The referendum may be behind us, but it raised important questions about both the ordinance and the process used to enact it. Regardless of where residents stood on the issue, there are several facts that deserve careful consideration.
1. The referendum process can inadvertently suppress voter participation.
Since the Town Council voted in May, the referendum vote automatically falls in the middle of summer—a time when many residents are away and voter turnout is historically more difficult. More broadly, the current timeline established by the Town Charter and state law creates significant challenges.
Within seven days of an ordinance’s enactment, residents must gather 50 signatures simply to pause the ordinance and initiate the referendum petition process.
They then have only 30 days to collect the full number of petition signatures required for a referendum.
Once signatures are submitted, the referendum must be held within 30 days of that submission for verification.
In this case, the Town Clerk took 10 days to verify approximately 1,000 signatures. While that appears to fall within state law, those 10 days consumed one-third of the referendum timeline before a date for the referendum vote could even be scheduled.
That delay had real consequences:
The referendum date could not be announced until verification was complete, limiting public outreach and voter awareness.
Absentee voting could not begin until the date was established.
State law prohibits mailing absentee ballots within 19 days of a referendum, further limiting access.
Residents wishing to vote absentee had to do so in person during Town Clerk office hours (Monday-Thursday, 8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.; Friday, 8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.), making participation difficult for many commuters.
The referendum itself was held only on Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., not the typical voting hours in our other elections.
These are procedural issues worth reviewing to ensure future referendums maximize—not limit—public participation.
2. The referendum results sent a clear message.
Although the ordinance now remains in effect because the referendum did not reach the threshold number of No votes required to overturn it, the vote itself told a different story.
1,471 residents voted NO.
1,033 residents voted YES.
A majority of those who cast ballots opposed the ordinance as written. Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters all participated in that outcome.
While the legal threshold to repeal the ordinance was not met, the results suggest many residents either disagreed with the policy or believed it should have been revised before adoption. That message deserves thoughtful consideration by all 12 members of the Town Council, regardless of party.
3. Town Council members represent every resident—not just the loudest voices.
Every at-large Town Council member was elected to represent the interests of all New Canaan residents. Good public policy requires balancing competing interests and considering the impact on every stakeholder.
That includes:
Homeowners with larger properties whose costs and operational realities differ significantly from those on smaller lots.
New Canaan Resident-owned landscaping businesses that pay both property and business taxes.
Private schools, clubs, nonprofits, and institutions such as country clubs and Grace Farms that maintain large campuses.
Many local landscaping business owners testified that commercially available electric equipment is currently less effective for large-scale work, requires costly battery investments, and cannot realistically be implemented on the timeline established by the ordinance. Their concerns about implementation received no accommodation compared with other Connecticut municipalities that have adopted similar policies with longer transition periods.
Good intentions do not automatically produce good policy. Major policy changes deserve careful planning, practical implementation timelines, and meaningful input from those most directly affected, regardless of whether they attended a public hearing or testified on the policy.
The timing of this ordinance also raised procedural concerns, as its effective date preceded the full seven-day public notice period referenced in the Town Charter. Initiation of the referendum paused the ordinance before the Town Council found themselves in violation of the 7 day period between the legal notice of legislative action and it taking effect, so technically the ordinance’s effective date would have violated the charter as it was written but for the delay imposed by the referendum petition process.
Financial impacts should also matter. The costs borne by homeowners on half-acre lots—many of whom receive municipal leaf collection—are very different from those faced by residents on one-acre and two-acre properties, which comprise a significant portion (65-75%) of New Canaan’s housing stock, as well as private institutions responsible for maintaining much larger properties.
Those differences deserved greater consideration.
Looking Ahead
Too often, government at every level falls into the trap of responding primarily to the loudest and most organized voices rather than fully evaluating the broader consequences of public policy.
Local government should strive to do better.
The referendum demonstrated that this issue remains deeply divided within the community. Regardless of political affiliation, the results provide an opportunity for Town Council to revisit aspects of the ordinance, engage more broadly with residents and affected businesses, and pursue solutions that are both environmentally responsible and practically workable.
Finally, residents should know how each Town Council member voted. The ordinance was supported by all six Democratic members—Hilary Ormond, Heather Russell, Mike Rogers, Jen Zonis, Lina Lee, and Janet Fonss—as well as 2 of the 6 Republican members, Kim Norton and Cristina Ross. Whether residents view those votes as appropriate is ultimately for voters to decide. The referendum results, however, show that a majority of participating voters opposed the ordinance as written, suggesting many believe the policy warranted further refinement before becoming law and still even after the referendum, deserves thoughtful reconsideration.
Maria Weingarten
