Peru says no to outdoor-wood-boiler law

Local News

Discussion

PLEASE NOTE: There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

ALSO NOTE: Derisive name-calling of an individual or group will result in the entire comment being deleted. This includes the terms "stupid" and "idiot" and similar references.

Welcome to our new online comments feature. Before you can join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address.

Once you do, your comments will post after they have been reviewed by a moderator.

We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified, at the newspaper’s discretion, for a number of reasons. Here are some typical practices to avoid in trying to get your comment printed:

There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

Don’t state as a fact something that is unsubstantiated or that our editors wouldn't know to be true.

Don’t presume someone’s guilt in a case when it hasn't been established by a court.

Don’t assail or impugn an identifiable individual or group. If you have that kind of criticism, sign your name and submit it as a Letter to the Editor. (There is some leeway on this in connection with public officials, but it is not unconditional.)

Don’t use profanity. This includes the term “tea bagger.”

Don’t be incendiary or tasteless. Those qualities are subjective, of course, and our editors will be the arbiters.

Do not identify yourself in the main content area of the article content form. Only by enforcing this rule can the moderators prevent unscrupulous commenters from falsely identifying themselves as someone they are not.

Don't type in all caps. It is considered the Internet equivalent of shouting.

In sports articles, do not criticize officiating.

Remember, moderators are not allowed to edit any article comments. If an article comment fails any of the above criteria, the entire comment will be deleted.

We monitor comments Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. Approval of comments outside these times may be delayed.

comments powered by Disqus

July 31, 2008

By JEFF MEYERS The Press Republican Thu Jul 31, 2008, 08:44 AM EDT

PERU -- Peru officials shot down a proposed law that would have regulated the use of outdoor wood burners in the town.

The council voted 3-1 this week to reject the local law.

The proposal was a revision of legislation that the council considered two months ago when Supervisor Donald Covel appointed a committee to revamp the original draft.

Councilor Brandy McDonald called the proposal "confusing as heck" and cited problems with the requirement that existing outdoor wood burners provide the town with a bill of sale and the need to revamp existing boilers within a 60-day period to meet new regulations.

"If we're going to approve a law, it ought to be clear and very defendable," said Councilor Peter Glushko.

He voted to reject the law but added that he was torn about the decision because he does not want to see a run on outdoor wood boilers if no regulations exist.

"As this (law) stands, no, it is not (clear and defendable)," he added. "This law is going to have to be thrown out anyway."

ADJUSTMENTS

Covel said he was supportive of "going ahead with the law" but felt it needed tweaking from a legal perspective.

He said Town Attorney William Favreau has agreed to review the original proposal and subsequent revisions and will have suggestions within the next few weeks.

SUPPORTS LAW

Councilor Thomas Powers cast the dissenting vote, saying that not enacting the proposal will put a lot of Peru residents at risk for health concerns and may set the town up to face future malfeasance lawsuits.

"At least it gives us guidelines, if nothing else," he said, adding that the law could be amended if needed.

PUBLIC VIEWS

Before Monday's vote, the town held a public hearing on the proposal, and many residents raised concerns.

Linda Lamountain, who sat on a committee to revise the original law, said she couldn't understand why there were restrictions on outdoor wood boilers and not on pellet stoves, which she said burn more dangerous materials.

She asked the council to explain the difference.

Councilors said the public hearing was to gather information from the public, not to answer questions.

Alluding to environmental concerns that outdoor wood boilers are more of a health concern than regular wood stoves, Ron Lamountain said wood boilers are actually more environmentally friendly because they rely on local resources and not oil from the Middle East.

Walter Rickert, who lives in the hamlet of Peru, said he was concerned with the regulations that prevented anyone in the hamlet from owning an outdoor wood boiler. He has owned one for 10 years and has never had a complaint from town officials, he said.

Lamountain suggested dealing with the situation as an ordinance and not a law so each situation could be dealt with individually.

The town has had a moratorium on outdoor wood boilers for the past two months, but it will expire this week.

Councilors chose not to renew the moratorium but will await advice from the town attorney.

jmeyers@pressrepublican.com