Council votes 10-1 to set July 25 leaf blower referendum
Town Council · Meeting of June 30, 2026
New Canaan Town Council votes 10-1 to set a July 25 referendum on its gas-powered leaf blower restrictions, before the petition's signatures were even certified. Council member Kim Norton cast the lone no vote, arguing state law required the town clerk to certify the petition's signatures, then reported near 700, before any date could be set, calling the move "putting the cart before the horse." Chair Mike Morrow and members Hillary Armand and Eric Tunam countered that the New Canaan Town Charter's 30-day clock runs from the petition's June 25 filing, not from certification, and that no legal opinion barred the vote. Morrow said if the council is later found to have acted "ultra vires," the vote would be nullified and a new special meeting called.
Council member Mike Rogers was absent; the rest of the eleven-member body present voted yes.
In the full story:
- Who Was There
- Organizations And Documents Referenced
- The complete report — 1,719 words
Source: the Town Council meeting of June 30, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.
The Full Article
Why the Council Met
The New Canaan Town Council convened a special meeting on Tuesday, June 30, 2026, for a single purpose: setting a date for a townwide referendum under Section C4-16 of the New Canaan Town Charter. The referendum was triggered by a citizen petition, filed with the town last Thursday, seeking to nullify an ordinance the council had previously passed restricting the use of gas-powered leaf blowers between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Organizers submitted the petition with more than 1,000 signatures. Chair Mike Morrow told the council he had been pushing to get the date set "for days" and treated the 30-day statutory clock as the driving constraint on the meeting's timing.
The Signature Count and the Certification Dispute
The question before the council was straightforward on paper: what date to set for the referendum. In practice, the meeting became a extended legal argument over whether the council could set any date at all before the town clerk finished verifying the petition's signatures.
Council member Kim Norton told the council she had called the Connecticut Secretary of State's office earlier that day. She said the clerk's office began verification work Friday, a half day, continued Monday and Tuesday, and had reached approximately 550 verified signatures against a threshold she put at "a little above 700." Norton said the Secretary of State's office told her the council could not set a referendum date until the clerk issued what she called a "certificate of sufficiency," and she cited Connecticut General Statutes Section 7-9 as the source of that requirement. She moved to adjourn the meeting and reconvene once certification was complete, framing it as a matter of "the integrity of the process." Her motion was never seconded; when Morrow later asked whether she had a second, Norton acknowledged, "There was a motion from me, but it wasn't seconded."
Other members pushed back on the legal basis for delay. Council member Hillary Armand said she had "read through section 7-9 several times in the Connecticut General Statutes" and told Norton directly, "I don't see that language." Armand also said she had responded to Norton's email and text requesting the specific statutory citation and had received what she described as "something back that was AI generated" rather than a legal source. Council member Eric Tunam said he had reached the same conclusion: "Unless the statute is perfectly clear and saying that we cannot set a date until all the requisite signatures have been verified, then I don't see any issue with going ahead and setting a date tonight." Council member Maria Nton pressed Norton on where in the statute the certification language actually appeared, saying, "I don't see that in the statute."
Morrow said the council had no legal opinion, no court order, and no statement from town counsel instructing it not to proceed, and noted the town attorney had reviewed and signed off on the meeting's agenda language the day before. He read into the record an email exchange in which counsel confirmed the agenda was appropriate and flagged the relevant charter language: under Section C4-16(3), "a referendum shall be held not later than 30 days after the filing of such petition," with the date "set by the town council." Several members, including Council member Jennifer Zonus, sought explicit confirmation that the 30-day clock ran from the petition's filing date, not from the date of certification, and that a shorter interval, if certification came sooner, would still satisfy the law. Morrow and Tunam agreed that reading was correct.
Morrow proposed a fallback if the council turned out to be wrong: "If there is some determination that we've acted ultra vires, which means without authority, then this will be a nullified vote, and we will reconvene another special meeting at the appropriate time." Norton maintained her objection through the vote, saying of setting the date ahead of certification, "It's putting the cart before the horse because we don't have the verification of the signature," and warning that the public could not legally be notified of a referendum date until the clerk's certificate was issued.
The Clash Over Legal Opinions
A secondary, sharper dispute broke out when Norton said she wished she had been able to review a legal opinion that circulated among some members before the meeting, and suggested the council's executive committee was not sharing legal opinions with the full council, tying the complaint to a separate opinion connected to the town's charter revision commission involving a person named Kathleen Corbett. Armand objected forcefully: "Don't make statements like that. I forward legal opinions. Be extremely careful in what you are saying. That is one hundred percent wrong. And I'm asking you right now to withdraw what you said." Norton clarified she meant she personally had not received two specific opinions, not that opinions were never shared, and Armand acknowledged that qualification while maintaining she had shared opinions in the past. Council member Christina Ross used the moment to ask that the council routinely consult the town attorney on infrequent procedural matters "such as a referendum" to avoid this kind of conflict going forward, noting the attorney had in fact been consulted on Tuesday's agenda.
Choosing Between July 25 and July 21
With the legal question set aside, Morrow moved to set the referendum for Saturday, July 25. Janet Fam seconded. Norton asked for discussion and proposed an alternative: Tuesday, July 21, arguing it was more consistent with New Canaan's normal election practice and less costly than a Saturday election. Several members spoke in favor of the later date on the grounds it gave residents more time to learn about the issue before voting, including Penny Young, Council member Christina Ross and Chair Morrow, who said the date was chosen "so that we have the maximum amount of time to educate the community on their responsibility to vote." No member other than Norton supported moving the date earlier, and the council proceeded to a vote on Morrow's original motion for July 25.
The Vote and What Happens Next
The council voted by roll call. Janet Fam, Lena Lee, Mike Morrow, Maria Nton, Hillary Armand, Christina Ross, Heather Russell, Eric Tunam, Penny Young and Jennifer Zonus voted yes. Kim Norton voted no, repeating during the vote count that she believed the public could not legally be notified of a date not yet backed by certified signatures. Mike Rogers was absent for the entire meeting. The final tally was 10 in favor, one opposed, one absent, and the chair declared the motion passed: the referendum on the gas-powered leaf blower ordinance will be held July 25, 2026. The council then adjourned on a unanimous voice vote, seconded by Tunam.
Because the vote preceded certification, the outcome carries a contingency the council itself built into the record: if the clerk's office ultimately finds the petition short of the roughly 700-signature threshold, Morrow said the vote would be considered void and the council would need to convene another special meeting to reset the process. If the clerk certifies the petition in the coming days, as several members said they expected, the July 25 date stands and the town will proceed toward a public vote on whether to keep or repeal the seasonal leaf blower restrictions.
Mike Morrow, Town Council Chair, presided over the meeting and moved the motion setting the referendum date. Janet Fam, Town Council member, seconded the motion to set July 25 as the referendum date. Lena Lee, Town Council member, present and voted yes. Kim Norton, Town Council member, raised the certification objection, proposed the alternative July 21 date, and cast the lone no vote. Note: the meeting's roll call audio names this member "Tim Norton," but the chair's own summary of the vote ("Kim is a no") identifies the same person as Kim; see REVIEW. Maria Nton, Town Council member, questioned the statutory basis for Norton's objection and voted yes. Hillary Armand, Town Council member, disputed Norton's reading of state statute and objected to Norton's characterization of the executive committee's handling of legal opinions. Mike Rogers, Town Council member, absent for the entire meeting. Christina Ross, Town Council member, asked that the town attorney be consulted on infrequent procedural matters going forward. Heather Russell, Town Council member, present and voted yes; made no substantive remarks beyond confirming her vote. Eric Tunam, Town Council member, argued the 30-day clock runs from the petition's filing date and supported setting the date Tuesday; seconded the motion to adjourn. Penny Young, Town Council member, spoke in favor of the July 25 date for giving residents more time to prepare. Jennifer Zonus, Town Council member, sought clarification that the 30-day deadline could run from filing rather than certification, and supported moving forward with a vote. A town clerk's office representative was referenced throughout as conducting the signature verification but was not otherwise identified by name or present to address the council directly. Town attorney's office staff were referenced as having reviewed and approved the meeting's agenda language but did not appear on the call.
New Canaan Town Charter, Section C4-16(3) — establishes that a referendum on a nullification petition must be held within 30 days of the petition's filing and that the town council sets the date; read into the record by Chair Morrow from a town attorney email. Connecticut General Statutes, Section 7-9 — cited by Kim Norton as requiring certification of a petition's signatures before a referendum date can be set; disputed by Hillary Armand and Eric Tunam, who said they could not find that requirement in the statute. Connecticut Secretary of State's office — contacted by phone by Kim Norton, who said the office told her a date could not be set before certification. New Canaan Town Clerk's office — conducting the ongoing signature verification against the petition, reported at roughly 550 of a needed threshold above 700 as of the meeting. New Canaan Town Attorney — reviewed and approved the special meeting's agenda language the day before the meeting, according to Chair Morrow. New Canaan Charter Revision Commission — referenced by Norton and Armand in connection with a separate legal opinion dispute involving a person identified only as Kathleen Corbett.