On Dec. 15 the Town Council approved Jane Scully Welch, Tim Guerra, and Dave Adams to be the members of the newly established blight hearing board. The members will be charged with hearing appeals to blight violations.

The town passed in October a new blight ordinance that went into effect earlier this month. As part of that ordinance, the town is required to form a three-person blight hearing board, which is charged with hearing appeals of blight complaints. With the ordinance now in effect, the council made its appointments, though not without some discussion.

During the vote, Democrats Carrie Allen and Christine Goupil expressed concern about the makeup of the committee. Goupil said she had concerns about the ability of the board to remain impartial while Allen singled out Scully Welch. Allen said that Scully Welch had recently gotten into a Facebook argument with the owner of a property that some complained is an eyesore and could constitute a blighted property. Allen said she was worried there was a chance that the owner could subject the town to a lawsuit down the road if a blight complaint was lobbed against the property.

However, the rest of the council didn’t share those concerns. Council member Carol Walter said that Scully Welch could recuse herself if need be and Town Council Chair Chris Aniskovich pointed out that there were numerous steps that would need to go happen before the hearing board even got involved.

“It obviously first goes through the blight officer to see if it is blight,” Aniskovich said.

Aniskovich also alluded to the fact that there are specific definitions as to what constitutes blight and what does not. The specific definitions can be found on the town website.

“And just because you don’t like how the neighbor’s yard looks that doesn’t always make it blight,” he added later during the meeting.

Ultimately, despite her objections, Allen joined the rest of the council except for Goupil and voted to approve the three blight hearing board members. Goupil was the lone vote in objection to the motion.

The impetus for a revised blight ordinance came from an observation made by council member Walter, who also works in the town’s Land Use Office. Walter told the Harbor News earlier in 2021 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. The proposed ordinance was passed by the council in October following a public hearing.

Earlier this summer the Town Council formed a subcommittee to study the ordinance to see if changes were needed. The subcommittee consisted of Town Manager Karl Kilduff along with council members Walter, then-council member Guerra, and Dennis Donovan. The group proposed updated blight definitions, which can be found on the town website, as well as a new ordinance that the members felt had a balance between being fair and also being stringent enough to enforce change.

The New Ordinance

Under the new ordinance, blight complaints must be made in writing on forms provided by the town and submitted to the enforcement officer. Should it be determined that blight has occurred, the responsible party will be notified in writing and given a list of ways that the property can be brought into compliance by an established deadline. An extension of the deadline may be granted and the violation can be contested by notifying the town manager or enforcement officer within 10 days of being notified of the issue.

Violators can be fined $100 per violation a day until the blight issue is resolved under the ordinance. The town can also initiate court proceedings against a person in violation. Under the proposal, a person willfully in violation can be fined $250 a day.

If the violation is contested, that is where the hearing board comes into play. When considering an appeal, the board is allowed to consider all facts that are relevant to a case, including personal hardships that may contribute to a property being blighted, before making a ruling. The board can opt to request in person testimony from the violator and the enforcement officer. The board can also opt to waive any fines on the property due to weather or a disability being a compounding factor in the upkeep of the property. Should a person disagree with the hearing board decision, it can be appealed to superior court.

In the event that a person responsible for a blighted property still doesn’t correct a violation even after enforcement action has been taken, the town may take action to correct the issue. Should that occur, the town may then file a civil claim against the party in order to recover all costs related to that corrective action.