Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shoreland committee flags ambiguous "phosphorus-containing" language that could affect mosquito and tick control
Summary
A town shoreland committee told planners the ballot language—"the use of phosphorus-containing fertilizer and pesticides is prohibited"—is badly worded, potentially ambiguous about whether pesticides are banned, and may be unenforceable; members agreed to seek a model ordinance and follow up before any enforcement begins.
The shoreland committee spent much of its meeting on a single sentence in a proposed town ordinance, warning that the phrasing could be read in different ways and could unintentionally restrict mosquito and tick control.
“Within 100 ft of a great pond, river, or upper edge of a wetland and within 75 ft of a stream, the use of phosphorus containing fertilizer and pesticides is prohibited,” a committee member read aloud from the draft ordinance. Multiple members said the sentence is “badly worded” and that its meaning is unclear.
“I thought it was banning all pesticides within 100 ft,” one member said, noting a practical concern that a blanket ban would prevent residents from controlling ticks and mosquitoes that make waterfronts unusable. Another member countered that a reasonable reading is that the ordinance bans phosphorus-containing fertilizers and not typical mosquito/tick products, which generally do not contain phosphorus.
The committee invited local applicator Eric Rasmucin to explain how products behave in the landscape. Rasmucin told the panel that many commonly used tick and mosquito treatments bind tightly to soil and dry quickly when applied by backpack sprayer, while other methods (truck-mounted soaking) or specific products such as a combination product called Onslaught can run off into water and present greater environmental risk. “There are reasonable alternatives,” he said, and emphasized application method matters for runoff risk.
Members also raised public-health tradeoffs: several residents described seasons when heavy tick pressure made waterfronts difficult to use, and one attendee said she experienced symptoms she attributed to pesticide exposure after a lawn application.
The committee noted the ordinance language will appear on an upcoming ballot but said state procedure limits immediate enforcement: under state practice, municipal pesticide ordinances typically do not become operational until the state Board of Pesticides Control posts them for applicators, commonly at the start of the next season. That timing led members to conclude there is opportunity to clarify language even if the ballot measure passes.
Next steps agreed by the committee include asking Eric to share the Smithfield ordinance that inspired the draft, contacting the Board of Pesticides Control for a model municipal pesticide ordinance and guidance, and drafting clearer language to present to the planning and select boards. A member also proposed writing a brief note for the select board summarizing the committee’s concerns and the technical input it received.
No vote was taken on the ordinance itself at the committee meeting. The committee accepted the May 5 minutes and set aside the normal order of business to hear the presentation.
