| City close to clearing up smoky issue |
|
By Joel Stottrup The air is still a little hazy for determining what exact restrictions could be coming for outdoor wood-burning boilers in the city of Princeton. But the city council reduced some of the haze last Thursday when it took up the topic at its regular meeting that night. Princeton City Administrator Mark Karnowski had brought up the subject about a month ago for the council to consider. He explained then that he had seen a lot of e-mail from officials in various cities raising concerns about the smoke from such boilers as being detrimental to people’s health. In fact the proposed ordinance that Karnowski had shown the council to consider went at great length to explain how wood-burning smoke can be damaging to the health when it is inhaled. When the council looked at the topic again last Thursday, only three of the five council members were present — Mayor Jeremy Riddle, Paul Whitcomb and Dick Dobson. Absent were Lee Steinbrecher and Victoria Hallin. Steinbrecher had worried, during the first discussion, that banning the outdoor wood-burning boilers could be too heavy handed. But he also suggested there could be a problem with wood debris piling up in a residence and ended up saying he wasn’t sure what should be done about the question of restricting or banning wood-burning boilers within city limits. Such boilers, which transfer heat from the boiler to a structure, such as a home, through an underground water pipe, have become more popular in rural areas. Now it seems they have made their way into some cities. The sample ordinance that the council looked at a month ago would have grandfathered in any existing exterior wood-burning boilers. That ordinance included the condition that once such boilers needed repair or stopped functioning, they could not be fixed nor replaced on the property. Mayor Riddle, during discussion last month and last Thursday, indicated a preference to not be more restrictive than necessary. A month ago he wondered aloud if a tall enough smokestack on the boilers could be a solution, but questioned if that would work on a boiler. Last Thursday Riddle suggested that exterior wood-burning boilers should not be allowed to go into areas of a city that have normal housing density. But he also said that there might be cases where such boilers could work out in city areas that do not have dense housing. Karnowski said that recreational wood fires in wood pits also create smoke. However, Karnowski added, those fires are usually only going for roughly two hours, while a lot of outdoor boilers are running all day, every day of the week. Karnowski did fulfill a promise he had made to the council a month ago to gather more information on the topic. The source he used to do that was Rachel Carlson, research attorney for the League of Minnesota Cities. Carlson supplied Karnowski with copies of two ordinances on external woodburners — one from the city of Harmony and one from the city of Kennedy. She also included a story she wrote last year. Both the Harmony and Kennedy ordinances begin with stating that breathing wood smoke is hazardous to the health of individuals and to the public beyond the property of the woodburner. Both ordinances require a permit to install such furnaces on property in those cities, and include a lot of restrictions on the kind of fuel to be used. For example petroleum products would not be allowed to be burned in those stoves. The Kennedy ordinance specifies that only fuels can be used for which the outdoor boiler is designed. The Kennedy ordinance also prohibits any “dense smoke, noxious fumes, gas and soot, or cinders in unreasonable quantities.” Carlson, in her story, notes that besides becoming more popular in rural areas, more cities have been receiving inquiries about installing them within their city limits. In addressing the topic of whether there are dangers from such furnaces, Carlson mentioned that the New York state attorney general commissioned a study on outdoor woodburners or OWBs. The attorney general’s study concluded that OWB-smoke led to a variety of health symptoms including upset stomach, headaches, dizziness, respiratory effects and throat and eye irritation. It also stated that it prevented neighbors from using their yards for normal activities such as gardening, hanging clothes out to dry and playing with children. Furthermore the study concluded that OWBs have left a residue and smoke odors on items inside homes and have set off carbon monoxide detectors. Federal Environmental Protection Agency studies also indicate that OWBs produce more than 1,000 times more smoke than traditional interior gas and oil furnaces, Carlson noted. One common problem, Carlson wrote, is the short stacks on the OWBs emitting a dense smoke very close to the ground and near windows and in areas where people circulate. Furthermore, Carlson’s article states, more problems arise when people burn trash, tires or treated wood in the boilers and potentially release toxic chemicals into the air. Karnowski indicated to the council that OWBs don’t appear to be an issue yet in the city of Princeton. Council member Dobson said that his worry is that by allowing OWBs in the city, how will the city ensure what kind of things are burned in them. “And how much time can you take to enforce something that might blow back up in our face?” Dobson asked. Riddle agreed that for the majority of the lots in the city, it would not make sense to allow these OWBs. Council member Whitcomb brought up the scenario of an undeveloped area with OWBs, eventually becoming developed into high density housing within the city. In that case, could the city prohibit the use of the OWBs in that development, Whitcomb asked. Karnowski yielded to Paul Dove, with the city consulting legal firm, Dove, Fretland & VanValkenburg, who was in the audience, to give an answer. “I think it is possible to do something like that, but it would require some pretty strict language,” Dove responded. Could the restrictions be done through zoning, Mayor Riddle asked. “I think you could,” Dove answered. Karnowski then said that judging by the discussion, he should draft a proposed ordinance that would ban OWBs in an R-1 residential district, but could be considered on larger lots. The ordinance would also prohibit OWBs if homes are constructed all around, Karnowski said. Riddle, Whitcomb and Dobson agreed that is their consensus. It was one of about a half dozen business items the council covered that evening in a packed council room. All the chairs were occupied and the reason was because of 30 Princeton High School students attending the meeting as part of class work. The students who were asked what class they were attending the meeting for, said it was economics. Comments (1)
 ...
written by Cliff , November 26, 2009 As an owner of an OWB, I personally would not install one at a residence within the city of Princeton. They do produce more smoke than and indoor fireplace would, and are not designed to be used in close proximity to other residences. In the surrounding townships, I do believe that a properly maintained and operated OWB is a welcome and efficient tool for the home owner. By using properly seasoned, and dry fuel you can greatly reduce the amount of smoke produced. In addition, consideration of prevailing winds, elevation, and distance to neighboring houses should be considered. I do believe the best solution would be to approve or disapprove the installation of an OWB on a case by case basis. In closing, I would like to add...is there more smoke created from OWB's heating homes in our area, or from the fires set every year at the refuge to make the grass green.? Write comment
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
