Back to Article 4: Citizens Petition Amendment #5

Citizen’s Petition #5

To amend paragraph 1 of Section 708.3 of the zoning ordinance, which is the section that defines the term junk yard, to read as follows: “Old or scrap brass, copper, metal, ropes, rags, batteries, paper, trash, tires, rubber, debris, motors, motor parts, engines, engine parts, plastic, or other manmade materials; or

To amend Section 708.3 of the zoning ordinance to define a non commercial junk yard as follows: “Noncommercial Junk Yard: A property used for the storage of junk not intended for resale or commercial use in a quantity equal in bulk to 10 cubic yards or more.”

Ms. Skinner read Citizen’s Petition #5 into the record.

Mr. Mark Sneider, 5 Delway Rd, explained that this petition was brought forward to expand the current definition of “junk” and believes it benefits the Town and conforms to the intent and purpose of the State law.

Ms. St. Laurent was seated at 7:07 pm.

Ms. Webber read from Attorney Campbell’s memo in which he recommends that the Planning Board disapprove this proposal, that the proposed language could be outside the authority given to towns, and the adoption of it could jeopardize enforcement action.

Mr. Sneider listed materials that are not noted in the Town’s definition. Mr. Wrenn stated that in Section 708.3 those materials are listed. Mr. Sneider thinks the new definition is more precise.

Vice-Chair Crisler opened the Hearing to the Public.

Mr. Justin Belair, 13 Galway Rd, stated that the State’s RSA is limited to regulating areas adjacent to State roads and has no authority over what is found in our Town. Therefore, he thinks Attorney Campbell’s statements are unfounded.

Vice-Chair Crisler closed the Hearing to the Public. Vice-Chair Crisler re-opened the Hearing to the Public.

Mr. Sneider explained that an additional proposed change was to the quantity of junk from 2 or more motor vehicles to a bulk equal to 10 cubic yards or more; a more precise definition he thinks.

Ms. DiFruscia was seated at 7:10 pm.

Mr. Phil LoChiatto, 5 Faith Rd, a general contractor, often ends up at the end of a job with left over materials that he organizes in his yard for later use. Is he now a junk yard? He thinks this proposal is over-reaching and infringes on property rights that everyone should enjoy.

Mr. Larry Blanchette, 2 Mulberry St, is confused. Is he allowed 10 cubic yards of each material? There are many old trucks/trailers around waiting to be rebuilt that may be antiques. Why would they offend?

Mr. Dennis Senibaldi, resident contractor, is in the demo business and ends up with materials at his home. He is bothered by the reference to “other manmade materials.” That is so inclusive and restrictive and does not seem to be the intent of NH. He asked what the impetus was that initiated this petition.

Mr. Chuck Este, Londonderry Rd, asked where does a junk car end and Classic car begin. He has old cars that are down back on his 9 acres that, now that he is retired, is working on. Ms. Scott clarified that the current Ordinance Section 708.10 has an exemption for antique motor vehicles cars that are in the process of being restored.

Mr. Dennis Root, 15 First St, thinks people move to NH because they like it they way it is, and then they want to change it. Why don’t they move back?

Mr. Brian Bauchman thinks the petitioner, a neighbor of his, is bringing the petition against him. They have frequently complained about his yard and thinks it is getting out of hand.

Mr. Sneider stated the petition is not directed against anyone. It simply provides a clearer definition of junk and provides a more accurate means of assessment.

Vice-Chair Crisler closed the Hearing to the Public.

Ms. Webber does not support the Petition. The Town’s taxes are high enough without people being told what they can and cannot do with their property.

Ms. St. Laurent noted that both Junk Yard definitions do not determine if the “junk” is at the primary residence. Also, the Board had concern about how to enforce the Ordinance and so felt that the size of 2 cars would be easier to determine than 10 cubic yards. Ms. Scott said there are no legal, commercial junk yards in Town. This would just be changing the current definition.

Ms. DiFruscia thinks this Petition is overreaching. There is currently statutory law in place. If the petitioner wants to make some changes, he should look at the RSA’s at the legislative level rather than changing the Town’s laws. What might appear as junk to someone may be necessary for someone else’s work. There is a fine balance and this Petition is legally overreaching, and she cannot support it.

Ms. Webber has an old car body in her woods; she finds this “woods art,” which tells a story, very exciting.

Mr. Sycamore asked if the State can only regulate junk yards along the Interstate. Ms. Scott said that the Town has the authority to regulate them locally. Our state Ordinance should not conflict with the State.

Vice-Chair Crisler thinks the proposed changes and the complete definition are very similar. The only difference is manmade materials and plastics. The Town’s Ordinance Section 708 regulates junk yards very completely.

Ms. Webber motioned to not recommend Citizen’s Petition #5. Mr. Wrenn seconded. Motion passed: 7-0.