Council Urged To Create Ordinance

To Curtail ‘Blight’

By John Voket

Over the course of about 40 minutes September 21, the Legislative Council’s Ordinance Committee heard a presentation from Newtown Borough Warden and Finance Board Vice Chair James Gaston detailing how the town might go about enacting an ordinance to curtail blight.

Mr Gaston, who is also a current candidate for the Board of Selectmen, said he was first asked to provide some preliminary research by the Borough Board of Burgesses, but told the council it did not make sense for the borough to try an pursue such an ordinance without the full participation and endorsement of town officials.

While the borough is vested with some of its own zoning, wetland, and building regulations, for the most part its policies are overlapped or supported by the town charter or overarching town practices.

Mr Gaston told Ordinance Committee members that he compiled an inch-thick stack of paperwork for them to read and consider as the members move forward discussing the possibility of adding such an ordinance to the town’s arsenal of tools to enhance quality of life and minimize attractive nuisances and the public health threats that are commonly associated with blighted properties.

“It’s premature to say I’m recommending it, but it merits serious discussion,” Mr Gaston said, adding that the majority of Connecticut towns and cities had some type of blight or antiblight ordinance.

His information packet contains various state Office of Legislative Research documents, including one from 2010 comparing Connecticut’s antiblight laws to those being considered in Pennsylvania, and another from 2003 analyzing existing municipal blight ordinances at the time.

Mr Gaston said he formulated a template for Newtown to consider, which borrowed from approved ordinances in small- to medium-sized communities from Stafford to the Borough of Naugatuck. He told the council he primarily looked to the Naugatuck ordinance for language in the proposed draft.

(View the draft template ordinance the Ordinance Committee will review on line at NewtownBee.com.)

The committee learned that some communities restrict their blight ordinances to residential properties and do not include commercial, industrial, farm, or open space. Mr Gaston suggested based on the suburban to rural nature of Newtown that the committee avoid incorporating any proposed blight ordinance to farm or agricultural properties, or open space where guidelines on the height of ground cover for instance, might trigger blight enforcement if included.

He said Newtown, up to now, has had a good record of effectively handling complaints about properties that might otherwise fall under the control of a blight ordinance, and cited the local zoning code that details a number of illegal applications.

He also reviewed the need for the community to induct one or more blight officers to enforce the ordinance if it is adopted, as well as hearing officials who would be empowered to consider appeals to enforcement actions.

Mr Gaston said that without an ordinance, it is virtually impossible for the town to enforce state antiblight laws. But at the same time, he encouraged officials to consider developing any such ordinance carefully.

“How can you resolve the blight problem? You have to have a tool to do it,” Mr Gaston said. “But you don’t want to use it as a hammer, you still have to work with people [who may be found in violation].”

The suggested template defines what might be considered a blight violation, including conditions that pose a serious threat to the safety, health, and general welfare of the community as determined by the Health District director, fire marshal, zoning enforcement officer or building inspector.

Blighted property may also be flagged by the police department as attracting illegal activity or trespassers, or may be a property that has fallen into a state of dilapidation, decay, or contains a severe animal, rodent, vermin, or insect infestation.

Mr Gaston also detailed special considerations that might be put in place to protect individuals who may be disabled, elderly, or otherwise financially incapable of immediately or completely addressing blight complaints. He said any ordinance should take these situations under consideration, and possibly extend the deadline for conformity or provide referrals to individuals who may need assistance in cleaning up or correcting blight conditions.

The committee will now begin the process of discussion and review of the proposal and its corroborating documents, according to Chairperson Mary Ann Jacob.