Back
to Article 4: Citizens Petition #6
Citizen’s Petition #6: To amend Section 200 of the zoning
ordinance by adding the following: Commercial Vehicle: Shall Mean any vehicle
used or intended to be used (1) to transport goods, commodities, merchandise,
produce and freight or (2) used or intended to be used in construction ,
industry, farming, towing, logging, automotive or other commercial businesses
or enterprises. Commercial vehicles
shall include, without limitation, trucks, buses, bulldozers, backhoes, tractors,
excavators, trailers, trucks fitted with cranes, trucks fitted with air
compressors, trucks fitted with welding equipment, trucks fitted with tanks or
similar equipment. Commercial
vehicles shall also include, without limitation, motorized and nonmotorized dumpsters, storage units, tool lockers and
trailers.
Ms. Skinner
read Citizen’s Petition #6 into the record.
Mr. Sneider said there is no definition of “Commercial
Vehicle” in the Ordinance, and he thinks the Town needs one. This stems from a Zoning action that
took the position that a large piece of equipment does not constitute a
commercial vehicle. Therefore,
since construction equipment is not classified as a commercial vehicle, 100 of
them could be allowed on a property.
Ms. Scott
explained Attorney Campbell’s review which agrees there is no definition
of commercial vehicle. It was a
code enforcement determination that an excavator was not a commercial vehicle.
Vice-chair Crisler opened the Hearing to the Public.
Mr. Joel Dubay, Beacon Hill Rd, does not understand the phrase
“intended to be used.”
He currently owns a backhoe and previously owned several other pieces of
equipment that he never intended to use commercially. He likes to dig holes in his yard. Whose “intention” is
referenced; the owner, the manufacturer,… He listed several pieces of equipment
that he owns and uses occasionally, never commercially. He asked for clarity on the definitions.
Mr. Shayne Gendron, 24 Bridle Bridge Rd, wonders why the Town needs to
add the definition at all. The Town
relies heavily on local equipment to plow Town roads. It supports public health and safety,
one of the purposes of the Zoning.
He is against adding a definition of commercial vehicle and thinks the
Town needsto support those in our community who make
a living with the vehicles.
Mr. Chuck
Terry, owner of CTC Envision Home Theater, owns 2 trucks over 8,000 pounds
which he occasionally takes home.
He carries expensive equipment in them and can’t trust leaving
them in a parking lot. He works
with many who have ladder racks on their trucks and thinks it would be very
inconvenient for them to leave their trucks and then get a ride home.
Mr. Larry Blanchette thinks this proposal might be a conflict of
interest with the State. The State
is interested in starting small farms back up and now the proposal suggests the
Town cannot have tractors.
Mr. LoChiatto said the State has a commercial vehicle
definition. A small Ford F150 is
just a few hundred pounds less than the petition’s 8,000 pound
standard. He finds the proposal far
too restrictive. If he loads his
truck over the limit, is someone going to come after him? Windham is referred to as the Rural
Oasis. Isn’t farming and farm
tractors part of the rural image.
Since when is a commercial vehicle non-motorized, like a dumpster?
Mr. Justin Belair thinks the definition is non-restrictive. It may not be the best, but it is a
start. Whether the State has a
definition has nothing to do with the Town. It’s just a definition.
Mr. Brian Bauchman stated that his backhoe and excavator did not
belong to him. They were borrowed
for a long time.
Ms. DiFruscia was seated at 7:10 pm.
Mr. Jason
Steven, 71 Castle Hill Rd, thinks the definition lacks certainness. If adopted, enforcement would be arbitrary,
inconsistent, and far-reaching. Any
vehicle with a sign on it would fall into this classification. It could have negative effects on many
Town people and effect the local economy.
Mr. Dubay stated that Petition #7 makes the definition in Petition
#6 very restrictive.
Mr. Senibaldi said that Petition #7 would make his pickup
truck, which he’s owned for 10 years, too big to park in his
driveway. He’s still trying
to figure out what a motorized dumpster is. This definition covers a multitude of
businesses. Many small businesses
cannot afford a truck rental space.
This definition also does not allow portable storage units.
Mr. Sneider thinks Attorney Campbell’s reference to the
State code has nothing to do with defining commercial vehicles. He said the proposal is defining what a
commercial vehicle is, not saying they are illegal. He wants to define it so that 100
backhoes, for example, won’t be allowed on someone’s property. He offered GVW for various trucks and
said the focus should be on how commercial vehicles should be permitted in
residential areas.
Mr. Senibaldi said the vehicles Mr. Sneider
quoted are “girlie” vehicles.
Many of the trucks mentioned have different classifications. Mr. Sneider
agreed.
Vice-chair Crisler closed the Hearing to the Public.
Ms. Scott
stated that the Board currently has a Warrant Article about parking of
Commercial Vehicles. There is a
regulation in zoning about that.
There is potentially a conflict, because the Board has defined it with
axels and registration and inspection.
It was not the Board’s intention to regulate equipment. Vice-Chair Crisler
read the proposed Warrant Article.
Vice-Chair Crisler closed the Hearing to the Public.
Mr. Wrenn said that the Board’s Warrant Article with a
GVW of 12,000 tried to incorporate vehicles most people would have. He agrees with Attorney Campbell that
the Petition’s definition is too broad and encompassing.
Ms. DiFruscia agrees with Mr. Sneider
that we do need a definition. She
understands his concerns, but thinks the Citizen’s Petition does not
address those concerns. She hopes
he will continue to work on this definition and return to the Board with a more
reasonable definition for those who need their vehicles for their daily work,
but are not using their property for storing equipment to be used off-site.
Ms. Webber motioned to not recommend
Petition #6. Seconded
by Mr. Wrenn.
Mr. Sycamore
confirmed with Ms. Scott that this topic will be on the Board’s 2012 work
list.
Motion passed: 7-0.