|
|
An ordinance to regulate outdoor woodburning furnaces (OWB) in Oneida County has been tabled by the county's health department committee.
The committee agreed to suspend the initiative "indefinitely" and to instead look at educating the public on how to use the heating devices safely, and do more research on how to make the ordinance more "user friendly" while still addressing the "health, safety and welfare" of the general public.
"We're going to take our time, doing more research, to make it a better ordinance," explained Romelle Vandervest, committee chair, later by phone.
The proposed ordinance was first presented at the meeting of the full Oneida County Board in October. It was referred back to the committee when some supervisors expressed concern over apparently conflicting language within the ordinance, as well as how it might create hardships for some of their constituents already using the devices. It was determined that the committee would hold a public hearing, even though a hearing is not required by state statute, to gauge public opinion on the issue.
On Nov. 17, more than 100 people packed the Oneida County board chambers at the courthouse to weigh in on the proposed ordinance. The overwhelming majority were against the new regulations, some expressing anger, which created a climate where the three or four in favor of the ordinance soft-pedaled their support.
Donald Palin of Cassian said his house sat alone on 40 acres so his OWB didn't bother anyone. "Some of us are concerned about the size of government and government in our lives," he said. "I don't want a permit and I don't want to pay for it." He asked how many complaints the health department has fielded last year. Vandervest replied there had been four.
Mary Schoeneck of Sugar Camp suggested that the health department deal with complaints from OWBs on a individual basis.
Don Gauger, former town chairman of Minocqua, said the new regulations would be impossible for him to follow, given the location of his house on his property. Heating with an OWB was the only way some people could afford to heat their homes given the current economic climate, he said, adding, "The way things are going for people today, some of them really need wood burners."
Oneida County Supervisor Larry Greschner submitted a detailed written analysis of the ordinance to the committee. During his three-minute verbal comment he said that the ordinance is "vague." He mentioned several discrepancies within the language. The ordinance is flawed and that in the current economy, he said, the county should not be telling people how to heat their homes. "How much regulation is too much?" he asked. "This is a case of over-regulating."
Several people pointed out that other types of burning were permissible in the state, including the burning of leaves, brush and wood burned from an indoor fireplace or wood-heating device.
Sharon Bricker said that she felt the ordinance was "singling out a single group of people." What about burning Christmas wrap in a fireplace or my part-time neighbor who burns moldy leaves next to me?"
Mark Patulski agreed, saying, "This is the most discrimination since overlay districts."
Supervisor Charles Wickman presented a pamphlet to the committee which explained woodburning practices in the state which were allowed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Julie Wood said that although she had asthma, she "dealt with it." "Are you gonna pay my bills?" she asked. "We aren't loaded with money."
Tom Handrick of Minocqua said that the county's health department already had the authority to act with current laws if complaints arose. "Government is taking too much control over people's lives," he said. Chuck Kopp of Crescent agreed, saying that this was an example of "government gone wild."
However, DNR Division of Air and Waste Air Management representative Neil Baudhuin said that currently OWBs were not regulated at the federal level. At the state level, he said, there were only voluntary guidelines concerning the devices. "We do get complaints on OWBs each year but have a difficult time dealing with them because we can only make suggestions," he said.
Dona Wininsky, director of public policy and communications for the American Lung Association, spoke up, admitting she felt a little uncomfortable in the midst of such a large crowd which disagreed with her point of view.
Wininsky said that although burning brush, leaves and wood from fire pits, home fireplaces and out in the open were not under discussion for regulation, comparing their particulate matter to that created from OWBs was like comparing "apples to oranges." "They are different because of the duration of time in which they are used," she said.
She said that "government is already in our backyard," citing how the federal government has imposed air quality standards on six counties. She said that these counties were required to bring the "particulate pollution down" and expressed hope that that Oneida County would not be joining these six counties. She suggested the health department regulate future installations of OWBs but that she "wouldn't disagree" with grandfathering existing units.
Former Rhinelander Police Chief Glen Parmeter said he had done a lot of research before installing an OWB at his house but that the regulations under consideration would make it impossible for him to keep it legally. "I'd be in violation," he said.
Joel Flory said that he thought a grandfathering clause was a good idea but that new units should follow more stringent guidelines for installation. He said that not only were the immediate neighbors of those heating with OWBs being affected but that all county residents shouldered some of the costs and effects of additional particulate matter in the air breathed by all. "The county is subsidizing this form of heating," he said, with the greater costs of additional health care, for example, being borne by everyone.
Vandervest said discussion at the Thursday committee meeting indicated that committee members had heard the comments regarding grandfathering existing units and were in "unanimous agreement" that a grandfather clause should be included in any revisions of the proposed ordinance.
The issue of good air quality for everyone, Vandervest added, was still a priority of the department and the concerns which brought about consideration of an ordinance regulating OWBs had not gone away.