Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Legislative and Rules Committee Meeting: January 27, 2026

Board of Representatives — Tuesday, January 27, 2026

BodyStamford, Connecticut

SessionBoard of Representatives

DateTuesday, January 27, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 2:37:28

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:00

Alrighty, let's go ahead and get started.

0:02

Hello, everyone.

0:03

Good evening.

0:04

At this time, I call to order this meeting of the legislative and rules committee of the Board of Representatives at 7.02 p.m.

0:11

on January 27, 2026.

0:15

I note that I see Representative, excuse me, Vice Chair Camparelli, Representative Boudreau, Representative Hughes, Representative Hyatt, Representative Le Pine, Representative Stone, and Representative Weinberg of the Committee in attendance.

0:29

Representative Blank, are you here?

0:36

All righty, hearing nothing.

0:40

I also see in attendance representatives De La Cruz, Morrison, Johnson, and Shaw, ex official members of the committee in attendance.

0:50

If there are any other ex official members in attendance that would like to be recognized, please go ahead and speak now.

1:02

Okay.

1:03

All righty.

1:04

Hearing no others, uh seeing that we have eight out of the eight out of the nine voting members present.

1:11

I conclude that we do have a quorum and we'll proceed with the meeting.

1:16

Moving on to our first item of the agenda.

1:20

LR 32.004, an ordinance amending section 214-3.2 of the code of ordinances to allow the city to accept a private road by only requiring a petition signed by no less than two-thirds of the owners submitted by Representative Weinberg.

1:36

At this time, I'd entertain a motion uh to approve the aforementioned ordinance.

1:42

So moved.

1:46

Thank you.

1:46

Excuse me.

1:47

Who is that?

1:48

Uh LePine.

1:51

Thank you very much, Representative LePine.

1:54

I have a second.

1:55

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

1:58

Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

2:02

Thank you, Chair.

2:04

So the purpose of this amendment is to eliminate a catch 22 situation, where uh when property owners on a private road want to explore petitioning the city to accept the road as a public road.

2:16

The current ordinance requires 100% of property owners to sign a petition before the acceptance process may begin.

2:30

In order to understand the catch 22 situation, here's a brief summary of the current process.

2:36

So step one, property owners petition the city to accept the road as a public road.

2:41

The way the ordinance is currently written, this requires signatures of 100% of the property owners.

2:47

Step two, the board passes a resolution instructing the city to report to the board on whether or not the private road meets the requirements of a public road, and if not, what remediation is required.

3:01

Step three, the property owners engage at their own expense.

3:05

A professional engineer to conduct a study to determine the necessary remediation of any uh to meet the requirements of a public road, including an estimate of the costs.

3:16

Um they may also wish to uh engage an attorney to advise them on any legal issues that might arise.

3:26

Uh again, at their cost.

3:28

Uh step four, the city's engineering department reviews the professional engineers report and issues an opinion about it.

3:36

That fulfills the board's resolution.

3:38

Step five, now that the property owners have an idea of the costs, um, they decide whether or not they want to proceed with the required remediation.

3:51

Step six, if the property owners decide to move forward with the remediation, and once the city engineer certifies that the road now meets the required specifications, uh the planning board, board of finance, and board of representatives vote to accept the road as the city row.

4:08

That's the process.

4:09

Okay.

4:10

Here's the catch 22.

4:13

Some property owners are reluctant to sign a petition to initiate the process without knowing what the remediation might cost.

4:20

And they won't hire an engineer without some assurance that our board will consider their request.

4:26

But they can't ask for that assurance from us until they submit the petition.

4:31

By lowering the signature threshold from 100% to two-thirds, a supermajority of property owners can find out what their coast costs might be while retaining the right to decide not to move forward.

4:44

And meanwhile, of course, the city will incur no expense at any point along the way.

4:51

Uh I've confirmed with Michael Toma of the city's legal department that there are no legal impediments to my proposed amendment.

5:03

This meeting to answer any legal questions anyone might have.

5:08

I've also consulted with Director of Operations Cuniones and City Engineer Castle, and they've not uh expressed any opposition to this amendment.

5:18

Uh uh Mr.

5:20

Castleau is also uh available at this meeting to answer questions if there are any.

5:27

Um thank you very much to both of you for for uh joining your time.

5:33

So I encourage the committee to advance this amendment since it is an amendment to an ordinance.

5:38

The next step for us would be to advance it uh to a forward to a public meeting, uh to a public hearing, rather.

5:45

And with that I yield, I'll be glad to answer any questions, or of course, through me, ask any questions of attorney toma or city engineer Castle.

5:56

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

5:59

Are there any members that wish to seek the floor?

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Procedural█████████████████████████████████████████████47%

Public Engagement█████████████████████22%

Planning and Zoning██████████████15%

Engineering And Infrastructure██████████10%

Board of Ethics███3%

Legal██2%

Animal Welfare█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Legislative and Rules Committee Meeting: January 27, 2026

The Legislative and Rules Committee of the Board of Representatives met at 7:02 p.m. on January 27, 2026, to consider several items including an ordinance to lower the petition threshold for private road acceptance, two separate amendments to the Board's rules of order, a resolution regarding pet store sales, and a review of a proposed tree ordinance. The meeting concluded at 9:39 p.m.

Discussion Items

LR 32.004 – Ordinance to Amend Section 214-3.2 (Private Road Acceptance): Representative Weinberg proposed reducing the signature requirement for a petition to accept a private road as a public road from 100% to two-thirds of property owners. He explained the current process creates a "catch-22" because property owners cannot obtain cost estimates or assurance from the Board without a petition, yet are reluctant to sign without knowing costs. The city incurs no expenses; property owners bear all costs. Attorney Toma confirmed the city can assess costs on all benefitted owners even if they did not sign, but that historically the city does not incur costs. Vice Chair Camparelli, Representative De La Cruz, and others raised concerns about compelling non-consenting owners to pay. Weinberg emphasized the change only enables the process; property owners can still choose not to proceed after learning costs. The committee voted 9-0 to advance the amendment to a public hearing.
LR 32.005 – Amendment to Board Rules (Public Comment): Representative Weinberg proposed requiring speakers to sign up by 4 p.m. on meeting day and adding a rule that personal attacks against board members are disruptive whether or not the member is named. Representative Boudreau successfully amended to strike the personal attacks sentence, arguing it should be handled in a separate rules rewrite (LR 32.010). After debate about the sign-up deadline – with some supporting it for administrative efficiency and others arguing it creates barriers for less tech-savvy or elderly residents – the committee voted 6-3 (Hyatt, LePine, Camparelli dissenting) to approve the amended rule change. The item will be on the non-consent calendar for the full Board.
LR 32.010 – Amended and Restated Board Rules of Order: Representative McEwen presented a comprehensive rewrite to reorder, clarify, and clean up the rules. Several amendments were adopted: (1) striking the word "invocation" from the quorum section (voice vote); (2) correcting a typo replacing "appropriations" with "appointments" (voice vote). A major debate ensued over whether to remove the entire public comment section (Sections 10B-10F) from this document to keep it separate from the earlier-passed LR 32.005. Vice Chair Camparelli moved to delete Sections 10B-10F entirely; an amendment to retain only the final sentence ("Personal attacks will be considered disruptive conduct…") was approved 6-3. The Camparelli motion as amended (deleting B-F except that sentence) then passed 8-1. The full document as amended passed 8-1 (Hyatt dissenting). The final version moves to the full Board as a non-consent item.
LR 32.011 – Review of Revised Comprehensive Tree Ordinance (Referral to Steering): Vice Chair Camparelli provided an update that she and Representative Weinberg are working with the administration to revise the ordinance, including forming an urban forest working group and consulting with Hartford’s urban forester. They requested recommittal to the Steering Committee to continue work. Representative Goldberg expressed interest in joining the working group. The motion to recommit passed unanimously by voice vote.
LR 32.009 – Resolution Urging State Legislature on Pet Store Sales Ban: Representative Camparelli and Pollock proposed a resolution beseeching the Connecticut State Legislature to empower municipalities to ban pet stores from selling dogs, cats, and rabbits. There was no discussion. The committee approved the resolution unanimously by voice vote.

Key Outcomes

LR 32.004: Approved (9-0) to schedule a public hearing on the ordinance lowering the private road petition threshold to two-thirds.
LR 32.005: Approved (6-3) as amended (sign-up by 4 p.m. but without personal attacks restriction); item to go to full Board as non-consent.
LR 32.010: Approved (8-1) as amended (public comment sections deleted except the personal attacks sentence, plus other minor amendments); item to go to full Board as non-consent.
LR 32.009: Approved unanimously by voice vote.
LR 32.011: Recommitted to Steering Committee unanimously by voice vote.
Meeting adjourned at 9:39 p.m.

Meeting Transcript

Alrighty, let's go ahead and get started. Hello, everyone. Good evening. At this time, I call to order this meeting of the legislative and rules committee of the Board of Representatives at 7.02 p.m. on January 27, 2026. I note that I see Representative, excuse me, Vice Chair Camparelli, Representative Boudreau, Representative Hughes, Representative Hyatt, Representative Le Pine, Representative Stone, and Representative Weinberg of the Committee in attendance. Representative Blank, are you here? All righty, hearing nothing. I also see in attendance representatives De La Cruz, Morrison, Johnson, and Shaw, ex official members of the committee in attendance. If there are any other ex official members in attendance that would like to be recognized, please go ahead and speak now. Okay. All righty. Hearing no others, uh seeing that we have eight out of the eight out of the nine voting members present. I conclude that we do have a quorum and we'll proceed with the meeting. Moving on to our first item of the agenda. LR 32.004, an ordinance amending section 214-3.2 of the code of ordinances to allow the city to accept a private road by only requiring a petition signed by no less than two-thirds of the owners submitted by Representative Weinberg. At this time, I'd entertain a motion uh to approve the aforementioned ordinance. So moved. Thank you. Excuse me. Who is that? Uh LePine. Thank you very much, Representative LePine. I have a second. Thank you, Representative Weinberg. Representative Weinberg, you have the floor. Thank you, Chair. So the purpose of this amendment is to eliminate a catch 22 situation, where uh when property owners on a private road want to explore petitioning the city to accept the road as a public road. The current ordinance requires 100% of property owners to sign a petition before the acceptance process may begin. In order to understand the catch 22 situation, here's a brief summary of the current process. So step one, property owners petition the city to accept the road as a public road. The way the ordinance is currently written, this requires signatures of 100% of the property owners. Step two, the board passes a resolution instructing the city to report to the board on whether or not the private road meets the requirements of a public road, and if not, what remediation is required. Step three, the property owners engage at their own expense. A professional engineer to conduct a study to determine the necessary remediation of any uh to meet the requirements of a public road, including an estimate of the costs. Um they may also wish to uh engage an attorney to advise them on any legal issues that might arise. Uh again, at their cost. Uh step four, the city's engineering department reviews the professional engineers report and issues an opinion about it. That fulfills the board's resolution. Step five, now that the property owners have an idea of the costs, um, they decide whether or not they want to proceed with the required remediation. Step six, if the property owners decide to move forward with the remediation, and once the city engineer certifies that the road now meets the required specifications, uh the planning board, board of finance, and board of representatives vote to accept the road as the city row. That's the process. Okay. Here's the catch 22. Some property owners are reluctant to sign a petition to initiate the process without knowing what the remediation might cost. And they won't hire an engineer without some assurance that our board will consider their request. But they can't ask for that assurance from us until they submit the petition. By lowering the signature threshold from 100% to two-thirds, a supermajority of property owners can find out what their coast costs might be while retaining the right to decide not to move forward. And meanwhile, of course, the city will incur no expense at any point along the way. Uh I've confirmed with Michael Toma of the city's legal department that there are no legal impediments to my proposed amendment.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com