The Town Council has appointed a subcommittee to study the town’s blight ordinance and recommend what steps, if any, should be taken to clarify the regulations.

Blight, often informally used to describe properties that have not been properly maintained, can be a thorn in the side of residents around town. Under state statute, towns are permitted to address blight to promote public health, safety, and welfare.

According to Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) Kathy King, Clinton has an anti-blight ordinance that defines blight as: “Any structure which is in a state of dilapidation or decay or is open to the elements or unable to provide shelter or serve the purpose for which it was constructed due to damage, dilapidation, or decay. Grass, weeds, or similar vegetation (excluding flowers, fruits and vegetables, and areas maintained in their original naturally wooded, field, or shoreline state) is allowed to reach and remain at a height of 10 inches or greater for a period of 10 days or longer.”

The ordinance further defines it as properties with “Dead, decayed, diseased or damaged trees constituting a hazard or danger to public property or persons lawfully therein. More than one unregistered and unstreetable motor vehicle in the public view. Property with any combination of three or more pieces of nonoperational mechanical equipment excluding licensed motor vehicles stored on the premises and in the public view.”

In addition to occasionally being a public safety hazard, blighted properties cause a headache for residents because they can affect neighborhood property values and, if it is a commercial property that is blighted, it could lead to fewer visitors to Clinton.

Last month a subcommittee of the Town Council was formed to study the ordinance to see if it needed revision. The subcommittee consists of Town Manager Karl Kilduff along with council members Carol Walter, Tim Guerra, and Dennis Donovan. Walter, who works in the Land Use Office, said that she noticed that blight complaints were taking up a lot of the office’s time and suggested that the council take a look at how Clinton handles blight complaints.

Currently, blight complaints are investigated and documented by the ZEO.

“Blight is a problem that every town has to face at some level and can take many forms ranging from building façade impairments, overgrown weeds, and improper storage. We have definitely seen an uptick in blight complaints since the pandemic began,” King said.

Sometimes the Police Department, Building Official, or Health District are needed to sort out a complaint. King said that majority of complaints are resolved voluntarily, without enforced penalties.

Walter said that Clinton’s blight ordinance was “written years ago” and that the committee was looking at possibly updating definitions or enforcement mechanisms.

“We don’t want anything onerous or heavy handed, but we want more clarity on what constitutes blight,” said Walter.

Walter said the committee is using blight ordinances adopted by the towns of Branford and South Windsor as templates for possibly updating Clinton’s ordinance. Under those town’s ordinances, the caretaker of the blighted property is given notice by the town to fix the property. An appointed blight enforcement officer is then called upon to help resolve the situation with verbal and if necessary written warnings. Special considerations can be taken if there is a valid reason the property wasn’t maintained.

If the blight situation is not solved amicably, the town has the authority to issue $100-a-day fines and possibly take the property owner to court after all other attempts to resolve the issue are ignored.

Walter said that the subcommittee had just started meeting in June and will likely have its work wrapped up soon. Walter anticipated that any recommended changed to the blight ordinance would be submitted to the Town Council for possible further action by the end of the summer.