The village's counsel, Lori, presented a draft local law aimed at eliminating and preventing 'double poles'—instances where two utility poles exist side by side or where an additional pole has been added—saying the draft is modeled on an ordinance used elsewhere but includes enforcement tools and fines the village lacked.
Trustees identified two separate enforcement challenges: preventing new double‑pole installations and addressing an existing backlog of double poles already on village rights-of-way. Several trustees proposed a temporary carve-out to give utilities 90 days to address the current backlog before standard penalties apply; counsel said applying the law retroactively raised legal questions and may require separate local legislation or specific statutory authority.
Discussion focused on enforcement mechanics and penalties. Trustees advocated per-day accrual fines and limits on extensions; counsel explained local courts exercise discretion and suggested accrual fines tied to daily violations could produce meaningful financial pressure. The board also raised emergency exceptions: several members recommended a short post-event window (proposed 10 days) for utilities to document and cure emergency installations.
Because retroactivity and the proper code placement for backlog enforcement require legal research, trustees agreed to delay final adoption. Several members expressed a preference to present both the proactive and backlog approaches publicly at the same time even if enacted in separate ordinances.
Next steps: counsel will research applicable state statutes and case law, determine whether retroactive enforcement is legally viable, and return with revised draft language and an implementation plan for the board's review.