KENT, Conn.—The crowd was small at Friday night’s public hearing on six proposed ordinance changes, but many questions and opinions were expressed.
While opinions abounded, no decisions will be made until the ordinances are presented at a town meeting on Friday, July 24, at 7 p.m. in Town Hall. The meeting can be viewed online, but only those present in the Town Hall will be able to vote.
The issue that stirred the most interest was a regulation that would prohibit food trucks in the town unless hired by private property owners to distribute foods to guests. The person hiring the truck would pay the vendor and not the guests.
Trucks would be prohibited from selling food on public land unless brought in by a town department, such as Parks and Recreation, for a special event, or by a civic organization such as the fire department, operating under a special events permit issued by Planning and Zoning.
The ordinance was challenged by those attending who contended that it would be an unfair obstacle for people trying to make a living. Michael Gawel asked why an ordinance was even being considered and was told that food trucks present unfair competition for restaurant owners with brick-and-mortar establishments, who must pay taxes and maintenance for their structures.
Food trucks are already banned from state highways.
Matt Starr argued strongly against the ordinance. “Has there been a problem with food trucks?” he asked. “The ordinance doesn’t make sense and there is no benefit for the taxpayer. You talk about trucks—what about trailers? What about tents? Are they allowed? I think the Board of Selectmen is overstepping its bounds for one [restauranteur] who has been pushing through three administrations for an ordinance prohibiting them. This is the United States; we have the right to have free commerce.”
The selectmen responded that more than one restauranteur has objected to food trucks in the community.
It was suggested that putting a limit on how many trucks could be in town would be better than an outright ban.
Starr noted that starting a food truck business is not inexpensive. “It’s huge,” he insisted. Indeed, the cost of establishing such a business in Connecticut typically costs between $60,000 and $180,000, depending on whether the vehicle is new or used. Licenses and permits account for $700 to $2,100 in upfront fees, while $400 to $1,500 a month will be dedicated to the cost of maintaining a commercial kitchen in the vehicle.
Not everyone attending saw the merit of allowing food trucks, however. Anne McAndrew noted that she has operated four businesses in the community and said, “I am not in favor of food trucks at all.”
She contended that they hurt the local economy while contributing nothing to the tax base. “They reduce revenue for other businesses, create congestion and take away from precious parking, they don’t hire local employees, create waste challenges and create unhealthy relationships with other businesses,” she said.
Because these vendors are not in town year-round, they don’t contribute toward the dozens of requests made of other businesses by charitable organizations, she said, adding, “Frankly, I think they look tacky. Every article you read about Kent talks about how lovely it is. Not one article has said, ‘I can’t find a food truck.’”
Donna Hayes, former land use administrator, said the issue has been raised repeatedly over the years. She noted that a previous administration passed a resolution prohibiting food trucks but that it lacked the authority of an ordinance. She suggested a change of wording that would make it explicit that the vendor could not sell food directly to patrons on private land. “Any sales should benefit [a town event] not a private property owner,” she said.
Gawel questioned why the ordinance governing the Inland Wetlands Commission would be changed to allow town employees to be members. IWC Chairman Lynn Werner explained that currently state law prohibits town employees being seated on the commission, presumably because it could create a conflict of interest. A town can supersede the state law by passing its own ordinance, however.
“It’s an unfortunate barrier to anyone who might want to serve,” she said. It also creates problems for boards and commissions who are sometimes unable to attract enough volunteers to fill all their vacancies.
“We’ve had many times when we have not had a full commission,” she reported. “We asked the selectmen to put an ordinance forward so we can entertain anyone interested in service.”
Matt Starr objected to a third ordinance—this one prohibiting property owners from depositing any materials in a public right of way. It changes the old ordinance, which only prohibited snow from being pushed into the streets or walkways.
“Has anyone ever been notified or fined under the snow ordinance?” Starr demanded. “How is this helping taxpayers? Who is going to make sure it is enforced across the books? Do we have a problem? It seems like the selectmen are overstepping to solve a problem that isn’t even there.”
First Selectman Eric Epstein conceded that there have been “very few” complaints and said the previous Board of Selectman initiated the ordinance change and asked his administration to carry it through.
His fellow ordinance skeptic, Michael Gawel demurred on this one, though. “It’s obvious, I’m not one for ordinances,” he said, “but this one is needed.” He referred to the heavy snows that clogged roads last winter and how leaves and grass pushed into roadways plug up storm drains.
No one objected to a change in the ordinance banning commercial buses on Spooner Hill and Bulls Bridge roads. The wording was changed to say the prohibition would be suspended if routes 7 and/or 341 were closed.
Starr urged that signage telling bus drivers of the prohibition be placed near the entrance to these roads. “GPS sends them that way,” he said. “You don’t want a sign 40 feet up the road and have them backing out on Route 7 or 341.”
Epstein said signage is planned.
An ordinance allowing a tax exemption for veterans who are totally disabled due to service-related injuries brought only a question about how the veterans would be notified of the benefit. Selectman Lynn Mellis Worthington said the assessor keeps a list and only one person in town currently qualifies.
Finally, both Gawel and his wife, Tegan, questioned whether the town’s Cemetery Committee ordinance should be altered to include municipal maintenance of two old family graveyards. When first adopted, the ordinance included a line that said other cemeteries could be added if identified at a later time.
The Gawels objected to the town taking responsibility for the cemeteries and asked if only family members were buried in them. The request to add them came from the Cemetery Committee, but the Gawels questioned whether the families had initiated the process.
Epstein said he would have answers to present at the town meeting.
“I would rather see the money go to our wonderful roads with all their speed bumps,” quipped Michael Gawel.
