Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

Petitioned acquifer protection plan is drastic and unnecessary

To The Daily Sun,

I am writing because I do not support Article 2 on the town ballot which is a petition to stop all new or expanded industrial uses on the aquifer. I am a member of the Belmont Planning Board and the board also voted unanimously not to support this petition.

In 2001 the Belmont Planning Board joined with the towns of Northfield and Tilton to develop adequate protection for this aquifer, which is shared by the three towns. The towns worked with the state and the regional planning commission and developed aquifer protection ordinances, which prohibit uses dangerous to water quality and require all remaining commercial and industrial uses to follow strict best management protection guidelines and to be regularly inspected. Belmont voters adopted the board's proposed Aquifer Protection Ordinance in 2008.

As a result, the town's tax base can continue to benefit from quality commercial and industrial development while balancing that with strict operational guidelines.

In Belmont the aquifer protection zone is 7,541 acres, which is 39 percent of the entire community. That makes our job of regulating uses over the aquifer very difficult. It requires solid regulation and oversight to balance the town's need for a solid tax base. That was the purpose of the tri-town study — to use science and facts to develop an ordinance.

Absolutely no science or facts have been provided to support asking the voters to eliminate industrial development. References have been made to water quality disasters in other parts of the country that have no comparison whatsoever to situation here. In the past, voters have twice overwhelmingly voted down aquifer petitions by this petitioner (3:1 and 4:1 against).
The towns of Northfield and Tilton are maintaining their ordinances and will gladly accept the quality development that will no longer be permitted in Belmont.

I have been a member of the Belmont Planning Board for 28 years. I have also served as a selectman and on the Budget Committee and Conservation Commission. I understand how such decisions require balance of competing interests, and that they impact all of the taxpayers in the community. I urge voters to consider this matter very carefully. Water quality is of great importance. But this drastic, unsupported proposal is unnecessary and will result in adverse impacts to all taxpayers.

Vote No on Article 2.

Ward Peterson

Belmont

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 164

Most prudent thing for voters to do is say ‘no’ on biosolid ban

To The Daily Sun,

There has been a lot of discussion in your paper lately about Article 3, regarding biosolids, that is on the Gilmanton town ballot for Tuesday, March 8.

At a candidate's night, I asked a selectman who is running for re-election, since the article has the words that ban biosolids and he had inquired on the town legal counsel, did that mean they were banned at the end of the day if the article was adopted? Or, as the voter's guide claimed, that it didn't affect farmers who were currently using biosolids to fertilize their land?

Interpretation of his answer was not discernible. In other words, there was no clear yes or no answer. It appears that if the article was adopted, they would be banned as of Tuesday, March 8, thus disrupting farmers who have contractual agreements with companies to spread biosolids. Or, as the voter's guide claims to state, that people presently spreading biosolids would be able to continue. Sound confusing? Sure is.

It is always good thinking that when in doubt of the effect this ban would have on our farmers, to vote "no" on Article 3.

Since there are two points of view, banning biosolids outright or allowing present users of biosolids to continue to spread, the prudent thing to do is to vote "no" on Article 3.

In an effort for more clarity about application of biosolids, one might want to go to their computer and read the report called "Manual of Best Practices for Land Application of Biosolids," published by the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, revised March 2015.

George B. Roberts Jr.

Gilmanton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 254