Council considers loosening dumpster requirement for business-license renewals to avoid forcing small businesses to close
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Councilors proposed removing the requirement that businesses have a fenced dumpster as a condition of license renewal (Section 12-48), leaving enforcement to zoning; the change is intended to avoid denying licenses to small, preexisting businesses that cannot meet the strict setback and screening rules.
The Foster Town Council discussed a proposed amendment to Section 12‑48 that would remove the ordinance provision requiring businesses to have a screened dumpster as a condition of licensing. Councilors said the amendment would not repeal zoning standards for dumpsters; it would only stop the licensing office from refusing renewal solely for noncompliant dumpsters, instead leaving enforcement to zoning processes.
Why it matters: Council staff identified many existing businesses that would not meet the ordinance’s current setback, screening and landscaping requirements because many commercial parcels in Foster are small or adjacent to residences. Removing the licensing bar is intended to avoid forcing established small businesses to lose their licenses while preserving the town’s ability to enforce standards through zoning enforcement or variances.
Highway Director Gordon Rogers told the council he reviewed the town’s list and found most businesses would fail the current standard because of small lot sizes and proximity to residences. Several business owners and councilors warned against lowering standards that protect public view and reduce vermin, while others stressed the practical burdens on small enterprises that either do not generate much waste or cannot afford expensive enclosures.
The proposed change removes the licensing-trigger clause from Section 12‑48; it does not change the underlying requirement that dumpsters be screened, setback and maintained where zoning rules apply. Councilors agreed to continue the matter to the next meeting so that staff can circulate a revision for a formal vote at a subsequent session. Several councilors asked for clearer language on enforcement pathways, variance options and possible support for businesses that cannot meet standards immediately.
Councilors also debated whether zoning enforcement alone provides effective recourse; some council members said zoning enforcement has been slow in practice, while others argued leaving the requirement in zoning preserves the higher standard for public view corridors such as Route 6.
The amendment will appear on the council’s next agenda for a second reading and vote.