Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Amendment Atv topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danbury committee backs ordinance changes allowing destruction of confiscated ATVs, adds hearing process
Summary
An ad hoc Danbury City committee recommended changes to Ordinance 46-3 that let police destroy confiscated ATVs after a 90-day hold, clarify forfeiture rules and add a 10-day notice and hearing process for owners seeking return of vehicles.
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Amendment Atv topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
An ad hoc Danbury City committee voted to recommend amendments to Ordinance 46-3 to the full City Council that would let the city destroy confiscated all‑terrain vehicles and similar small motorbikes instead of selling them at auction, and would add a formal notice and hearing process for owners.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Tracy Norris told the committee the draft allows destruction of confiscated ATVs after a 90‑day holding period. "It now allows for destruction of the ATV vehicle," Norris said, adding that owners or lienholders who do not reclaim a vehicle within 90 days would forfeit ownership. The draft also adds a hearing process modeled on the city's blight process: owners would receive notice and have 10 days to request a hearing to contest an assessment or to show they may recover the vehicle.
Sergeant Wakeman of the police department said the changes "give a little clarity for what we need to establish ownership" and called destruction "a nice tool" to prevent vehicles taken from misuse returning to the street; he estimated the department currently holds "five or six" ATVs. Council members and staff discussed using outreach and education — including school campaigns and social‑media alerts — to reduce misuse and to encourage residents to report incidents and provide video evidence that can aid investigations.
Council members pressed officers on enforcement limits under state law. As the traffic officer explained, state rules restrict officer pursuits; the department said identification and enforcement often require investigative follow‑up and community reporting rather than immediate pursuit of fleeing riders.
The committee’s motion to recommend the amendment to the City Council was made and approved by voice vote at the end of the meeting. The recommendation will next be considered by the full council. The committee adjourned without further action.
