RIDGEFIELD, CT — The Board of Selectpersons will continue revising a proposed ordinance restricting gas-powered leaf blowers after residents raised concerns about equipment costs, enforcement and the potential impact on landscaping businesses during its Nov. 4 meeting.
The board discussed a two-year phase-in, additional changes to the ordinance's language and a possible townwide referendum in May 2027. No vote was taken on the ordinance, and no public hearing date was set.
First Selectperson Rudy Marconi said the latest discussions followed a meeting with Vincent Giordano, a member of Ridgefield's leaf blower committee and the Sierra Club, who suggested allowing the town to comply with the proposed restrictions before requiring private property owners and businesses to do so.
Under one timeline discussed, municipal compliance would begin in 2028, with private-sector compliance following in January 2029. Selectperson Maureen Kozlark also described a proposal for the town to begin observing the summer restrictions around Memorial Day 2027, shortly after a possible May referendum.
Related: Ridgefield Selectpersons Approve State Aid, Advance Leaf Blower Proposal Toward Public Hearing
Marconi questioned whether that would provide enough time to implement the changes. The board did not settle on an implementation schedule.
The proposed ordinance would establish a summer quiet period restricting gas-powered leaf blowers, generally from June 1 through Labor Day. Gas-powered equipment could still be used outside the restricted period, according to Marconi.
Selectperson Kozlark outlined several revisions intended to address questions raised during previous discussions.
The proposed language would explicitly state that leaf vacuums and lawn mowers are not leaf blowers, responding to concerns that the ordinance could inadvertently restrict other lawn maintenance equipment.
Kozlark also suggested referring directly to Chapter 250 of Ridgefield's town code for applicable noise standards and using the town's existing noise ordinance appeals process.
The board reviewed previously discussed reductions in penalties, including a $100 fine for a second violation and $250 for third and subsequent violations.
Kozlark said the changes were intended to make the ordinance clearer and prevent disagreements over wording from overshadowing the underlying policy question.
"That's what we should vote on, not send it down, torpedo it because there's inconsistencies in the language," Kozlark said.
Selectperson Geoffrey Morris questioned whether the board had adequately solicited input from residents and landscaping businesses that could be affected by the restrictions.
Morris said Giordano's willingness to meet with town officials should not result in his suggestions receiving greater consideration than those of other stakeholders.
"We need to make sure that he's not the only one getting his language in the ordinance," Morris said of Vincent Giordano.
Morris urged the town to make a more active effort to hear from landscapers, particularly those who might be unable to attend meetings during working hours.
Marconi said the town had received several emails from landscapers opposing the proposal, including after earlier revisions.
Kozlark said she would consider alternative wording submitted by other residents or businesses.
Marconi suggested arranging another meeting to gather input from landscapers and homeowners. The board also discussed contacting other members of the committee that previously studied the issue.
During public comment, resident Lisa DelGiudice questioned whether the ordinance had sufficient community support and whether its economic and practical consequences had been adequately evaluated.
She cited a petition signed by more than 400 residents calling for restrictions on gas-powered leaf blowers but questioned how representative those signatures were of the town's broader population.
DelGiudice also raised concerns about enforcement, asking whether homeowners or landscaping companies would be responsible for violations and how complaints would be investigated.
She questioned a proposed exemption tied to property size, arguing that different rules for larger and smaller lots could be unfair.
See Also: Ridgefield Golf Driving Range Proposal Draws Noise, Traffic Concerns At Zoning Hearing
Golf Lane Resident Donald Hulnick disputed the suggestion that collecting the petition signatures had taken three years, saying more than 400 signatures were gathered over two weekends.
Hulnick supported moving the proposal toward a referendum and said the ordinance should reflect the committee's earlier discussions, including support for a summer quiet period and having the town lead by example.
Nancy Moore, another Golf Lane resident, suggested reviewing language adopted by surrounding municipalities rather than drafting an ordinance entirely from scratch.
Other speakers opposed the restrictions.
Woodchuck Lane resident Justin Hylwa questioned whether regulating gas-powered leaf blowers could eventually lead to restrictions on lawn mowers, chainsaws and other equipment.
Another resident said replacing existing equipment with electric alternatives could cost hundreds of dollars, placing an additional burden on homeowners.
The resident also questioned why the town should adopt new restrictions when it already has a noise ordinance.
Tree Committee Chair Tom McManus spoke in favor of the proposed summer quiet period, arguing that gas-powered backpack blowers create substantial noise and that the restrictions would fall largely outside the principal leaf cleanup seasons.
McManus said homeowners and landscapers would still have time for spring and fall cleanup.
Marconi emphasized that the ordinance remains unfinished and that residents will have additional opportunities to review and comment on the proposal.
The board discussed incorporating the latest revisions, gathering additional input from landscapers, homeowners and committee members, and distributing an updated draft before a formal public hearing.
Kozlark suggested showing proposed changes in a marked-up version of the ordinance so residents could distinguish existing language from new recommendations.
See Also: Ridgefield Committee Reviews New Police, Fire Station Plans As Cost Questions Remain
Marconi said written comments already submitted would be shared with the board and included in the record for a future public hearing.
The selectpersons indicated that a May 2027 referendum remains a possibility, but the board has not formally approved sending the ordinance to voters.
Kozlark told residents that the process would include publication of the proposed language, a public hearing and further consideration before any townwide vote.
For now, the board's immediate task is to develop a revised proposal that addresses questions about enforcement, exemptions, costs and implementation dates.
Sign up for free local newsletters and alerts for the
Ridgefield Patch
Patch.com is the nationwide leader in hyperlocal news.
Visit Patch.com to find your town today.