By John Schwing

WESTPORT — Even if the grass is greener on the other side, it also might be considered blight if it’s 12 inches tall.

That’s a proviso among the revisions proposed to the town’s 11-year-old blight ordinance, with the extra caveats that foot-tall “grass, weeds or similar growths” sprouting at properties vacant for more than three months are within the law’s scope, “except where such grass is a deliberate part of the landscaping or where the property is maintained in its natural or wooded state.”

When revisions to update the ordinance were first proposed several months ago by Representative Town Meeting members Louis Mall, who introduced the original blight ordinance in 2013, and Seth Braunstein, the rules about landscaping as a possible source of blight prompted the most questions and concerns.

Since then, that proviso — one of 11 “factors” cited in the ordinance as potential sources of blight — has been reworded, and received a generally positive reaction during a joint meeting of the RTM’s Planning and Zoning and Health and Human Services committees Monday night.

Both committees voted unanimously in support of the revised ordinance, which still faces review by the Ordinance Committee, en route to a first reading before the full RTM.

Other factors listed in the ordinance that could cause a blight citation to be issued against a property owner include: missing or boarded-up windows and doors, “excessively” peeling paint, a “structurally faulty” foundation, large amounts of garbage or debris, rodent infestations and unregistered vehicles, including boats, trailers, etc.

The full text of the revised blight ordinance, with proposed changes highlighted in red, is attached to the end of this article.

Mall summarized the impact of the existing blight ordinance since it was adopted in 2013:

• 105 properties have been brought before the Blight Prevention Board during that period.

• 40 were formally cited as blighted, or about 38 percent, with the 65 other complaints resolved without enforcement.

• Only nine property owners — 8.6 percent of the overall cases brought to the board — were fined for failing to address blight issues, with a total of roughly $160,000 in penalties collected. 

• And, as of Monday, there were no “blighted” properties on the board’s agenda, he said.

The primary reasons that enforcement action was taken by the blight board, Mall said, were absentee owners, vacant properties and owners’ refusal to engage with the board to resolve citations.

Braunstein noted the board is not a policing body and does not initiate action on its own, but investigates only when it receives a complaint.

And Michele Onofrio, a Building Department employee who serves as the board’s secretary, said that a phone call to the owner of a problem property — who often may not live at the premises — has frequently resolved a complaint without the board having to take action.

Joseph Strickland, the Blight Prevention Board’s longtime chairman, explained that panel members had revised parts of the proposal to address questions raised about the earlier version, and worked with Assistant Town Attorney Eileen Lavigne Flug to “clean up some legal administrative issues.”

The legal issues, he said, primarily related to bringing the blight-violation fines assessed by the town into conformance with the state’s mandated schedule of penalties. 

Among the detailed schedule of fines, for instance, are the following for a residential property of up to six residential units that has officially been declared blighted:

• No more than $150 daily for as long as the violation continues at an occupied property.

• Up to $250 daily for as long as the violation continues at an unoccupied property.

• No more than $1,000 a day for as long as the problem persists “if such violation is the third or more such violation at such property during the prior twelve-month period.” 

The ordinance recognizes that both a civil and criminal case cannot be filed at the same time against a property owner, Strickland said, which also complies with state regulations.

And lien holders will be notified if a property has been officially cited for blight violations.

Several RTM members, including Matthew Mandell and and Ross Burkhardt, were pleased the ordinance revisions appear to ensure that properties intentionally left wild to promote bio-diversity and pollinator pathways would not be penalized, as had initially been feared.

John Schwing, interim editor of the Westport Journal, has held senior editorial and writing posts at southwestern Connecticut media outlets for four decades. Learn more about us here.

Following is a draft of the proposed revisions to the town’s blight prevention ordinance: