City passes changes to existing ordinances, continues to work on proposed nuisance property ordinance
NORWICH – The City of Norwich Common Council voted Tuesday to make a change to existing nuisance ordinances to increase the possible amount of fines.
Areas of codes impacted by the change include Animals § 153-2 Penalties for offenses; Brush, grass, weeds § 172-8 Criminal proceedings; Buildings, Unsafe § 178-3 Procedures to compel repair or removal; Housing Standard § 310-17 Penalties for offenses; Property Maintenance § 409-12 Penalties for offenses; and Camping § 421-4 Penalties for offenses.
Fines now range from a minimum of $50 to a maximum of $1,000, $2,000, or $5,000, depending on the code, as well as the possibility of jail time up to 364 days. The changes to the existing code can be found at ecode360.com/NO0235/document/753018427.pdf
While all council members expressed support of the changes, Aldermen David Zieno and Fred Gee opted to vote against the changes.
"I voted no because it just came out," said Zieno, referring to the ordinance revisions being first proposed at the joint committees meeting on February 6. "It hadn’t gone through any committees or anything. It was something different than what was proposed, and I really wanted to be able to see if the public had comments about those things. And that’s the only reason that I voted no."
"I am in favor of increasing fines," he added. "I’m not so sure about the year in prison; that one I wanted to hear from the public about."
Before the vote, a public hearing was held at the beginning of Tuesday's common council meeting, giving the public a chance to weigh in on the proposed changes. Alderman Gee said he voted no because he didn't feel it was right to allow public comment and then vote immediately after without proper deliberation.
"That makes it look like we don’t deliberate. That we’ve made the decision and we’re going through the process," said Gee. "We’re supposed to be a deliberative body, and if somebody says something in the public hearing, five minutes later we vote? To ignore that, that’s not a deliberative way of making a decision."
Despite their objections, the changes were passed with a 4-2 vote.
These changes are one of the ways the city is attempting to combat nuisance properties, which are properties in the City of Norwich with repeated codes violations. The hope is the increased fines and potential jail time will motivate property owners to keep their properties clean and in safe, livable condition.
Additionally, the city has been working on a new nuisance property ordinance for nearly a year. City of Norwich Mayor Brian Doliver appointed a steering committee made up of landlords, residents, attorneys, and other community members to investigate the issue of nuisance properties in the city and come up with possible remedies.
The ordinance has also been reviewed and refined by the city's planning commission and joint committees, including the common council.
The ordinance describes chronic nuisance properties as "property on which any combination of three or more nuisance activities or conditions occur or exist during any consecutive ninety-day period, or on which any combination of six or more nuisance activities or conditions occur or exist during any consecutive twelve-month period."
The proposed ordinance also addresses public nuisance properties, which includes unsafe structures, vacant or abandoned properties, and substandard housing.
The goal of the proposed ordinance is to lessen the amount of nuisance properties in the area and hold individuals responsible for the state of the property accountable.
The ordinance, which is available to read at https://ecode360.com/NO0235/document/753001565.pdf, details the step by step process in which a chronic nuisance property would be addressed. It says once a nuisance officer is notified of a property that meets the above criteria, the person responsible for the property would be notified by certified mail or personal service.
The notice would include the property's status as a chronic nuisance property, why it has received that status, what needs to be done to correct the property, and possible penalties and actions that can be taken if the issue is not corrected.
If no action is taken by the individual responsible, the city can then pursue fines of up to $100 per day that the nuisance activity or condition is not remedied, as well as administrative or judicial action.
Zieno said if passed, the ordinance probably wouldn't be used very often, but would be available to the city to really crack down on nuisance properties if needed.
The council also hopes the ordinance will decrease the amount of time it takes to deal with a nuisance property. Zieno said there was a recent case in his ward involving a chronic nuisance property that took months to resolve due to drawn out court processes. He said the property had repeated codes violations for over a year, which could have been prevented with something like the proposed nuisance ordinance.
"It has been occurring for over a year, over and over, and they would clean up just enough to get codes off their back, and they would take just as long until we were ready to take them to court, and then they’d get it cleaned up," said Zieno. "So that’s the whole point behind the chronic nuisance property [ordinance]: it’s not for normal code violations, it’s for these ones that continue to occur over and over."
The proposed nuisance ordinance would provide other avenues for addressing nuisance properties, such as a carefully appointed administrative board, who could review the situation and provide recommendations for action to the city mayor, who would then issue a ruling.
However, Zieno stressed that even after a property is deemed a chronic nuisance property, if an individual is actively working with the codes officer to resolve the situation, the ordinance will not be enforced. Additionally, landlords who have tenants engaging in nuisance activity will not be held accountable, so long a they are taking steps to resolve the situation or evict the tenant.
"Most landlords do want to resolve issues. Sometimes it takes time to resolve them, and that’s okay," said Zieno. "If they were to tell the city, yes, we’re evicting this tenant, and they show us the paperwork where they filed for the eviction, okay. That’s a resolution. It may take a while to get through the courts, but that’s a resolution."
"What the city wants is to just resolve the issues."
So far the City of Norwich Common Council has not held a vote on whether to adopt the proposed nuisance property ordinance, and a date for the vote has not yet been set.
Areas of codes impacted by the change include Animals § 153-2 Penalties for offenses; Brush, grass, weeds § 172-8 Criminal proceedings; Buildings, Unsafe § 178-3 Procedures to compel repair or removal; Housing Standard § 310-17 Penalties for offenses; Property Maintenance § 409-12 Penalties for offenses; and Camping § 421-4 Penalties for offenses.
Fines now range from a minimum of $50 to a maximum of $1,000, $2,000, or $5,000, depending on the code, as well as the possibility of jail time up to 364 days. The changes to the existing code can be found at ecode360.com/NO0235/document/753018427.pdf
While all council members expressed support of the changes, Aldermen David Zieno and Fred Gee opted to vote against the changes.
"I voted no because it just came out," said Zieno, referring to the ordinance revisions being first proposed at the joint committees meeting on February 6. "It hadn’t gone through any committees or anything. It was something different than what was proposed, and I really wanted to be able to see if the public had comments about those things. And that’s the only reason that I voted no."
"I am in favor of increasing fines," he added. "I’m not so sure about the year in prison; that one I wanted to hear from the public about."
Before the vote, a public hearing was held at the beginning of Tuesday's common council meeting, giving the public a chance to weigh in on the proposed changes. Alderman Gee said he voted no because he didn't feel it was right to allow public comment and then vote immediately after without proper deliberation.
"That makes it look like we don’t deliberate. That we’ve made the decision and we’re going through the process," said Gee. "We’re supposed to be a deliberative body, and if somebody says something in the public hearing, five minutes later we vote? To ignore that, that’s not a deliberative way of making a decision."
Despite their objections, the changes were passed with a 4-2 vote.
These changes are one of the ways the city is attempting to combat nuisance properties, which are properties in the City of Norwich with repeated codes violations. The hope is the increased fines and potential jail time will motivate property owners to keep their properties clean and in safe, livable condition.
Additionally, the city has been working on a new nuisance property ordinance for nearly a year. City of Norwich Mayor Brian Doliver appointed a steering committee made up of landlords, residents, attorneys, and other community members to investigate the issue of nuisance properties in the city and come up with possible remedies.
The ordinance has also been reviewed and refined by the city's planning commission and joint committees, including the common council.
The ordinance describes chronic nuisance properties as "property on which any combination of three or more nuisance activities or conditions occur or exist during any consecutive ninety-day period, or on which any combination of six or more nuisance activities or conditions occur or exist during any consecutive twelve-month period."
The proposed ordinance also addresses public nuisance properties, which includes unsafe structures, vacant or abandoned properties, and substandard housing.
The goal of the proposed ordinance is to lessen the amount of nuisance properties in the area and hold individuals responsible for the state of the property accountable.
The ordinance, which is available to read at https://ecode360.com/NO0235/document/753001565.pdf, details the step by step process in which a chronic nuisance property would be addressed. It says once a nuisance officer is notified of a property that meets the above criteria, the person responsible for the property would be notified by certified mail or personal service.
The notice would include the property's status as a chronic nuisance property, why it has received that status, what needs to be done to correct the property, and possible penalties and actions that can be taken if the issue is not corrected.
If no action is taken by the individual responsible, the city can then pursue fines of up to $100 per day that the nuisance activity or condition is not remedied, as well as administrative or judicial action.
Zieno said if passed, the ordinance probably wouldn't be used very often, but would be available to the city to really crack down on nuisance properties if needed.
The council also hopes the ordinance will decrease the amount of time it takes to deal with a nuisance property. Zieno said there was a recent case in his ward involving a chronic nuisance property that took months to resolve due to drawn out court processes. He said the property had repeated codes violations for over a year, which could have been prevented with something like the proposed nuisance ordinance.
"It has been occurring for over a year, over and over, and they would clean up just enough to get codes off their back, and they would take just as long until we were ready to take them to court, and then they’d get it cleaned up," said Zieno. "So that’s the whole point behind the chronic nuisance property [ordinance]: it’s not for normal code violations, it’s for these ones that continue to occur over and over."
The proposed nuisance ordinance would provide other avenues for addressing nuisance properties, such as a carefully appointed administrative board, who could review the situation and provide recommendations for action to the city mayor, who would then issue a ruling.
However, Zieno stressed that even after a property is deemed a chronic nuisance property, if an individual is actively working with the codes officer to resolve the situation, the ordinance will not be enforced. Additionally, landlords who have tenants engaging in nuisance activity will not be held accountable, so long a they are taking steps to resolve the situation or evict the tenant.
"Most landlords do want to resolve issues. Sometimes it takes time to resolve them, and that’s okay," said Zieno. "If they were to tell the city, yes, we’re evicting this tenant, and they show us the paperwork where they filed for the eviction, okay. That’s a resolution. It may take a while to get through the courts, but that’s a resolution."
"What the city wants is to just resolve the issues."
So far the City of Norwich Common Council has not held a vote on whether to adopt the proposed nuisance property ordinance, and a date for the vote has not yet been set.
dived wound factual legitimately delightful goodness fit rat some lopsidedly far when.
Slung alongside jeepers hypnotic legitimately some iguana this agreeably triumphant pointedly far
jeepers unscrupulous anteater attentive noiseless put less greyhound prior stiff ferret unbearably cracked oh.
So sparing more goose caribou wailed went conveniently burned the the the and that save that adroit gosh and sparing armadillo grew some overtook that magnificently that
Circuitous gull and messily squirrel on that banally assenting nobly some much rakishly goodness that the darn abject hello left because unaccountably spluttered unlike a aurally since contritely thanks