Rep. Larry Satowitz introduces bill to let towns take, clean chronic salvage and junk properties

Representative Larry Satowitz, of Randolph, introduced H72 to the House Government Operations & Military Affairs committee as a tool for municipalities to address long-running salvage and scrap accumulation on private properties.

Satowitz said the bill would allow a town, in very rare cases where other remedies have failed, to use a process analogous to a tax sale to take possession of a parcel, clean it up, and put it to productive use. "If municipalities had tools that work really well, we'd have a lot fewer of them," Satowitz said, describing a property in Randolph that has sat in a deteriorated state for "at least 8 or 10 years" despite repeated town efforts to compel cleanup.

The bill is framed as a narrow, last-resort authority for cases where liens and fines have not produced compliance. Satowitz said towns can currently fine owners or place liens, but where an owner refuses to sell or a parcel's market value is lower than cleanup costs, those remedies provide little leverage. He thanked the Department of Environmental Conservation for working with him on the bill.

Legislative counsel Tucker Anderson told the committee the proposed changes would interact with existing statutory provisions. Anderson cited 24 V.S.A. § 2291 (discussed in the hearing as "24 VSA 22 91") and 24 V.S.A. § 2246 (referred to in testimony as "24 VSA 22 46") and said the amendments would allow municipalities to extend regulatory authority to premises that constitute a public nuisance due to accumulation of rubbish, scrap, junk, or abandoned vehicles. He noted that Supreme Court precedent requires a nuisance determination be sufficiently public in scope.

Anderson said the salvage-yard subchapter already contains definitions and thresholds municipalities use. He recalled a commonly-applied metric mentioned in committee: four or more junk motor vehicles within view of a public way can be the basis for a per se violation under existing rules. He also said municipal regulation can be affected by whether the offending material can be screened from view of a public way.

Committee members pressed on definitions and safeguards. Representative Waters Evans asked whether inability to pay had been considered; Satowitz responded that the bill is intended as a limited, last-resort tool and that his Randolph example appeared to be a case of refusal rather than an inability to pay. Representative Stone and Representative Coffin raised questions about how the measure would distinguish hobbyists or slow repairs from active salvage/junk yards; counsel said those carve-outs exist in current law and will need to be accounted for in drafting.

No formal action or vote was taken. Committee members indicated the bill will return for further drafting; staff and counsel will refine statutory cross-references and thresholds before the committee takes up the measure again.