CLAREMONT — The company that withdrew its application in 2019 for a construction material transfer site at 43 Industrial Blvd. is now appealing a decision by the city’s zoning administrator denying the acceptance of construction and demolition material as recyclable.

The appeal by Acuity Management of Massachusetts, which owns American Recycling on Industrial Boulevard, will be heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment at 7 p.m. Monday in the community center to accommodate the expected larger audience.

Claremont City Planner deForest Bearse denied the zoning permit application from Acuity Management last November that had sought to add construction and demolition debris for recycling. She reaffirmed that denial in June, after which Acuity filed an appeal to the Zoning Board in July.

In her decision, Bearse said because it is a recycling facility, it can by definition receive only recyclable material and allowing construction and demolition debris would turn it into a transfer station.

“Construction and demolition debris is not included in the list of materials that are considered ‘recyclable’ as defined in Env-Sw 104.19 (N.H. Administrative Code),” Bearse wrote.

Bearse told the Zoning Board in a memorandum that in 1987 the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services permitted the operation, owned by Jim Silver at the time, to recycle several products including paper, aluminum and metal cans. She also noted that if construction and demolition materials were allowed as proposed, the stream of material would increase to around 600 tons per day from 75 and primarily consist of C&D material.

In a June 10 email to Bearse, Naomi-Clare Praul of Nobis Engineering explained that the facility proposes to “accept C&D material for recycling, rather than simply for transfer to a disposal facility.”

“Based on the correspondence with NHDES, if the facility meets these criteria, a permit to accept C&D materials may be granted,” Praul wrote.

In her response three days later, Bearse reiterated her original reasons for the permit denial, including the definition of recyclable material, of which C&D is not listed and is instead defined as solid waste.

“Recycling facilities do not handle solid waste but transfer stations do,” Bearse wrote. “By adding C&D debris to the materials stream, this facility is transforming into a transfer station.”

Transfer stations are not allowed in the Industrial 1 Zoning District, where the property is located, so a variance from the Zoning Board is required, Bearse wrote.

In its nine-page appeal filed by attorneys with Concord law firm Cleveland, Waters and Bass, the company argued that Bearse erred because recyclable materials and C&D are not “mutually exclusive” as both separate out items that have to be disposed of in a landfill or an incinerator.

Attorneys Bryan Gould, Philip Hastings and Jeffrey Christensen wrote that the proposal “would not change the fundamental function of the Applicant’s facility” as American Recycling already must sort incoming waste and separate non-recyclables or “bypass waste” for transport to a disposal site.

“If American Recycling were merely collecting C&D material to transport them, unprocessed, to another site for disposal, then it would likely qualify as a transfer station. That, however, is not the case. American Recycling will be collecting and processing C&D material for recycling,” the attorneys wrote.

In their conclusion, the attorney said the operation is not being converted to a transfer station but “merely expands the scope of the material to be recycled” and therefore is within the existing permitted use and does not require a variance.

In the spring of 2019, American Recycling presented a proposal to the Planning Board to build a construction and demolition transfer station next to a rail siding on the opposite side of Industrial Boulevard. The debris would be dumped on a concrete pad and sorted for recyclables before being loaded onto rail cars and transported to an Ohio facility that can accept C&D. Estimates were for 500 tons of material a day delivered by as many as 50 trucks.

There was strong opposition to the plan, particularly among residents of nearby Maple Avenue, who said noise, truck traffic and dust from the operation posed a health risk and would harm property values.

In August 2019, the company, which had never submitted a completed site plan and wanted conditional approval from the board, withdrew its application at the urging of then-City Planner Scott Osgood rather than seek another extension.

Patrick O’Grady can be reached at pogclmt@gmail.com.