By Bridgette L. Rallo
Members of the Norfolk Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) have worked on a draft for a new zoning violation enforcement law for two years. But when it was presented to residents at the annual town meeting on May 10, it was defeated by a two-to-one margin.
According to P&Z Chairman Bill Riiska, the proposed law would have been a “less onerous way of enforcing our regulations and the (violator) has the opportunity to appeal.” Riiska explained to the meeting’s attendees that under current law, Norfolk’s attorney must issue a cease and desist order to a property owner who has been found in violation of the zoning ordinance and then sue in civil court for penalties.
The new law would have given the board the right to hire a zoning enforcement officer with the power to issue formal citations for building and land use violations. Penalties could have reached as high as $100 per day for infractions not remedied in a specified amount of time.
Many of those present seemed to balk, though, at the state-mandated procedure for enacting the law. The State of Connecticut regulation for adding ordinances requires that town residents vote to pass an “enabling statute” before the local government can enact a new law. This means that residents would have to agree to give town officials the power to write the law before knowing everything that could be included in it. Information on the “exact circumstances and timing” of items like the amounts of fines and the start time of fine assessments would have to wait until after passage of the enabling statute, P&Z attorney Dave Cusick told the audience.
Resident and Board of Finance Chairman Michael Sconyers disagreed with the entire scope of the proposed bill and spoke out against it. “I think it gives the Planning and Zoning Commission a power it never had before,” Sconyers said. “Why should we have hearing officers and citations? I don’t think it’s a well thought out proposal,” he concluded.
P&Z Vice Chairman West Lowe tried to deflect the criticism by explaining that some violations have existed for years and that it is expensive to litigate them in a courtroom setting. “There is one case that has been an issue for eight years. Our only option is to hire a lawyer and sue,” Lowe said. But his argument failed to convince enough listeners and the proposal was defeated by a margin of 42-25.