Vehicle storage ordinance vetoed by mayor

City Council had unanimously passed amendment in July

WOONSOCKET — An ordinance recently passed by the City Council that allows privately-owned, residential property to be used for the storage of not more than one vehicle, either because it’s unregistered or inoperable, has been vetoed by Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt.

The mayor says the storage of inoperable and unregistered vehicles is a source of complaints from neighbors and unnecessarily contributes to visual blight in the community.

“The ordinance… as submitted and passed, is harmful the residents of the City of Woonsocket in that it diminishes the quality of life in our neighborhoods,” she wrote in a veto message that has been delivered to members of the council. “I feel confident that no resident of

“I feel confident that no resident of the city would want an unregistered, inoperable vehicle parked next door to them, adversely affecting their own property.” —Woonsocket Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt, above

the city would want an unregistered, inoperable vehicle parked next door to them, adversely affecting their own property.”

Moreover, the mayor said, enforcing the ordinance would “overburden our already depleted workforce, which is a condition I will not accept and cannot condone.”

The mayor vetoed the ordinance on July 14, the same day the law would have taken effect. There was no public announcement, but the mayor’s veto message was released with the docket information for the council’s regularly-scheduled meeting on Monday.

In an interview on radio station WNRI Friday, Baldelli-Hunt said she expects the council to override the veto, which requires an affirmative vote to do so by a minimum of five of the panel’s seven members.

“Probably,” she said, when asked if veto was likely.

The relaxation of a longstanding prohibition on the storage of motor vehicles dates back to a broader review of the Zoning Ordinance that began in August 2016. At that time, councilors explained in a preamble to the amendment, “it was found that more clarification was necessary” regarding the section pertaining to motor vehicle storage.

When the ordinance was passed, members said they were easing the restrictions to allow residents to keep just one inoperable or unregistered vehicle on their property because they believed that doing so would be a benefit to many residents who struggle to keep a car registered and in good working order.

Despite the changes, the zoning officer still has the authority to order the removal of any vehicle on private property that “presents a hazard to children or other persons, or harbors tall grass or weeds, or creates a fire hazard, or affords a breeding place or nesting place for mosquitoes, flies, rodents or other vermin,” according to the measure. One caveat, thought, is that the zoning officer may take action only after receiving a written, signed complaint from “an identifiable complainant.”

Residents would be allowed to store a maximum of one vehicle that is either inoperable or unregistered, but not one of each at the same time. Vehicles defined as “wrecks” would still be prohibited.

The ordinance defines an inoperable vehicle as one that hasn’t been moved or driven due to its condition for a period of at least 90 days. But the law is silent on how long inoperable or unregistered vehicles may remain in storage.

City records say the amendment was passed unanimously by the council.