09122016_Blight_Enforcement_Report

2016 Blight
Enforcement Report
SEPTEMBER 12, 2016

BLIGHT ENFORCEMENT REPORT | CONTENTS
Contents
Overview ............................................................................................................1
How Blight is Enforced........................................................................................3
Moving Forward - Alternatives Assessment ........................................................6
The “Do Nothing” Option....................................................................................... 6
The “Modify Regulations” Option.......................................................................... 7
The “Create Additional Tools” Option.................................................................... 8
Distressed Premises Ordinance...........................................................................9
Report prepared by the Town of Stonington Department of Planning
Jason Vincent, AICP – Director of Planning
Keith Brynes, AICP, CZET – Town Planner
Candace Palmer, CZEO – Zoning Official
Gayle Phoenix, CZET – Land Use Application Facilitator
Cheryl Sadowski – Land Use Application Facilitator
This report has been developed to be viewed
on the internet. The online version is free and
environmentally-friendly
Weblinks active as of 09.12.2016

BLIGHT ENFORCEMENT REPORT | PAGE 1
Overview
The Stonington Board of Selectman has requested an update about blight
enforcement. This report has been developed to provide the Board with
information about how blight is managed in the town, some of the gaps that have
been identified by community members, and options for moving forward.
It is important to recognize that blight is a symptom that has many causes. A
blighted property is often the visual indicator of a decision to no longer invest.
The disinvestment in a particular property or neighborhood is a result of various
market forces and consumer confidence which guide investment decisions. As a
result, a strategy that focuses on enforcement will only address the surficial
attributes of blight.
WHAT IS BLIGHT?
While blight it is a symptom, it is generally defined as “The visible and physical
decline of a property, neighborhood or community due to a combination of
economic downturns, residents and businesses leaving the area and the cost of
maintaining the quality of older structures. These factors tend to feed on
themselves, with each one contributing to an increase in the occurrence of the
others.” investopedia.com/terms/e/economic-blight.asp
WHY DOES BLIGHT MATTER?
Blighted and vacant properties have an adverse impact on a neighborhood and
the community. They send signals to the market that there is a lack of investment
here, which erodes investor and consumer confidence. For the Town of
Stonington, these signals then result in a loss of property tax revenue and
neighborhood quality of life, as other properties are likely to see a decline in their
property values as well. Areas in decline also send signals to those who seek to
exploit the situation.
The cycle of disinvestment can then spiral out of control. The private sector has
not found an effective way to prevent blight from becoming viral. Several studies
have been conducted in order to quantify the economic impact of blight. They
have found that vacant and blighted buildings:
 Have 3.2 times as many illegal drug calls, and 1.8 times as many theft calls
(Austin, Texas).
 12,000 fires and $73 million in property damage from arson (US Fire
Administration).
 Millions in annual site cleanup / public maintenance expenses by
governmental agencies.
 $7,600 in lost property value for properties within 150 feet (Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania). See the “Impact of Blight” sidebar.
IMPACT OF BLIGHT
In a 2001 Study by Temple
University in Philadelphia,
researchers found that vacant
properties had a negative value
on adjacent properties, leading
to more disinvestment (i.e., it
becomes contagious). The
following graphic depicts the
impact of property values
based on proximity to vacant
buildings:
Graphic source:
astro.temple.edu/~ashlay/blight.pdf
BLIGHT IN CONNECTICUT
There is no universal property
maintenance code or definition
of blight in the federal or state
regulations. Each Connecticut
community is empowered by
state law to determine whether
they want to identify and
blight. In 2010, the Town of
Stonington chose to adopt an
ordinance to address blight.
The ordinance established the
community’s values and the
definition of blight. It is an
unique document, as are most
of the blight ordinances found
in other communities.

BLIGHT ELEMENTS
In 2013, the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research (OLR – see sidebar)
conducted a comparison of municipal blight ordinances. The key features of such
ordinances are how blight is defined and how enforcement is conducted.
The OLR Report found: Ordinances generally do not define the term “blight.”
Rather, they define “blighted premises” and related terms such as “abandoned
property,” “accessory structure,” “community standard,” “deterioration,”
“dwelling,” “nuisance,” “proximate property,” “uninhabitable,” and “vacant.” The
following table lists the most recognized elements of blight:
TYPICAL BLIGHT ELEMENT
INCLUDED IN
STONINGTON
ORDINANCE?
BUILDING CONDITION
Collapsing or missing exterior walls or roofs; YES
Extended vacancy of a dwelling, multiple dwelling, or mixed
commercial use property
NO
Fire Marshal has determined that a building or structure is a
fire hazard
YES
Graffiti NO
Missing, broken or boarded up windows or doors; YES
Overhang extensions, including but not limited to canopies,
marquees, signs, awnings, stairways, fire escapes, standpipes,
and exhaust ducts, which contain rust or other decay
NO
Seriously damaged or missing siding; YES
Structurally faulty conditions; YES
Unrepaired fire or water damage; YES
Vacant buildings or structures left unsecured or unguarded
against unauthorized entry
NO
CRIME
Attracting illegal activity, as documented in police records NO
Poses a serious or immediate threat to the health, safety or
general welfare of the community.
YES
GARBAGE
Persistent garbage or trash on the property. YES
Providing a sanitary place for garbage and refuse to be
stored, minimizing exposure to public view
NO
INSURANCE
Is a factor as a result of its inadequate maintenance or
dilapidated condition that has led to the cancellation of
insurance on the subject and/or proximal properties
YES
BLIGHT LEGISLATION
The Connecticut General
Statutes section 7-148 provides
the community with broad
authority to protect, preserve
and promote public health,
safety and welfare. This act
authorizes towns to make and
enforce regulations for the
remediation of blight. In
Stonington, a town ordinance is
required to enable the use of
this provision.
STATE OF DISREPAIR /
BECOMING DILAPIDATED
PROVISION
Items highlighted fall under
the “state of disrepair” /
“becoming dilapidated”
provision in the Town
Ordinance. For a property to be
considered blighted, the
Ordinance requires that at
least two of these items be
present.
In reviewing past complaints,
the property condition (e.g.,
vegetation) is the most often
cited “blighted” element.
OLR REPORT
“Comparison of Municipal
Blight Ordinances,” November
21, 2013
cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0422.htm

TYPICAL BLIGHT ELEMENT
INCLUDED IN
STONINGTON
ORDINANCE?
PROPERTY CONDITION
Commercial parking lots left in a state of disrepair or
abandonment
NO
Creates a substantial and unreasonable interference with the
use and enjoyment of nearby premises, as documented by
neighborhood complaints, police reports, cancellation of
insurance on proximate properties, or similar circumstances
NO
Dead, decayed, diseased, or damaged trees constituting a
hazard or danger to persons or property
NO
Inoperative or unregistered boats NO
Landscaping that physically hinders or interferes with lawful
use of abutting premises or a public sidewalk, street, right of
way, or road sign
NO
Two or more unregistered motor vehicles in public view NO
Weeds or similar vegetation (excluding flowers, fruits,
vegetables, and areas maintained in their naturally wooded
or field state) allowed to reach and remain at a height of “x”
inches or greater for 30 or more days [“x” is a community
values based measurement]
NO
ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGES
There are three particular elements that make the existing Ordinance challenging:
1. Insurance requirement: “It is a factor as a result of its inadequate
maintenance or dilapidated condition that has led to the cancellation of
insurance on the subject and/or proximal properties.” Property owners are
not required to have insurance. We have not found an instance when an
eligible property has been unable to secure insurance because of an adjacent
property. It is unreasonable to request property owners to provide
documentation of insurance. It raises some concerns about 4th
Amendment
Rights.
2. Process: The process outlined in the ordinance is unclear and create
confusion to administer. Of particular concern is whether an uncontested
citation follows the state law timeframe of 10 days or if there is a separate
process providing 30 days within the ordinance.
3. Definitions: Based on the number of blight complaints that are not considered
blight, blight is not as inclusively defined as it is perceived by the community.
How Blight is Enforced
Enforcement is one of the biggest challenges of many Ordinances. Ordinances
require three elements to be successful: clear language (e.g., the law has to be
TYPICAL STONINGTON BLIGHT
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
1. First Selectman’s Office
Receives Complaint
2. Forwards Complaint to
Building Official, Health
Agent and Zoning Official
3. Various Officials conduct
inspection; verify
complaint
4. If the property is in
violation of other codes
(e.g., building, fire, health
zoning), those officials
should take action
5. If the property is only in
violation of the blight
ordinance, the complaint is
returned to the First
Selectman’s Office for
further action
What we have found is that
complaints that involve issues
other than blight are readily
addressed by the other town
agencies.
While most of the blight
complaints have been resolved,
it has not been a result of this
ordinance.

understandable), resources (e.g., trained staff), and aligns with the values of the
community (e.g., political will).
STONINGTON
When Stonington residents adopted the Distressed Premises Ordinance, the
community assigned the enforcement to the First Selectman. At that time, the
First Selectman developed an informal team approach, which involved the
building, zoning and health officials. Complaints would be received by the
Selectmen’s office, and imputed into a purpose-made tracking tool (i.e.,
“database”) using Microsoft Excel.
The complaint would then be forwarded to the team members via interoffice
mail, with a request that they conduct a site inspection. If a complaint were
determined to be valid, the First Selectman would then follow up with an
enforcement action. Enforcement actions ranged from initial conversations with
property owners to formal Notices of Violation and Citations.
However, when the administration changed, so did the process. Then the
administration changed again. Because Stonington, like many communities, does
not have an institutional memory, changes of personnel can impact informal
processes. Informal processes are most likely to be forgotten.
What we have found is that complaints that involve issues other than blight are
readily addressed by the other town agencies. Absentee ownership is the leading
cause of the remaining blight cases. Further, while most of the blight complaints
have been resolved, it has not been as a result of this ordinance.
ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
YEAR COMPLAINTS
NOT
“BLIGHT”
RESOLVED
ACTIVE /
UNKNOWN
FINES
ISSUED
TOTAL
COLLECTED
2010 28 13 10 5 a
2
2011 37 15 20 2 a
2012 22 12 10 0
2013 17 15 2 0
2014 10 7 3 0
2015 16 6 7 3
2016 22 13 5 4 2
TOTAL 152 81 57 14 4
NOTES
a The database does not include information about seven cases from 2010-2011
WHAT MAKES A LAW
EFFECTIVE?
An effective law should be
enforceable, sufficiently
precise, so that it can be
enforced, and in general accord
with the morality of the
population it covers.
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
In July of 2016, the First
Selectman, Rob Simmons,
appointed Jason Vincent, AICP
as the Blight Enforcement
Officer. Since that time 2
citations have been issued.
TOTAL COMPLAINTS
53% of the blight complaints
do not meet the town
definition of blight. Over ½ of
the complaints do not satisfy
the complainant’s
expectations, which results in
frustration and erodes
confidence in the system.
PROPERTIES DETERMINED TO
BE BLIGHT
90% of blight enforcement
actions have been completed,
most of which used other tools
(e.g., building, health zoning)
and their respective
enforcement agent.
10% of complaints are
actively being enforced.

BLIGHT ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
ADMINISTRATION COMMUNICATION PENALTY
Complaint
Received
↓
Complaint added to
Database; Assigned ID
↓
Inspection Assigned to
Enforcement Agent(s)
↓
Inspection
Conducted
↓
Inspection Report
Created
→ BLIGHT
↓ ↓
NOT BLIGHT
Close Complaint
Attempt to
Communicate with
Owner
↓
Document Informal
Actions
↓
Notice of
Violation
↓
Consent and
Abeyance Agreement
←
Document Formal
Actions
↓ ↓
RESOLUTION
Close Complaint
←
Comply with
procedural
timeframes
↓
No
resolution
→
Issue Enforcement
Citation
↓
RESOLUTION
ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT
There are four active Blight
Enforcement cases under the
current administration:
1. 2-4 Mechanic Street. This
property was cited for
blight in 2010, and the
owner worked to revolve
the violations. A Citation
has been issued, and the
property is accumulating
$100/day fines.
2. 10 Meadowbrook Lane.
This property has been a
source of frustration for
several years. It is currently
owned by the Federal
National Mortgage
Association. A Citation has
been issued, and the
property is accumulating
$100/day fines.
3. 197 North Stonington
Road. This property has
been in probate for several
years, and has been a
frequent source of
complaints. A Notice of
Violation (NOV) has been
issued for this property.
4. 14 L’Hirondelle Lane.
Property caught on fire on
June 17, 2016. The fire
investigation was
completed in August. No
enforcement action has
been taken at this time.
Enforcement strategy may
change at the six month
mark.

Moving Forward - Alternatives Assessment
There are three main issues with blight in Stonington:
1. Blight is a symptom of a bigger problem.
2. When enforcement is breaking down, it is because there is insufficient
attention given to it under the current ordinance.
3. The definition of blight is not aligning to public perception of blight.
The community has three main choices to consider as it moves forward: Do
Nothing, Modify Regulations, or Create Additional Tools. Some of the choices are
not mutually exclusive.
ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
DO NOTHING
MODIFY REGULATIONS
CREATE ADDITIONAL
TOOLS
UPDATE REPEAL
The “Do Nothing” Option
DO NOTHING
MODIFY REGULATIONS
CREATE ADDITIONAL
TOOLS
UPDATE REPEAL
A “Do Nothing” / Status Quo option exists in every alternatives assessment. In this
case, Do Nothing does not solve any of the issues identified in this analysis.
There are insufficient resources for blight enforcement. The budget does not
allocate resources for administration and it is not appropriate to leave
administration to an elected official who also serves as the Chief Elected Official
of the community.
Community expectations are not being satisfied. Over half of the complaints
cannot be validated, leaving complainants frustrated with their government. That
frustration is being expressed in various forums, often critical of the process and
those empowered to administer it.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
An Alternatives Analysis
(sometimes called an Analysis of
Alternatives) is an evaluation
process used to identify all of the
potential choices available for a
complex decision.

The “Modify Regulations” Option
DO NOTHING
MODIFY REGULATIONS
CREATE ADDITIONAL
TOOLS
UPDATE REPEAL
This option has a number of sub-options that range from modifying the existing
ordinance to repealing it entirely. The review and assessment of any law has both
pros and cons:
PROS CONS
 Public dialog
 Enables conversation about the
law and whether it is still
warranted
 Forces the community to
develop consensus on
challenging definitions
 Furthers the management of
expectations
 Outcome may not satisfy some
participant’s objectives
 May not equate to resource
allocation
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM CHANGES TO THE TOWN
ORDINANCE
1. Align the Distressed Premises Ordinance and the Zoning Violation Citations
and Procedures Ordinance to use the same citation process and hearing
process.
2. Consider adding criminal penalties provision.
3. Enable consent and abeyance tool.
4. Remove insurance requirement. Property insurance is not a legal requirement
of property ownership.
RECOMMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
1. Fund a blight enforcement officer position. Perhaps an existing trained
employee can be assigned this position.
2. Create a Standard Operating Procedure manual for the enforcement officer.
3. Improve the tracking tool.
4. Reduce initial inspection assignment to a single enforcement officer.
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
In 2008, the Town began the
process of drafting language for
what is now referred to as the
distressed premises ordinance. The
original language required only a
single state of disrepair element to
be present on a property, as
opposed to two elements required
in the adopted ordinance.
It also exempted one-, two-, and
three-family properties. There may
be other minor changes that were
made to the original proposal, but
they do not appear to be
substantive.

The “Create Additional Tools” Option
DO NOTHING
MODIFY REGULATIONS
CREATE ADDITIONAL
TOOLS
UPDATE REPEAL
Blight enforcement is one of the ways many communities address the symptoms
of disinvestment. A more pointed approach would include addressing the causes.
Connecticut provides communities with several tools to enable private
investment in blighted / weak market neighborhoods.
Some of the tools available to address blight include:
 Registration and maintenance of foreclosed properties
 Neighborhood Revitalization Zones (NRZ)
 Connecticut City and Town Development Act
 Redevelopment and urban renewal
 Urban homesteading
 Municipal Development Projects (MDP)
 Tax Increment Financing (TIF – see sidebar)
 Rehabilitation of Abandoned Industrial and Commercial Buildings
 Tax abatement for properties in designated redevelopment areas
RECOMMENDED TOOL EXPLORATION
Stonington should consider investing in an evaluation of the market conditions of
known blighted neighborhoods, and develop strategies to address those market
conditions. A Master Development Plan (MDP) is such a tool, and can prove to be
a valuable instrument when attractive development proposals are identified.
Tax increment Financing, and leveraging the public’s future returns can be a way
to kick start private investment. Considering that the town’s main revenue source
is from property tax revenues, investing in the long-term ability of a property to
increase in value would have a high return for the community.
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
(TIF)
Tax Increment Financing is an
Economic Development
Incentive (EDI) utilized in 49
states.
Nationally, TIFs are adopted for
one of the following reasons:
 market failure (e.g., lack of
demand)
 blighted area
 bidding war among nearby
communities
TIF can be an innovative way
for the community to invest in
itself with money it currently
does not have, or have any
anticipation that it will earn.

Distressed Premises Ordinance
ORDINANCE RE: DISTRESSED PREMISES BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE LEGAL VOTERS OF THE TOWN OF STONINGTON IN
LAWFUL MEETING DULY ASSEMBLED THAT THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE BE ESTABLISHED BY THE TOWN OF STONINGTON:
Section I. PURPOSE
It is hereby found and declared that there exists within the Town of Stonington a number of real properties, which are in a
blighted condition, and that the continued existence of such properties contributes to the decline of neighborhoods. It is further
found that the existence of such properties adversely affects the economic well being of the Town of Stonington and is inimical
to the health, safety, and welfare of its residents.
Section II. DEFINITIONS
Whenever in this Ordinance the following terms are used, they shall be the meaning respectively ascribed to them in this section.
A. BLIGHTED PROPERTY – Any house, building or structure in which at least one of the following conditions exists:
1. It has been determined by the Town Building Official, Zoning Enforcement Officer or Town Sanitarian that a condition
exists that poses a serious or immediate threat to the health, safety or general welfare of the community.
2. The property is in a state of disrepair or is becoming dilapidated and evidenced by at least two or more of the following:
(a) Missing, broken or boarded up windows or doors;
(b) Collapsing or missing exterior walls or roofs;
(c) Structurally faulty conditions;
(d) Unrepaired fire or water damage;
(e) Seriously damaged or missing siding;
(f) Persistent garbage or trash on the property.
3. It is a factor as a result of its inadequate maintenance or dilapidated condition that has led to the cancellation of
insurance on the subject and/or proximal properties.
4. It is a factor as a result of the inadequate maintenance or dilapidated condition that has materially contributed to a
decline or diminution in property values on proximate properties.
5. The Fire Marshal has determined that a building or structure is a fire hazard.
B. CITATION HEARING OFFICER – A person or persons appointed by the First Selectman as an officer, as defined in and pursuant
to Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.) § 7-152c, to serve as the Citation Hearing Officer. Such officer shall be other than
any individual who issues citations and shall serve for terms of two years, unless removed for cause.
C. DILAPIDATED – Any building or structure or part thereof which is deemed an unsafe structure as defined in the Connecticut
State Building Code, as amended, or any dwelling or unit which is designated as unfit for human habitation as defined by the
Connecticut Public Health Code.
D. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER – A person or persons authorized by the First Selectman to take such enforcement actions and to
issue citations as are specified in this Ordinance, who shall not be a Citation Hearing Officer.
Section III. EXCEPTIONS/SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
This ordinance shall apply to all residential dwelling units and nonresidential space except:
(a) Any blighted premises for which a site plan or special use permit is pending before the Planning & Zoning Commission.
(b) Any such building or structure located on any active farm.
(c) Any building or structure undergoing remodeling being diligently conducted and pursued under an active building permit,
provided that said exemption is only applicable during the period such building permit is valid.
Section IV. CREATION OR MAINTENANCE OF A BLIGHTED PROPERTY PROHIBITED
No owner, agent, tenant and/or person responsible for the care, maintenance and/or condition of real property, shall cause or
allow any blighted property, as defined in Section II, to be created, maintained or continued.
Section V. NOTICE OF VIOLATION
1. The town, through its designated Enforcement Officer, shall serve written notice to an owner, agent, tenant and/or person
responsible for the blighted premises. The notice may be hand delivered or mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to the address of the owner as on file with the Town Assessor’s office, or any of the persons identified in Section
IV of this Ordinance, or in the case of an owner whose address is unknown, by publishing a copy of such notice in a daily or
weekly newspaper having a circulation in the Town. If the notice is mailed only to one of the responsible parties, it shall in no

way be, or be construed to be, a release of any other responsible party. If there is more than one responsible party identified
in the notice, the responsibility for complying with the notice shall be joint and several.
2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the notice shall state the violation(s) of this Ordinance, what steps need to be
taken to remedy the violation, demand its abatement within thirty (30) calendar days, and list the amount of fines that
would be due and when uncontested payments can be made and accepted. If the owner fails to correct the violation(s), the
Town may issue an enforcement citation as specified herein.
Section VI. ENFORCEMENT CITATION
If any violation remains unabated after 30 days, the Enforcement Officer is hereby authorized by the First Selectman to issue a
citation to the violator in accordance with this article. The citation will require payment of a fine of $100 per day that a violation
continues and shall require payment within thirty (30) days from the issuance thereof.
Section VII. CITATION PROCEDURE
1. The Town hereby adopts the citation procedure and appeal procedure that is set forth, and is in accordance with, C.G.S. §7-
152c as that statute may be amended from time to time.
2. In addition to the procedures set forth in paragraph 1 above, the Citation Hearing Officer shall render its decision in writing
and shall file it with the Enforcement Officer, the First Selectman and send it by certified mail, return receipt requested, to
the owner, agent, tenant, or responsible person, and to all parties in the proceedings. If the final decision is that the
property is blighted, the owner, agent, tenant, or responsible person shall have fifteen (15) calendar days to file with the
Enforcement Officer a written timetable to rectify the violation within a reasonable period of time as determined by the
Enforcement Officer.
3. The Enforcement Officer shall not have the authority to extend any of the deadlines set out in this Ordinance.
4. If the owner, agent, tenant or responsible person fails to respond to the citation of blight, fails to attend any hearing or
adjourned hearing before the Citation Hearing Officer or is unwilling or unable to rehabilitate or maintain the blighted
property within a reasonable time, the Enforcement Officer shall impose a penalty of not more than one hundred dollars
($100.00) per day for each day that the property violates this Ordinance. The fine shall be retroactive to the date of the
Enforcement Officer’s initial letter to the owner, agent, tenant or responsible party or in the case of an unidentified owner,
the date of publication of notice in the daily newspaper. Each day that a violation of this Ordinance exists shall constitute a
separate offense. The Enforcement Officer shall impose said penalty by notifying the owner, agents, tenant or responsible
party by certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall notify the First Selectman.
5. The final period for the uncontested payment of any citation under this ordinance shall be thirty (30) days after the mailing
or delivery of the citation.
Section VIII. MUNICIPAL ABATEMENT
1. In the event any owner, agent, tenant or person in control of real property shall fail to abate or correct any violation
specified in any notice, after the issuance of an enforcement citation for such failure, which citation has become final
through the failure of such owner, agent, tenant or person in control of real property to appeal from the issuance of said
citation, or by such appeal being sustained, the Town of Stonington, acting through its designated Enforcement Officer
issuing such notice of violation, may cause or take such action as is necessary to correct such violation. The cost to take such
action shall be a civil claim by the Town against such owner, agent, tenant or person responsible for such property, and the
Town Attorney may bring an action to recover all such costs and expenses incurred.
2. If the owner, agent, tenant or responsible person fails to correct the violations, the Town of Stonington may take any action
necessary pursuant to C.G.S. § 7-148(c)(7)(E) to abate the nuisance at any time after the initial twenty-four (24) hour notice
of such property.
Section IX. RECORDING LIEN
In addition to having a lien for abatement expenses, any unpaid fines or costs of abatement shall constitute a lien upon the real
estate in accordance with C.G.S. Section 7-148aa, and each such lien shall be continued, recorded and released as provided for
therein.
Section X. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall become effective fifteen (15) days after publication in a newspaper having a substantial circulation within
the Town.
Section XI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
1. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed.
2. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held to be invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of any other part of this ordinance that can be given affect without
the invalid provisions or applications; and to this end, the provisions of this ordinance and the various applications thereof
are declared to be severable.

09122016_Blight_Enforcement_Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to 09122016_Blight_Enforcement_Report

Similar to 09122016_Blight_Enforcement_Report (10)

More from Jason Vincent, AICP

More from Jason Vincent, AICP (6)

09122016_Blight_Enforcement_Report