Tall Grass And Unregistered Cars Target Of Blight Ordinance

The city is stepping up efforts to combat blighted properties.

The Board of Aldermen recently adopted an antiblight ordinance that allows the city to slap the owner of a neglected property with a $100-a-day fine if the blighted property adversely affects the health, safety or property values of other residents.

The ordinance also allows the city to fix — at the property owner’s expense — long-ignored problems on properties deemed to be blighted.

Blight, as defined by the ordinance, can be as simple as broken windows or overgrown grass. An abandoned building, one with extensive fire or water damage or one that is infested with vermin or has unregistered cars or garbage on the property, also can be considered blighted.

Any other condition causing “substantial depreciation of the property values in the neighborhood” also falls under the ordinance.

Alderwoman Jessica Blacketter, D-4, asked City Attorney Win Smith during an ordinance committee meeting last week if the term “substantial depreciation” could be more clearly defined.

Smith advised against putting a percentage or dollar amount to represent lowered property values because property appraisals can vary a great deal, depending on who is doing the appraising.

A hard number or percentage of depreciation could undermine the city’s position in court and make the ordinance more difficult to enforce, Smith said.

Aldermanic Minority Leader Vincent Ditchkus, R-3, agreed with Smith.

“In the real estate market, you could have three different appraisers come out ... and have three different, substantial changes to that appraisal,” Ditchkus said.

Alderman Nick Veccharelli Jr., D-2, said he supported the idea of an anti-blight ordinance, but took issue with the one adopted because he thought it gave the “blight enforcement officer” too much power.

The idea of a blight enforcement officer being able to go onto a property based simply on an anonymous call, without first notifying the property owner, did not sit well with Veccharelli.

“I am simply asking that before we allow someone to enter onto somebody’s property — that we let them know we are coming over,” Veccharelli said. “Please, if they are going to go on someone’s property, let’s at least have the common decency to inform the people.”

Aldermanic Chairman Ben Blake, D-5, said the intent of the ordinance is to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents, and having to give notice “could take some of the bite out of the ordinance.”

Responsibility for enforcing the ordinance rests with the city health director or a designee.

Smith said the health director and zoning enforcement officer already have the power by state law to enter properties to deal with code violations.

ORIGINAL STORY BY JIM TINLEY

Local Business Owner Chastises Chaucer

Tim Chaucer was out campaigning on New Haven Ave. over the weekend and one of his stops was at a local gas station at 345 New Haven Ave. This gas station is owned and operated by the Quick Food Mart

Tim asked the owner if he could put a sign up on the corner of his property. When the owner explained to him that he did not take kindly to solicitors, and also did not wish to engage in partisan politics out of respect for his customers, Chaucer (and his associate) stormed out.

The following day, Mr. Azari contacted the Milford Daily Blog and said that Tim sent him a rather upsetting letter alleging that his grass was high and his property overgrown. While Mr. Chaucer was not reached for comment, a photographer was deployed to take a photo (above) of the property in question in an effort to verify Chaucers claim.

The photo speaks for itself and shows the landscaping of the property shortly after the confrontation was made and Chaucer’s request to place a sign denied. You decide, is this “sour grapes” or a “legitimate gripe?”

Current Zoning Law May Make Flagpoles and Basketball Hoops Illegal

According to John Grant, the Milford Independent Party candidate for Zoning and planning, an outrageous new revision was made to Milford's zoning laws. The section in question 4.1.1 and 4.1.1.1 (listed on the P&Z website) defines a STRUCTURE as follows:

STRUCTURE - Anything constructed or erected which requires location on the ground or attachment to something having a location on the ground. Except as otherwise indicated, "structure" as used in these regulations shall be deemed to include buildings, swimming pools, open entries, signs, and fences or walls more than three feet in height other than retaining walls.

This vague definition can apply to just about anything over three feet high and not excepted. This includes your flagpole in your yard, your kids basket ball hoop or maybe more infuriating your outdoor fire pit or artwork.

Furthermore, and according to John Grant "this section is in conflict with other zoning sections and I understand 'un-officially' they are thinking of changing the definition of structure to make this cause less violations."

The thought of redefining the word "structure," however prudent, does not change the fact that the P&Z may have made lawbreakers out of thousands of citizens in town who erected basketball hoops and flagpoles.

John Grant, said that if he is elected he will vow to fight vague zoning definitions and support Milford"s citizens who wish to erect reasonable patriotic or sporting products. While he does not believe that all zoning laws are bad, he does believe that greater care must be given to language that is too loosely defined.

Grant also believes, that many Zoning laws lack a proper enforcement apparatus citing that the enforcement section of city hall is understaffed and ill prepared to actually engage in enforcing anything that has not sparked public outrage.

To read more about John Grant click on the link below to visit his profile.

http://www.milfordindependents.com/john_grant.htm

Milford Zoners Alter Trash Plant Regulation

The Planning and Zoning Board this week approved a regulation change that bans recycling plants and trash-hauling operations in one of the city’s heavy industrial zones.

The change to the Housatonic Design District, a large swath of land along the Housatonic River north of Interstate 95, received unanimous support from the PZB, but received heavy criticism from business interests.

The change, which goes into effect July 22, bans all “trash hauling, solid waste processing, construction and demolition debris storage and processing, recycling plants and volume-reduction facilities” in the district.

The banned uses, however, are allowed if they are “accessory to a permitted principal use.”

With the change, existing transfer stations and recycling centers are grandfathered in by the old regulations and can continue operations. They are, however, considered a “non-conforming use” and cannot expand the operations.

Critics contended at a public hearing that the change would alter the character of the district, hurt the city financially and amount to illegal spot zoning and illegal taking.

But City Planner David Sulkis said a language change to the original proposal tightened the regulation and should have eliminated “99 percent” of the concerns.

“It’s going to basically protect the neighborhoods surrounding this zone from heavy traffic typically generated from the waste-hauling industry,” Sulkis said. He said the regulation would also protect the nearby Housatonic River from possible environmental damage.

Sulkis said the change passed Tuesday night with little discussion.

“We heard some forceful objections to this regulation change at the public hearing, many of which were from businesses that will not be impacted,” PZB Chairwoman Jeanne Cervin said. “When the wording was tightened up, it was clear that the power company, Iroquois Gas, Gas Equipment Engineering Corp. and, of course, the city transfer station and the sewer treatment plant, which are not subject to our regulations, will not be impacted.”

James Tinley ORIGINAL STORY CLICK HERE

"Czar's" in Milford Are a Communist Concept

This is no joke, I picked up the Connecticut post today and there it was talk of a "Blight Czar." The first thing I thought of was the record number "Czars" that are now embedded into the Obama administration.

Just so we are clear here the word Czar means a Communist Russian "Emperor or King." Americas longest serving Democratic Congressman Rep. Byrd wrote a letter to Pres. Obama concerned that the record 18 czars in his administration represent a hazard that "can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances."

We do not need to start that outrageous practice here in Milford. The thought of letting future Mayors appoint PAID Czars outside the confirmation of the board of alderman, or without the consent of the governed, are far outside the principles of our Democratic Republic. Personally I heard these blight complaints about a year ago when I was out and about campaigning in the 118th district, some are reasonable and valid, others are mean spirited and an act of revenge against a neighbor. I also met people who were concerned with blighted commercial properties and wanted something done to improve them. I suppose with much heavy industry and commercial property in trouble, some ideas are ready to be put on the table.

What remains unclear to me is what exactly constitutes a "blighted property." If the definition extends to people who forgo home repairs in lieu of having a place to live, or a widow whose husband is no longer living to make home repairs, than no thanks on pursuing this idea.

However, if this idea is directed at abandoned properties and properties that pose a danger (such as a fire, structural, or intrusion hazard) that can harm others, than I agree. Certainly our town has a zoning and planning board, zoning enforcement board, and an office of Community and Economic Development. Milford also has a the additional Devon Revitalization Committee and as well as several other venues not mentioned to improve the look of our community.

The thought of appointing a Plight "Emperor or King" is funny and yet repulsive. Perhaps Milford's elected officials should focus on applying local laws without the imposition of tyrannical Communist Style "Czars." If you are wondering what a Communist "Czar" looks like see the above photo. (Save the bulldozer)

Milford's Smart Growth Means Restricting Negative Income Properties

Milford Zoning and Planning has the duty of assigning the land use and improvements made to our community by builders and developers. Milford is a town rich with many resources including open space, small family farms and a growing population.

Every year when our city presents its budget it is forced to contend with the hardships of the promises it has made to its city employees, the cost associated with inflation and the economic situation of the local taxpayers who have to pay for it all.

Thankfully our city does receive some help from the outside world. Our city gets assistance with grants from the state of Connecticut (Devon Revitalization Project, the courthouse, education dollars, etc..) however this money always falls short and tempers flare between property owners and taxpayers.

Last year it was standing room only at city hall, the public in Milford heard that the budget was so severely strained that up to 180 teachers would be layed off and a taxpayer revolt was brewing between those who paid taxes and those who expected quality education from the city. Fortunately no teachers were fired, this is because other cuts were made instead.

The notion of Smart Growth benefiting a community, will only work if the city and Zoning and Planning engage in a policy that is more scientific in its approach of land use management.

This formula should consider how many Negative Income Properties (NIP's) our community can reasonably sustain relative to its Income Producing Properties (IPP's) The difference between the two are simply stated as one type of property like a commercial building or elderly housing will produce more income that the demands of those residents. The other type (NIP's) are those properties like Family Occupied Dwellings with multiple kids in the school system. Those properties consume more revenue than is procured in taxes.

Sustainability of the tax base and Milford's future means driving up the cost of large Family dwellings through the basic principles of artificial scarcity, or the policy of making their proliferation increasingly difficult. Eventually the basic principles of supply and demand will drive up the cost of (NIP's) This will result in lower mill rates, more property tax revenue, and higher resale values for those homeowners who will eventually sell their properties.

The flip side of zoning and planning should be to encourage and ease land use pertaining to commercial development, and the designation of additional senior occupied developments (like Baldwin Station), while encouraging low cost single occupant housing.

Smart Growth is more than just recycling, energy reduction, art, healthy living and all those attributes of its proponents. Smart growth is about building affordable communities that are energy efficient, cost effective and socially balanced. These policies can only be implemented by Zoning and Planning who must pay careful attention to the implications of the permits in which they issue to our town developers.

At all cost, and in my opinion, I believe it is critical to prohibit the development of farms in lieu of "McMansions" and encourage the development of business, senior, and single occupancy apartments if Milford is to resolve its revenue issues in the coming years.