Town meeting okays three burning ordinance changes

KENT, Conn.—It took only 16 minutes for a handful of townspeople to repeal and replace three ordinances relating to the Fire Marshal’s Department Friday, July 11.

The ordinances changed provisions in regulations pertaining to open burning, fire alarms, and fire prevention.

Resident Matt Starr challenged the selectmen’s decision to take the three ordinances to an in-person town meeting while removing a fourth item on the call, the controversial ordinance that would prohibit wake boats on Lake Waramaug and moving it to a July 31 referendum. 

The referendum will be held from noon to 8 p.m. at town hall, while simultaneous votes take place in Warren and Washington, the other towns that border the lake.

“It makes sense, with the cost of holding a referendum, to have included all of these ordinances as well,” Starr contended. “There are so few people here tonight deciding on factors that affect [everyone] who burns brush.”

He was told the selectmen believed it best to address the issues without waiting an additional three weeks for the referendum. Fire Marshal Tim Limbos said the town’s open burning ordinance needed to be updated to meet current state codes. “We should have all the correct terminology,” he said.

It was clarified during the meeting that campfires, defined as being small fire contained in burn pits for recreational purposes, are not considered to be open burning and do not require a permit. Restrictions on these fires take effect only when there is a “very high” or “extreme” danger of forest fire, as occurred during last summer’s drought. Bonfires do require a permit, however.

“So, when I want a little bucket fire, I don’t need a permit?” asked Melissa Cherniske. Limbos affirmed her statement.

Fines, starting at $100, can be imposed on those flouting the regulations.

Starr registered the only negative vote.

Turning his attention to provisions that allow fines to be levied on property owners whose security systems repeatedly sound false alarms, Limbos said that the first nuisance alarm would result in written notification to the property owner. The second offense could bring a fine but, if the property owner fixes the system, the fine would be waived. Limbos said there would be leniency if it takes time to get the materials to fix the alarms.

The purpose of the ordinance is to reduce the strain on the volunteer emergency services who must respond to the nuisance calls. 

Again, Starr objected, saying that no attempts have been made to enforce the existing ordinance. “I don’t see the need for more ‘teeth’ to the ordinance if you haven’t been enforcing it,” he said. He said the former ordinance was designed to get people to register their systems so the fire department knew whom to contact in the case of false alarms.

“It can’t be discretional whether you implement the fines or not,” he concluded.

Limbos said that the commercial firms installing the systems are supposed to send reports when false alarms are sounded and are not doing so. There are usually “multiple nuisance alarms” before the property owner is sent a letter.

There was no discussion of the third item concerning fire prevention, a mere change of title, and it was passed with two dissenting votes.