Planners having second thoughts about Aquifer Protection Ordinance

After months of preparing an Aquifer Protection Ordinance for voters to consider at the Town Meeting in March, members of the Planning Board are now expressing reservations about the idea.

At the board’s meeting in the Corner Meeting House on Monday, several members indicated they were concerned about the cost involved in instituting the program and its impact on current business operations in the proposed Aquifer Protection District.

“This regulated list (of properties) just got huge,” said Ward Peterson, a former selectman who has served on the board for several years. “Obviously anybody new, they’re going to pick up the tab (of their inspections) and we’re going to move forward, but it’s a different situation with existing businesses.”

The proposed ordinance is aimed at strengthening protection of the underground water supply that services Belmont, as well as portions of Tilton and Northfield. About one-third of this small town is over the aquifer.

The proposed ordinance would regulate land uses that could contribute to pollutants getting into the aquifer. For instance, it would require all regulated substances — such as gasoline — in quantities larger than five gallons be kept in tight containers and set on impervious surfaces that would prevent the materials from flowing into soils and drains. The containers would also have to be clearly labeled.

In addition, some activities in the protected area would be prohibited, including the development of a waste disposal operation, a solid waste landfill, a junkyard or a gas station, or the outdoor storage of bulk salt and other deicing chemicals.

Land Use Technician Rick Ball told the board he’s been working on an inventory of existing properties that might fall under the new regulations and had identified 245 lots so far. “That’s those that have some part of them in the (proposed) aquifer protection district and already have an existing industrial or commercial use,” he said. However a significant number of those businesses however might not require inspection, Ball said, if their operations do not use any of the materials or practices mentioned in the ordinance.

Town Planer Candace Daigle noted that all of the practices outlined in the ordinance are already regulated by the state Department of Environmental Services.

“It’s not just an ordinance it’s a process,” she added. “I’m sure you all realize it’s going to be a job somebody has to do. It could be a staff member or it could be someone outside we contract… I expect it will be some combination of the two.”

Ball said the initial inspections would primarily involve “education about the materials on their (business operators) property. Then we’d set up some kind of regular inspection cycle to make sure they’re in compliance with approved Best Management Practices for their business.”

But Peterson and other members seemed taken aback about the added cost of the inspection program.

Resident Alfred Beliveau, who serves as an alternate on the Zoning Board of Adjustment and was sitting in the audience, asked if the DES already oversees all the activities that would be regulated the board, why the proposed ordinance was even needed.

Planner Daigle said the state DES simply does not have enough inspectors to examine every small business in a town, the way a local inspector would. “The state is not protecting us so there’s no protection for our aquifer,” she said. “It’s your water. The state is not going to protect it.”

Chairman Peter Harris noted that town officials can’t “grandfather” in (or accept) a wrong activity in the aquifer district. “You can’t sacrifice the water quality,” he said.

A public hearing on the adoption of all zoning ordinances suggested by the Planning Board will be held in the Corner Meeting House next Monday, Dec. 17, at 7 p.m.