Limerick code enforcement officer urges tighter conditional-use rules, cites tire and junkyard risks

LIMERICK — Stan Heck, the town’s code enforcement officer, told the Limerick Planning Board on May 20 that recurring failures to document findings of fact and required site plans have left the board vulnerable to appeals and overturned decisions, and urged the board to tighten conditional-use procedures.

Heck, who opened a workshop after the board adjourned its regular meeting, cited the long-running matter at 41 Range Road and a related site at 366 Sokokis as examples where an approval was appealed and the appeals board reversed the planning board “because the planning board didn’t have sufficient information” to support its conditions. He said he has observed as many as about 150 vehicles at one yard and that some properties appear to be operating beyond the scope of their approved uses.

"One of these persons with an automobile graveyard has met with me several times and said, ‘Well, I don’t have a violation.’ And I’m sorry, but you do," Heck said, arguing that applicants must provide clear site plans and answers to conditions so the board can make findings of fact and conclusions of law. He added that when the applicant fails to provide required evidence within a reasonable window, the board can treat the lack of sufficient information as grounds for denial.

Why it matters: Heck warned that weak recordkeeping and ambiguous conditions have produced inconsistent outcomes in appeals and can expose the town to environmental liability. He described situations in which tire storage or fluid contamination on sand-and-gravel aquifers could create public-safety and pollution risks if not properly permitted, sited and monitored.

Specific recommendations and rules Heck reviewed included:

- Requiring applicants to submit updated site plans and a stormwater/runoff plan when yard layouts or operations change; he said appeals overturned a condition because no such stormwater plan was provided.

- Adding a dormancy/expiration clause: Heck proposed that a conditional-use permit should expire if it is not used or goes dormant for two years, so reactivation triggers a full review rather than an informal continuation.

- Shorter compliance windows for corrective conditions: he suggested practical deadlines (he offered one example of a 60-day deadline for a wetland plan) and noted the state procedure recommendation to issue notices to applicants within 14 days after approval.

- Stronger recordkeeping and inspection documentation: required logs for vehicle arrivals/removals, fluid tracking and demolition/crushing dates; aerial photos and site photographs as supporting evidence; and regular provision of such records to town staff.

- Aligning town conditions with state rules and DEP oversight: Heck noted the state’s temporary storage guideline (180 days) for tires, the need to avoid placing long-term storage on sand-and-gravel aquifers, and the practical role of DEP permit-by-rule (PBR) approvals tied to local licensing.

Heck warned that some sites have exceeded locally authorized quantities (one conditional use limited a location to four cars but observers found roughly 20 out front) and that tire piles and hazardous-material storage raise both fire and contamination concerns. "Fighting a tire fire is impossible," Heck said, and he noted PFAS and other contaminants associated with burning or poor storage practices.

On enforcement, Heck emphasized the sequence the board should follow: obtain sufficient documentation during review, write findings of fact that cite the town ordinance or the state statute (cited in discussion as "30A, 3751 through 3758"), attach clear conditions and deadlines, and treat continued noncompliance as the basis for denial rather than repeated extensions that undercut enforcement.

Heck said he will send letters to property owners he believes are out of compliance and CC the planning board; he also told the board he will provide citations and proposed condition language for the board to consider at a future open meeting. No policy amendment was adopted at the workshop itself. "This is just to lay out a process," he said; formal action, he said, would occur only at a subsequent public meeting.

Board actions: During the session the board approved the April 1 meeting minutes and then adjourned to the workshop; members did not vote on changes to conditional-use rules on May 20.

What’s next: Heck will circulate his draft letter to noncompliant property owners, provide the DEP findings and suggested ordinance language to the board, and the planning board is expected to consider formal amendments and any required notices at an upcoming regular meeting.