Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Odor Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ellsworth adopts ordinance aimed at controlling nuisance odors; code officer gains enforcement discretion
Summary
After public comment and council debate, Ellsworth adopted a revised odor ordinance (chapter 66) to regulate offensive odors from commercial and industrial uses, tie fines to state statute, and give the code enforcement officer discretion in enforcement; the council removed the word “residential” from the whereas clause before adoption.
The Ellsworth City Council on April 3 adopted an amended odor ordinance (Chapter 66) intended to give code enforcement clearer tools to address offensive odors from commercial and industrial sources.
“From my perspective ... I actually look at the way this is drafted and think it's got more teeth than less teeth,” said Tim Pease, city attorney, describing legal changes that remove a previous 15-minute persistence requirement and tie fines and enforcement options to state statute 38 MRSA §4452 (as cited in the meeting packet).
Robert Grant, the city’s code enforcement officer, told the council the revised ordinance provides “better enforcement … options than the couple of sentences that I have to deal with in the general odor ordinance,” and said he expects to use available testing kits as evidence in enforcement cases.
The ordinance establishes definitions and a reasonableness standard for determining objectionable odors, sets out phased enforcement options rather than requiring immediate court action, and ties penalties to the fines range in statute referenced by staff. During the public hearing Tim Stone of 30 Old Mill Road expressed concern the draft lacked sufficient consequences for repeat offenses and warned it could allow repeated delays in remedies. Staff and the city attorney said the ordinance intentionally leaves discretion to the code office to avoid forcing immediate court filings in situations where alternative remedies (consent agreements, abatement plans) might be more effective.
Councilors also debated language in the ordinance preamble. A friendly amendment to remove the word “residential” from a whereas clause was offered and accepted before the final motion so the ordinance would focus on industrial and commercial sources as discussed in hearings and staff reports.
The council moved to adopt Chapter 66 as presented, effective upon passage, and directed the city manager and the code enforcement office to implement outreach and enforcement steps. The motion passed (vote tally not specified in the record). Councilors requested a follow-up report from staff after several months of warmer weather to assess whether the ordinance is working.
