Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Inoperable Vehicles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Amherst council debates new rules for inoperable vehicles, asks staff to draft ordinance revisions
Summary
Council discussed revisions to Amherst's code to address inoperable vehicles: staff outlined options (limits by number, screening requirements, location-based rules), members debated an exemption for one vehicle and whether screening by cover/fence/building should suffice; staff will draft ordinance language and schedule next steps.
The Amherst Town Council spent a substantial portion of its July 8 meeting discussing whether and how to tighten local rules on inoperable vehicles.
Town staff (Miss McGuffin) told council that inoperable vehicles are addressed in two places in the town code — chapter 20 (traffic and vehicles) and chapter 24 (zoning) — and asked council to provide direction so staff can draft ordinance revisions. "The first question is when you think about inoperable vehicles on a property, how many inoperable vehicles should be allowed to be there?" McGuffin asked, outlining additional questions about screening, location on the lot and lot‑size considerations.
Councilmembers and residents offered a range of views. One councilmember noted that state law treats five or more unlicensed or inoperable vehicles as a junkyard, and suggested any local threshold should sit below that figure. "5 or more is the junkyard according to state law," a councilmember said. Several members suggested allowing one unscreened vehicle but requiring screening for additional vehicles; proposed screening methods included a privacy fence, an enclosed building or a fitted car cover.
Residents pressed for enforcement and neighborhood impacts. One resident said unlicensed, dilapidated vehicles create an untidy appearance and raise concerns about pests, saying such vehicles are often "trash" in front yards and can attract rats and snakes. Another resident said there is a difference between someone restoring a vehicle and someone simply letting it rot; several councilmembers said screening would be a key factor.
Staff asked clarifying procedural questions about whether screening by car cover should be treated the same as screening by fence or in an enclosed building. "Our current screening requirements would allow screening to occur either because it's in an enclosed building or because you have a privacy fence or because you have a fitted car cover," McGuffin said, noting examples where car covers become dilapidated and expose vehicles.
Councilmembers did not adopt new code language at the meeting but expressed general preferences — for example, one councilmember said he favored a single unscreened vehicle exemption and screening for additional vehicles, while others emphasized visibility from the roadway and neighboring properties as the enforcement trigger. Staff will use the council's feedback to draft specific ordinance language and to set a public hearing so the public can comment on any proposed changes.
