Town Meeting Passes New Blight Ordinance for Windsor Locks

A crowd of about 60 residents gathered Wednesday evening to approve a new blight ordinance for the town of Windsor Locks. With passionate exchanges and a dispute over the procedures for voting, the meeting highlighted the importance of the blight issue for many residents in town, and a unanimous desire to improve the situation.

Alan Gannuscio was elected moderator for the meeting and spelled out the major differences between the new ordinance and the previous. He said the definitions of blight were made more precise, a complainant can now remain anonymous, and the fine for an unsatisfactory condition becomes the discretion of the enforcement officer rather than being automatically assessed. The ordinance also includes commercial properties in the definitions.

The issue of “may” vs. “shall” on the issuance of the fine proved to be contentious among the audience. Many believed the discretion applied to blight remediation.

Town attorney Scott Chadwick clarified, “it has now gone from absolute enforcement to discretionary enforcement, but only with respect to the fine. Not necessarily with respect to the identification and the removal of the blight.”

Those opposed to the new ordinance expressed the opinion that it did not go far enough to addressing the blighted properties.

Doug Hamilton, an activist on the issue, said, “I urge you to vote against it. Let's have a real discussion. Minimal has changed [from the prior ordinance].”

Hamilton shared dozens of photographs of egregious examples of what he deemed blight and said that voting for this new ordinance would not help thd remediation of the properties.

“A blight ordinance is only as good as the enforcement. The conditions of these properties did not spring up just in the last year,” he said.

Maria Giannuzzi believed that the ordinance should be passed, because the town could not afford more delays in addressing blighted properties. She was specifically concerned about the dangerous conditions possibly present at the Montgomery Mills site.

“If this process is going to continue for another six months, I am going to vote for the ordinance,” she said.

Ultimately, this feeling held sway and the vote to approve the ordinance passed by a margin of 35-21. The vote was not without controversy. A call for the vote to be taken by paper ballot was rejected by the moderator, and the first vote by voice was marked with confusion. A final vote was taken and counted by a show of hands which produced the result.