The council will hold a public hearing for 7 p.m. Wednesday, October 7, for two proposed ordinances, sustainable energy and setting up a trust for other retiree benefits, and proposed wording changes to ordinances for the Parks and Recreation Department and the Commission on Aging.

Council Vice Chair Francis G. Pennarola has invited Police Chief Michael Kehoe to the October 7 meeting to address questions from the council regarding a sex offender ordinance that Chief Kehoe has proposed.

During his report, First Selectman Joseph Borst presented a summary of current Newtown projects. He noted that senior citizens had voluntarily withdrawn from a joint project with the Parks and Recreation Department to share a new community/senior center.

Council member John Aurelia, Sr., said the Commission on Aging was told the proposed site for the new center was not large enough to accommodate all of the activities the seniors and Parks and Recreation Department wanted to provide.

He said the seniors should be applauded for putting the needs of the town ahead of their own.

Mr. Borst clarified that the original concept was one building for Parks and Recreation and seniors and a separate building for a new pool.

Due to size, elevation and the slope of the site, the pool would need to be eliminated to accommodate a building of sufficient size for both Parks and Recreation and the seniors.

He added that, of the $400,000 earmarked for architectural designs, only $22,000 has been spent so far.

Mr. Pennarola made a motion to adopt the town's noise control ordinance. He said Dina Wolfman, 30 Obtuse Rd, was present. She has reviewed similar ordinances for other towns and submitted detailed comments on the draft ordinance for Newtown at the last meeting.

He said the ordinance has been "kicking around for three to four years and it's important to move forward with it."

The state Department of Environmental Protection must approve noise control ordinances. Mr. Pennarola sent the ordinance with Ms. Wolfman's proposed changes to the DEP and is waiting for a response.

Mr. Pennarola referred back to the public hearing for the noise control ordinance, reminding the council that one member of the public said the wording might prevent him from working on his own home in the evening.

Ms. Wolfman assured the council that her suggested wording would allow people to work on their own homes. "They'd be fine."

Council member Paul Lundquist noted that the ordinance "needs to have teeth," but he does not want it to be punitive.

He asked if phrasing should refer to warnings.

Council Chair William F.L. Rodgers said that the ordinance does not require the enforcement officer to issue a ticket. The officer can use discretion and issue a warning.

Mr. Rodgers said wording in the ordinance that refers to warnings has the danger of leading people to argue they have a right to a warning.

During public participation, Howard Winkler, Currituck Road, said the ordinance refers to times of the day but does not define calendar time. He would like to see time limits for projects such as construction.

He added that 45 decibels as a noise level limit is not realistic and said the noise level in the meeting room was probably at 55 decibels.

The meeting was at an acceptable noise level but a radio playing in the background at 55 decibels would be annoying.

Council member Patricia E. Llodra said she likes some of the changes, asking Ms. Wolfman if all of the proposed wording changes were taken from noise control ordinances approved by the DEP for other towns.

Ms. Wolfman said there were some wording changes she made but there were no substantive changes from the text that had been approved by the DEP.

Mr. Rodgers thanked Ms. Wolfman for her work on the ordinance.

He said he sensed it was inappropriate for the discussion to continue with the council as a whole and asked the council if anyone wanted to approve the ordinance without Ms. Wolfman's changes.

The majority of the council wanted to include the changes. Council member Gary Davis said he would like to have feedback from the DEP.

Council members decided to move the ordinance back to the ordinance subcommittee, where they would wait for feedback from the DEP before they took action on it and report back to the council.

The council unanimously approved the zoning enforcement ordinance.

It allows the Land Use and other town departments to implement a fine to expedite the enforcement of regulations.

At the last meeting, Rob Sibley, deputy director of the Land Use Agency, compared the ordinance to a ticket or citation system.

Mr. Davis reported on the Capital Improvement Plan process. He said the subcommittee has been having some good discussions and invited the council to send suggestions to council member Joseph Dicandido.

Mr. Davis said the goal is to make modifications to the ordinance describing the CIP and its process to get it synchronized with the town charter.

Council member Joseph Dicandido said he is not sure why there is a disagreement over the CIP process and noted he has not seen anything better.

Mr. Rodgers said that, given that the council has the deciding vote, it makes the Board of Finance essentially powerless if the Legislative Council is the body that presents the CIP to the Board of Finance.

He finds merit in the current process where the Board of Finance has the first look at the CIP without the council coloring its opinion.

Mr. Dicandido said he does not want to see the CIP getting into the political arena.

Mr. Rodgers responded, "Good luck with that."

The council decided to end the discussion, waiting for input from the CIP subcommittee.