First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice has a list of projects and tasks she is trying to complete as the end of her term approaches. Among them is the resolution of foreclosure proceedings against a blighted residential property that the Town initiated after years of warnings, fines, and offers of assistance.
It’s not the first time during her tenure that the Town has resorted to foreclosure action for unresolved blight on a residential property. Vanderslice made the issue of blight a priority when she first took office, at a time when there were at least a dozen lingering cases.
Most were satisfactorily resolved, but three resulted in foreclosure actions by the Town. In one such case, the Town recouped over $100,000 for unpaid fines, interest and legal expenses. In a second case, the start of foreclosure action motivated the homeowner to finally address the blight, and the Town withdrew the foreclosure action. The third case is still ongoing, but the Town agreed to postpone the scheduled foreclosure sale when the homeowner made good-faith efforts to rectify the situation.
Until now, Wilton’s blight ordinance applied only to residential properties, but with a recently codified state statute that applies to commercial properties, Wilton will have even more leverage to address blight issues in Wilton.
GOOD Morning Wilton reached out to Vanderslice and other town officials about Wilton’s blight cases and what all residents should understand about blight enforcement in Wilton.
What is Blight?
The definition of blight as enforced by the Town might come as a surprise to many residents.
More precisely called Blighted and Unsafe Premises, Wilton’s blight ordinance is rooted in health and safety concerns, not just the aesthetics of a property. An unmowed lawn, for example, is not considered blight.
Blight is more than unsightly — it’s an extreme or dangerous condition from “premises not being maintained” or posing a health, safety or fire hazard. According to the ordinance, blight would be defined by one or more of the following types of conditions (slightly edited for brevity below):
- Missing, broken or boarded-up windows or doors
- Collapsing or missing walls, roof or floor
- Exterior walls or siding which contains holes, breaks, loose or rotting materials
- Foundation walls which contain open cracks and breaks
- Overhang extensions (such as canopies, awnings, stairways, fire escapes and exhaust ducts, among others) with signs of deterioration and decay
- Chimneys and similar appurtenances which are in a state of disrepair
- Insect screens that contain tears or ragged edges
- Vermin and/or insect infestation (or conditions favorable to breeding)
- Garbage and trash — including but not limited to household refuse, machines, furniture
- Structures overgrown and covered with invasive, non-ornamental weeds and/or vines
- Abandoned or inoperable vehicles on the premises, unless garaged
- Unrepaired fire or water damage
The Board of Selectmen (BOS) has now proposed to add another condition that would constitute blight: “flaking, peeling, chipped or blistered paint” on a significant portion of the exterior of a structure.
The proposed change to the ordinance was discussed at last night’s (Oct. 2) BOS meeting, along with other changes that make the ordinance apply to both residential and commercial properties. (Previously, the Town did not have clear authority under state statutes to enforce blight on commercial properties. More on this topic is included later in this story.)
A public hearing on the proposed ordinance change is scheduled for Nov. 6.
A Priority, with a Policy
“When I came into office [2016], there were a large number of blighted properties that had been lingering for quite some time,” Vanderslice told GMW.
“I made resolution of blight a priority,” she continued. “One of the first things I [did] was ask Bercham Moses [the Town’s legal counsel] to look at our blight ordinance and our blight practices. They recommended procedures for handling blight which we adopted… a clear set of standards and practice[s].”
GMW obtained a copy of the guidance issued by Bercham Moses, which is still followed today. Indeed, it sets forth detailed steps for the Town enforcement of blight, including:
- Discovering violations (Vanderslice says most cases begin with complaints or concerns raised by neighbors)
- Inspections and blight reports
- Notice to property owners with orders to correct and opportunity for extension
- Citations for uncured blight
- Citation hearings
- Superior Court filings and judgment liens
In Jan. 2019, the BOS adopted a policy for commencing foreclosure on blight judgment liens, which will only begin after the Town has made “every reasonable effort” to work with property owners to resolve the blight — and with the discretion to consider “extenuating circumstances” that may exist. According to the 2019 policy:
“In those situations where the blight violation persists, the blight enforcement officer will be forced to issue a blight citation whereby the property is fined $100 per day until the owner has presented evidence that the violation(s) has been remedied. If the citation is not paid and the violation continues, the Town will eventually obtain a judgment from the Superior Court and record a judgment lien against the property. The Town hereby adopts a policy that the Town’s blight enforcement officers, in consultation with the Board of Selectmen and Town Attorney, may commence a foreclosure action for any outstanding blight judgment lien that has been recorded on the Land Records for more than one year, unless it is determined by the blight officers that evidence has been presented that there are extenuating circumstances that would justify waiting for some certain period of time to eventually commence the foreclosure action.”
Blight fines are going up. Recent changes to a state statute that went into effect Oct. 1, 2023 raised the fines that municipalities can charge, from $100 per day to $150 per day for occupied properties, $250 per day for vacant properties, and even $1,000 per day for repeat offenders in some cases.
“The reason there is a financial penalty is because most people respond [to them],” Vanderslice said. “Most people don’t want those penalties to grow to an amount that is not even affordable.”
“Extenuating Circumstances” and “Underlying Issues”
Fines of $100 (or more) per day can quickly accrue to more than the cost of fixing the blight problem. However, Vanderslice said, “underlying issues” sometimes get in the way of a sound financial argument.
“We recognize there’s a lot of things that can be in play with blight,” Vanderslice said.
That’s why the Town’s blight team goes beyond building and health department officials — it includes Social Services Director Sarah Heath.
Heath told GMW blight cases often come to her attention after she has been in contact with homeowners in need of other assistance from her department.
“I have been involved in many blight issues in town and I frequently see that there are underlying issues in the household — mental health issues, dementia, financial challenges, and deeper issues within a family, to name a few,” Heath said.
She also noted that blight on the exterior of a home is often accompanied by interior issues, like hoarding, which Heath called “a very serious issue.”
Heath says that offering “help” from her department isn’t necessarily financial.
“If there is a blighted property here in town, I call the homeowner to make sure they are aware of the issue and offer any help that they may require to remediate. This is not always financial as it is frequently depression or another mental health issue that is at the root of the problem,” Heath explained.
In those cases, Social Services makes referrals for mental health services.
“We strive to make [access to mental health services] as easy as possible with little to no barriers for them to access help,” Heath said. “They need to be willing to receive help, which is not always the case and becomes more challenging to assist.”
Foreclosure As A Tactic, Not A Goal
Vanderslice emphasized the Town can spend years trying to get blight resolved and avoid foreclosure action.
GMW reviewed the court case history on the one remaining pending residential blight matter, which shows a citation issued as far back as 2019, followed by dozens of motions, orders and eventually, foreclosure action in May 2023. While the Town agreed to postpone the Sept. 16 scheduled property auction, it made a motion for the court to award interim fees.
Vanderslice says the process is “lengthy” and “cumbersome” but when homeowners continually refuse to engage in discussions with Town officials or accept assistance, the Town has little recourse but the courts.
“It takes a long time for us to get to court,” she said. “We do try alternative means of facilitating [resolution of the blight].” (One example she gave included offers by non-profits and volunteers to provide repairs, which were refused by the homeowner.)
“The purpose of going to foreclosure is not because we want to foreclose on a house, it’s not even because we want to collect the money,” Vanderslice explained. “The foreclosure is an incentive for somebody to clean up [the blight] so as to not lose their house.”
That incentive has proven effective. In one recent case, the Town withdrew the foreclosure action when the homeowner finally presented — and followed through on — a plan acceptable to the Town to cure the blight.
“That’s what you want at the end of the day,” Vanderslice said. “The goal of our blight ordinance is not to be punitive, but to help incentivize people to resolve the blight.”
Commercial Blight
Nicholas Bamonte, an attorney for the Town with law firm Bercham Moses, attended the Oct. 2 BOS meeting to discuss the new distinction of commercial properties in state statutes concerning blight.
“It was always unclear, it was always unsettled… so the legislature passed an amendment which makes it very clear, and says flat out, that municipalities [have] the authority to also enforce against blighted commercial properties,” Bamonte said.
“In addition, we’re adding a little more teeth to that,” he said. “The legislature also increased the fines.”
“It’s a big increase, Vanderslice noted. “Maybe the increase will cause [violators] to respond more quickly.”
In an earlier monthly update, Vanderslice credited Representative Keith Denning for being instrumental in proposing the state legislation on commercial blight.
Director of Planning & Land Use Management/Town Planner Michael Wrinn said the enforcement of commercial blight would be “very helpful.”
“We struggle with that. We’ve got a few [commercial properties] that are very problematic,” Wrinn said. “Now we can go after them if this [proposed ordinance] goes through.”
Vanderslice has publicly discussed resident complaints about commercial buildings at the 300 Danbury Rd. at the intersection of Ridgefield Rd. (the development formerly known as Crossways) as well as a commercial building on lower Danbury Rd. in South Wilton.
Bamonte said Wilton’s blight ordinance, policies and procedures have been largely successful in resolving residential blight issues and should be just as successful with commercial blight if the proposed ordinance is adopted.
“It’s been effective [in residential blight enforcement] and these changes just expand that effectiveness into the commercial realm,” Bamonte said.
How about being compassionate and progressive and have Sarah Heath make contact with habitat for humanity or just get some boy scouts to help the less fortunate
Kevin, As Sarah Heath stated, her department provides help that is non financial, which includes volunteers to help clean up. Unfortunately the free service is typically refused.