New Canaan’s newly adopted ban on the summer use of gas-powered leaf blowers is not in effect, officials say, as opponents have filed for a referendum vote on the measure.
The Town Council’s ordinance “is on hold until the referendum process is completed,” according to Town Clerk Claudia Weber.
“I have received a few calls from residents who thought the ordinance was in effect, and I would like to get the word out that the ordinance is on pause until the referendum process plays out,” Weber said.
The Town Council, New Canaan’s legislative body, voted 8-4 in favor of a seasonal ban at its May 20 meeting. On May 27, a “A Notice of Intent to Petition,” containing the required 50 qualifying signatures, was received by Weber’s office. It came in prior to the required seven-day deadline from the publication of the corresponding legal notice (on May 28).
“An approved ‘Petition for a Referendum’ has been given to the petitioners,” Weber said. They now must file their petition—with 701 qualifying signatures—by June 26 with the Town Clerk, she said.
“If those requirements aren’t met, the process stops, and a referendum will not be held,” she said.
Otherwise, once the signatures have been verified, the Town Council has 30 days from the date of the filing with the Town Clerk (of the Petition for a Referendum) in which to set the date and hold the referendum.
The number of votes required to overrule the Town Council’s action must be the majority of votes and must be equal to, or at least, 15% of the electorate as in the last completed voters’ list.
The question that has been approved for both the petition and ballot is: “Shall the May 20, 2026 action of the Town Council approving an ordinance entitled ‘Gas Powered Leaf Blowers,’ which sets certain restrictions on their usage, be upheld?” As such, a “yes” vote supports the Town Council action and makes the ordinance effective, while a “no” vote overrules the legislative body and makes the ordinance null and void.
Only registered electors in the town of New Canaan are eligible to vote, Weber said.
How can we sign the petition to ensure sufficient votes for the referendum?
Where can I go to sign this petition?
I vote yes!
What a disappointing setback. Yet more summer weekends spent listening to gas leaf blowers instead of enjoying our patios and gardens. This ordinance was about quality of life, and I hope it ultimately survives any referendum.
It’s only fair to allow people to vote for or against Gas blowers. Everybody should have a say and a vote. No edicts from on high.
I wish the folks opposing this had attended one of the many hearings held, to learn about the environmental impact of these blowers. They are terrible for the air quality.
I use a hand rake and an electric grass mower. I would not hire anyone who uses a gasoline powered leaf blower, for I’d be paying to pollute our air and destroy our peace and quiet, and, worst, to damage the hearing, the brains, the lungs and the hearts of the gas-powered blower operators. Leaves are not evil — they are nature’s fertilizer. Set your mower to mulch the leaves and grass clippings and you’re fertilizing your lawn. I am FOR restricting the use of gas-powered leaf blowers.
I support this ban because it excludes homeowners and addresses the excess usage of gas blowers by commercial landscape companies. I would vote ‘YES’.
The Town Council was elected to study issues, review evidence, hear expert testimony, weigh competing interests, and make decisions on behalf of the community. Not every public health or quality-of-life issue should be decided by referendum. Many policies that protect public welfare have initially been unpopular but were ultimately beneficial to the community.
Examples include:
* Smoking bans in restaurants, bars, and public buildings. Many were controversial when enacted, but they significantly reduced secondhand smoke exposure and are now widely accepted.
* Mandatory seat belt laws. Opponents argued they infringed on personal freedom, but they have saved thousands of lives.
* Restrictions on leaded gasoline and lead paint. Many people resisted the regulations due to cost and inconvenience, yet the public health benefits were enormous.
* Drunk-driving laws and lowered blood alcohol limits. These measures were not universally popular but reduced fatalities.
* Noise ordinances and zoning regulations. Individual property owners may prefer fewer restrictions, but communities adopt them to protect neighbors’ quality of life and property values.
* Restrictions on open burning, backyard dumping, and other practices that create pollution or nuisance impacts on others.
Supporters of a seasonal gas leaf blower ban would argue that the issue is similar because it involves:
* Noise pollution affecting neighbors.
* Air pollution and emissions.
* Worker and resident health impacts from particulate matter.
* Community-wide quality-of-life considerations.
Their position would be that these are externalities imposed on others, making the issue more akin to public health regulation than a matter of individual preference.
The strongest argument against a referendum is that elected representatives have already conducted the detailed review process and reached a bipartisan decision based on evidence, just as communities have done historically with smoking restrictions, noise ordinances, and other public health measures that were not necessarily decided by popular vote.
Knowing some members of the Town Council, I feel like it’s a strange take to say that New Canaanites should trust their work and judgment as elected officials, as though wisdom necessarily follows. To call it “the strongest argument” to preserve the ordinance is either frightening or funny.
Well said Micheal.
Well, whether or not one has an issue with the judgement of Town Council members (for the record, I do not), there really isn’t any grey area in the evidence against gas-powered leaf blowers. No matter how much one would like to think arriving at the conclusion they’re bad news and should be banned could be the work of some bad actors, there isn’t a single piece of evidence anywhere suggesting loud noise and heavy exhaust are good for anyone. The only argument the “save our leaf blower” folks seem to have is that their freedoms are somehow trampled not being able to make their lawns look pristine using the cheapest, most annoying and harmful means available. Gimme a break. Also, the notion that lawn crews would somehow be distressed and out of $$ not being able to cart around heavy, pollution-making, soundproof headphone require-ing machines that do little more than move grass clippings from one part of the yard to another is a joke. If anything, not wasting time blowing dust and grass around would free them up to move on to other, and more, clients.
Gas-powered leaf blowers are bad. This referendum stuff is pure nonsense. The town council was 100% right to put in place a ban as they did. And they acted in good faith with bullet-proof facts.
The only bad actors in town are the ones trying to delay implementing it.
^ a William Butler-like grasp of this thread.
Which is now closed, thanks everyone.
What a joke. So many of the 12 just go along for the ride, have no clue what they are voting on, have not done their homework and have absolutely no expertise. The reality is that our elections are many times nothing more than a popularity contest with the weakest candidates elected. Just look at the approvals of pathetic cost overruns, unquestioned passage of items to support partisan alliances and proven self dealing at the top of the food chain. Ignoring what is best for all new Canaanites. Drastic changes to ordinances should not be determined by 12 officials who are not experts and listened to a handful of residents with an agenda. Let all voices be heard through a proper democratic procedure. Which in this case is a referendum that all citizens can equally vote upon.
This ordinance – like 8-30g is a ridiculous “one size fits all” directive. The same regulations should not be placed in 4 acre wooded residential areas as in town condensed areas. The exclusion for town employees is laughable. The town excludes itself but dictates a ban on the tax paying citizens. A prime example of Patrick Henry’s historic ride: “ No taxation without representation “.