With two new members appointed to the Blight Hearing Board, the town is taking a renewed interest in fighting blighted properties.

At a Town Council meeting on July 17, members unanimously voted to appoint Robert Corson and Paul Gebauer to fill two vacancies on the Blight Hearing Board. The two men now join David Adams on the three-person board. Town Council Chairperson Carrie Allen told the Harbor News the move signals a renewed interest in combating blight.

“In our search for a new town manager, we made it clear that blight was a big problem in Clinton, and the council wanted to tackle it,” Allen said.

Blight, a term often informally used to describe properties that have not been properly maintained, can be a serious problem for residents around town. Besides looking unattractive, a blighted property can also affect surrounding property values and potentially dissuade investment in the area. Under state statutes, towns are permitted to address blight to promote public health, safety, and welfare.

In 2021, the town passed a revised blight ordinance that included set definitions of what does and does not legally constitute blight and stiff penalties for those found in violation.

If a violation is contested, the case goes before the blight hearing board to hear the appeal. While the town has had the new ordinance on the books for three years, Allen said the Blight Hearing Board never actually convened in the years since it was established.

When the board was first established, Jane Scully Welch and Tim Guerra were appointed to the board along with Adams. Scully Welch and Guerra both stepped down from their positions before the July 17 meeting.

Blight has become a frequent topic of conversation in Clinton, particularly on social media. Over the last several years, the land use department has seen a steep increase in blight complaints.

Allen said the council has sought input from Town Planner Abby Piersall on how to best move forward on the issue.

“The council’s downtown subcommittee met several times with our town planner earlier this year to discuss what could be done in regard to blight enforcement. Abby Piersall did some research for the subcommittee for us as to what has been effective in other towns,” Allen said.

The Ordinance

In Clinton, blight legally includes instances when a structure is dilapidated, when commercial properties or residences have grass or weeds that reach a height of 10 inches and remain so for 10 days or longer, dead and damaged trees that pose a threat to property or people, more than one unregistered vehicle in public view, three or more nonoperational pieces of mechanical equipment in view of the public, piles of debris stored in a yard (not counting compost piles) that is visible to the public and presents a health and safety hazard, and landscaping that interferes with abutting properties or sidewalks and road signs.

Under the ordinance, blight complaints must be made in writing on forms provided by the town and submitted to the blight enforcement officer. Should it be determined that blight has occurred, the responsible party will be notified in writing and given a list of ways 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 informed 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. A person willfully in violation can be fined $250 a day.

Someone accused of violating the blight ordinance can appeal the violation to the blight hearing board. When considering an appeal, the board is allowed to consider all facts relevant to a case, including personal hardships that may contribute to a property being blighted, before 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’s 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.