut, including Ridgefield and Brookfield, that have recently enacted similar statutes.

The proposed ordinance, if enacted, would restrict child sex offenders from entering “child safety zones.”

These zones would include any park, school, playground, recreation center, beach, swimming or wading pool, gym, sports field or sports facility that would be under the jurisdiction of the town, including the Board of Education, or is leased to the town for its use. Such child safety zones would include buildings, land, and parking areas on the parcels where such facilities are located.

The proposed ordinance defines a “child sex offender” for the purposes of the law, and would make it illegal for an offender to be present within a “child safety zone.” Also, various legal exclusions are described.

Under the terms of the proposal, the police chief would directly notify the town residents who are listed on the state’s sex offender registry of the town’s child sex offender ordinance and provide them with a copy of the ordinance. That registry currently lists nine Newtown residents as sex offenders who have been convicted of various sex crimes, at least seven of whom were convicted on sex charges involving underage persons.

According to the proposed law, if a police officer believes that a child sex offender is in a child safety zone in violation of the law, the offender would be required to provide his/her name, address, and telephone number to the police officer.

If the person is a child sex offender, the police officer would issue the offender an infraction ticket and require the offender to leave the child safety zone. Those violating the ordinance would be fined $250 for each violation.

Under the proposed law, each child safety zone would be identified by a sign conspicuously posted at the primary entrance to a child safety zone and also at any building within that zone. Also, the town would create a map depicting each local child safety zone.

That mapping would be available for review at the first selectman’s office, the police department, and on the town’s website on the Internet.

The town police would maintain a listing that would be known as the Newtown Sexual Offender Registry. The registry would be available for public review. After a person is removed from the state’s sex offender registry, they also would be removed from the town’s sex offender registry.

Mr Pennarola said, pending the police chief’s availability, he was planning to request to revisit the proposal in mid-October.

About an hour later, during the council’s regular meeting, a proposed noise ordinance which was slated for discussion and possible action was kicked back to the ordinance committee for further review. That action was decided after a local resident, Gina Wolfman, appeared at the September 2 council meeting suggesting some substantive changes to the proposal, as it was originally approved by the ordinance committee.

According to meeting transcripts, Ms Wolfman, who resides on Obtuse Road, identified herself as an environmental planning consultant with a background in environmental law. At that meeting she offered council members her professional opinion on the proposed noise ordinance.

Ms Wolfman said she has worked on municipal master plans, done a lot of impact analysis and has a solid background in wetlands. At the September 2 council meeting, she suggested the ordinance could be more comprehensive, and offered to help with wording using her experience with noise ordinances that were previously approved by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Any community wishing to enact a noise ordinance must first receive authorization after DEP review of an ordinance draft. With that in mind, Ms Wolfman suggested Newtown’s ordinance be rescripted so that it affects current and future land use; addresses future uses; and to further define heavy machinery as it applies to the ordinance.

After a review of the language changes, it was the council’s consensus that those changes were substantive enough to warrant returning the noise proposal to the ordinance committee for further review. Once the changes are accepted and recommended by the ordinance committee, the redraft will come before the full council again. Mr Pennarola reminded the council that once approved locally, it still needed to go back to the DEP for final approval.

During the September 16 meeting, and with minimal discussion, the council approved a Zoning Enforcement Ordinance which would permit the local land use agency to levy fines in town to those in violation of zoning and land use policies.