, Derry, New Hampshire


September 26, 2013

Dumpster Depot opponents continue fight

They continue to fight Planning Board decision

DERRY — The Planning Board denied a request last week to rehear a controversial Dumpster Depot plan, but opponents of the Ashleigh Drive facility continue to fight.

Residents against the approved plan at 41 Ashleigh Drive came before the board last week to say why they don’t want the facility in their backyard, hoping the board might reconsider its decision to approve the plan.

But the board stood firm.

The Planning Board gave the project conditional approval on Aug. 21 by a vote of 5-2, but those living nearby the proposed 7,200-square-foot facility said things were done incorrectly throughout the process.

Concerned residents and abutters have been outspoken in their opposition to the proposal.

Greenwich Road resident Brenda Wilson gave a list of reasons why she believes the decision to conditionally approve was “unlawful, illegal and unreasonable.”

Wilson said the conditions attached to the approval process were changed between the date a meeting in June and final approval in August.

“I was shocked on Aug. 21,” she said. “All the conditions were changed.”

Conditions attached to the plan included an updated landscaping plan, no fueling on site, revised hours of operation, no Dumpster washing on site, annual rodent and mosquito control measures, and only empty Dumpsters allowed on site, with the exception of a 24-hour stay during the weekdays and a 36-hour stay on the weekends in the event that is needed. Dumpsters must remain covered, on the truck and be parked under a canopy on site.

One conditional sticking point is the fact that full Dumpsters may be allowed to be on the property. Wilson said that information changed between June and August.

She said planners also gave the applicant, David Paul, another chance to plead his case in August, but did not accept any other public input.

“That was wrong and unethical,” Wilson said. “The applicant addressed new issues, but the abutters were not allowed the same right.”

Text Only | Photo Reprints

Latest News