PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FEBRUARY 18, 2003
7:45 P.M.
PURPOSE: TO RECEIVE CITIZEN INPUT ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CITATION PROCEDURES AND FINES FOR INLAND WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSES VIOLATIONS.
The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:45 p.m. There were approximately 10 people present in the audience. The Clerk of the Council read the Call of the Meeting (a copy of which is attached hereto.)
Council Members Present
Deputy Mayor Matthew Streeter
Councillor Barbara Barbour
Councillor Paul Burnham
Councillor Deborah Fine
Councillor Judith Paquin
Councillor John Pelkey
Council Members Absent
Mayor William Aman
Councillor Thomas Delnicki
Councillor Edward F. Havens
Also Present
Town Manager Matthew B. Galligan
Town Attorney Barry D. Guliano
Town Attorney Guliano noted that the Council had before them this evening a draft ordinance (attached Exhibit A) which would allow the Town to set up a hearing procedure locally so that violations of wetlands regulations could be handled by the Town, rather than having to go to Court, as is presently the case. This is a process in which the Town Council has shown some interest regarding setting up a procedure where some of the violations could be kept local so that the Council would have more control and any fines which were
Minutes
Public Hearing – Proposed Ordinance, Inland Wetlands
Page 2
February 18, 2003
received would stay in South Windsor, rather than going to the State. Attorney Guliano said there is an ordinance which allows the Town to set up a process so that these will be handled in town.
Around the same time that interest was shown by the Council, the Inland Wetlands Agency indicated interest in adopting such a procedure.
Attorney Guliano said that the ordinance before the Council this evening would apply only to wetlands violations. This ordinance and this process could be expanded, if the Council so chooses, to include zoning violations and some other local agency violations.
Before drafting the ordinance, Attorney Guliano looked at ten surrounding Towns, and of those ten, three (Vernon, Coventry and Tolland) have adopted ordinances similar to that which is proposed. In speaking with those towns, he found that they are actually getting more compliance because of the ordinance being in place.
An ordinance such as this is not meant to take over the other remedies available; it is meant to be another “tool”. This would be another remedy where a citation could be issued and it could stay local. The advantage of staying local would be that the Town would have more control and the process would be done more quickly.
A document entitled “Hearing Procedure for Citations” (attached Exhibit B) was reviewed by Attorney Guliano. He explained that the process is required by Statute. It begins with a citation being issued, either by hand delivery or certified mail, to the property owner, with a fine to be paid within thirty days from receipt. If it is not paid within the thirty days, there is a second notice sent, which specifically sets forth the allegations and the rights of the individual to contest the citation being issued. The notice also indicates that the property owner has the right to request a hearing within ten days, but this must be done in writing. If the property owner does not make a written demand for a hearing within those ten days, then a fine is assessed against
that property owner, along with costs and fees. If the property owner does request a hearing within the ten days, then there has to be a hearing held within fifteen to thirty days.
Minutes
Public Hearing – Proposed Ordinance, Inland Wetlands
Page 3
February 18, 2003
The hearing is not meant to be a court trial. There are no formal rules of evidence, although the hearing officer would be required to conduct himself in a sense of fairness. After that proceeding, the hearing officer would then make a determination whether there has been a violation. If the hearing officer finds that there has been no violation, then that is the end of it. If the hearing officer finds that there has been a violation, then the property owner has a certain period of time to pay off the fine that has been imposed. If the property owner does not do so, the Town can file what is essentially a judgment by the hearing officer in Superior Court, and the Town can then use all of the remedies of the Superior Court to collect that judgment. The State court system could be
used for collecting the amount due at that point, which would involve liens against the property, and would allow the Town to collect on the fine that is imposed.
There is a right for the property owner to appeal. That individual has a certain period of time to file an appeal to superior court, and the court would look it over to be sure issues of fairness were followed.
The process would require the Town to appoint one or two hearing officers, not necessarily attorneys, but individuals with a familiarity of due process. It would be necessary to determine how those individuals would be compensated.
Attorney Guliano once again emphasized that this process was being discussed for use with wetlands violations only; however, if the Council adopted the ordinance and set up the hearing procedure, it could be broadened to include zoning violations and other agency violations.
The Public Hearing was recessed in order to call the Regular Meeting to order and the hearing was then immediately reconvened.
Betty Warren, Chairperson of the Inland Wetlands Agency, said that once land owners realize that there is a process in place which is fairly immediate, it will act as an encouragement toward compliance.
Jeff Folger, Environmental Planner/Conservation Officer, stated that most of the violations are generally handled at the “first stage,” which is either by a phone call bringing about a resolution or a violation order and the situation is usually rectified. It is only in the instance where there is a repeat offender or there is someone ignoring the entire process that the Town is faced with a court action. He agreed with the Town Attorney that this was an additional
Minutes
Public Hearing – Proposed Ordinance, Inland Wetlands
Page 4
February 18, 2003
“tool.” He explained that this type of situation only occurs once every two or three years. It is not a process which would be used on the first notification, or probably even the second notification, of a violation. They attempt to get voluntary cooperation whenever they can.
Dick Kelley, residence at 49 Rosemary Lane and business at 1744 Ellington Road, said that although he felt this was long overdue, it needed some “cleaning up.” He found the language concerning the time periods to be confusing and believed that it could be interpreted in more than one way. He then referenced paragraph 9 which discusses the appointment of the hearing officer by the Town Manager, the rate of compensation for the hearing officer and administrative fees and hearing fees being determined by the Town Manager. He felt there was merit to the Town Manager appointing the hearing officer and setting his compensation; however he believed that the fees should be determined by the Town Manager and the Inland Wetlands Agency.
Deputy Mayor Streeter called for a Straw Vote, the results of which were as follows:
In favor of the ordinance as presented: 1
Opposed to the ordinance as presented: 1
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Merlyn P. Guild
Assistant to the Clerk of the Council
Attachments
| 
