Blight Rules Stalled —

Council OKs Alcohol Ordinance

By Jan Howard

The Legislative Council voted to approve two ordinances, including one aimed at alcohol abuse by minors, at its meeting September 17. A third ordinance was tabled for further review and discussion.

Following a public hearing on the three ordinances, the council members voted to approve an ordinance prohibiting alcohol possession by minors and hosting events serving alcohol to minors and an ordinance amending all existing ordinances imposing fines, designating a town citation hearing officer, and establishing an appeals procedure.

They tabled a blight ordinance for further review and discussion.

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal spoke in support of the three ordinances. He said a blight ordinance had been effective in other towns. In regard to the alcohol ordinance, he noted he had been in contact with the chief of police, superintendent of schools, and parents.

“They believe strongly the ordinance would be effective,” he said.

Alcohol Possession, Hosting Events

The ordinance prohibiting alcohol possession by minors and hosting events serving alcohol to minors passed with one nay vote by council member Brian White who said he felt the ordinance was “over-governing in my opinion.”

During the public hearing, the ordinance received mostly support from residents, though some voiced concerns the ordinance would be intrusive and allow police to enter private property or take action without a warrant.

Resident Barbara Bloom of Philo Curtis Road said she “totally agreed” with the ordinance but felt the $90 fine was too low. “It should be a minimum $1,000 fine.”

Matt McQuail said the council should consider community service for young people drinking underage. He felt the ordinance was good but contained too many loopholes.

.Nina Allred of Yogananda Street thanked the Ordinance Committee, Legislative Council, and the Police Department. “It’s a good time to pursue it,” she said, noting that 21 other towns have such an ordinance, and it has been helpful in addressing underage drinking.

Mrs Allred’s son, Nicholas, 12, also spoke in support of the ordinance “to protect young people.” He said it would send a message to the State of Connecticut that a law should be passed.

Bill Sheluck of Greenleaf Farm Road said that during their meeting the Legislative Council should describe the nature of enforcement so people’s fears could be alleviated.

David Kingsley of Maltbie Road said that while the intent of the ordinance was probably good, he felt it would be intrusive.

Victor Lumper of Hattertown Road said the ordinance would be a reiteration of state law. He said police breaking in “sounds like Orwell in 1984.” He said police have no right to enter a house without a warrant. He added that, “The police are doing a good job with gentle persuasion.”

Will Rodgers, chairman of the ordinance subcommittee, said, “There is nothing in the ordinance that enables the police to go into private property or take action that would require a warrant. If someone is hosting an illegal party and refuses to allow officers to enter, there is no extra ammunition in that regard.”

During the council’s meeting, Mr Rodgers said that the committee members had asked for legal review of the ordinance because of its concern about big brother influence.

“Nothing allows police to enter private property,” he said. “What is prohibited are these acts. The property would have to be brought to the attention of police.”

Chairman Don Studley said, “Someone would have to be causing a problem.”

Police Chief Michael Kehoe said police would have to be there for legitimate reasons, such as a disturbance. “It is not an abuse-of-power law. If there is no violation of law, police wouldn’t respond.”

Mr Rodgers noted that the ordinance does not provide the power to call for community service for underage drinkers. Also, the fine was set at $90 or below because the money would be paid to the town. More than $100 must go to the state, he said.

Member Joe Hemingway said the fine should be kept at $100 or less, because the ordinance is not just for the money but is for the message that underage young people should not be drinking. He said the ordinance is “a tool to stop underage drinking.”

Tim Holian said the real deterrent is subjecting people to public scrutiny and criticism.

Blight Ordinance

The blight ordinance was not as positively received as that of underage drinking. While some residents supported it, believing it did not go far enough, most others took exception, questioning that it would go too far.

Larry Schneider of Old Bethel Road questioned whether the ordinance would negate preexisting court orders or would they continue to be valid. He also felt that exceptions be made for vehicles on property that are not operable but are insured and registered, such as classic cars that are being restored. “A differentiation is in order,” he noted.

Stephanie Argraves of Great Quarter Road supported the ordinance, but felt it was not going far enough. She said the ordinance should consider other items that people park on the edges of their property, such as trailers, tractors, and boats that are functional but are parked so their neighbors can see them. “They shouldn’t be in someone’s view,” she said.

“It is not as comprehensive,” she said of the ordinance. “It should be reviewed and reconsidered.”

William Sheluck questioned how sections of the ordinance that addressed deteriorating and dilapidated buildings would pertain to Fairfield Hills.

 Greg Layda of South Main Street said, “I find it irritating that we’re trying to cleanup the area like a little Pleasantville.” He noted some people work at trades from their homes and have equipment in their yards. He said for those people “definite lines should be drawn because you can’t hide everything.”

Richard Layda of Hattertown Road termed the ordinance “ill advised,” noting there are laws on the books that are applicable to health and safety and zoning. “It is subjective as to what is good and bad.” He said he felt the ordinance would be unevenly enforced.

Mr Kingsley said he strongly opposed the ordinance, calling it subjective and capricious and “more chips off of civil liberties.”

Daniel Amaral of Elm Drive noted that repair shops should not be included under the ordinance if they are preexisting.

Some people spoke of the charm of the community, which includes its tumbledown barns and chicken coops.

Mr Lumper said he could not support the ordinance “because repressive rules don’t work. It will end up being hard to administer.”

During the council meeting, Mr Rodgers said the proposed ordinance was not designed to address any particular person’s property but to fill the gap in existing ordinances. While the town can condemn buildings and deal with litter, it is not able to deal with concerns in between. “There are a number of safeguards in here,” he said, such as specifying visibility from a road or street.

Mr Rosenthal said the proposed ordinance would provide for more voluntary compliance. “Once it’s publicized, you do get more compliance,” he said. “We’re not going after every minor situation.”

The ordinance would also eliminate taking people to court every time, he noted. He said the ordinance provides extra tools where towns have adopted it.

“It is another effective tool of eliminating some eyesores,” Mr Rosenthal said.

Council members questioned if there would be a time limit on a required action plan to rectify the violation. Mr Rosenthal said it would depend on the complexity of the violation, with some violations requiring more time.

Mr Rodgers said the ordinance is very broad. “There is a written notice process and an appeals process,” he said. “It is not the equivalent of a cease and desist order.”

The Legislative Council tabled action pending further review and discussion.

Fines and Procedures

The ordinance regarding fines and procedures received no comment from the public.

Mr Rodgers said the ordinance is “something of a no-brainer,” noting it provides a procedure where an appeals process is instituted. The ordinance was passed unanimously.

In other business, Peggy Baiad was named as a representative to the School Start Study Committee.