Shoreland committee prioritizes septic inspections, combines four zoning proposals for drafting

The Belgrade Lakes Association Shoreland Committee voted to prioritize and combine four proposed shoreland‑zoning changes aimed at strengthening oversight of septic systems.

At a meeting called to order at about 3:34 p.m., the committee decided to move forward with a combined draft of changes A, C, D and E, which members said would focus on identifying undocumented or older systems and require inspections for shoreland properties. "I'll work to combine those and I'm probably going to change some of the language," said Kimberly, a committee member who volunteered to prepare a redline draft for review.

Why it matters: Committee members said aging or undocumented septic systems can pose a pollution risk to the lakes, and they want a workable ordinance that planning and enforcement officials can implement. Members cited recent intern modeling that suggested well‑functioning septic systems account for a relatively small portion of phosphorus loading, but stressed that failing systems remain a concern.

What the committee agreed: Participants settled on drafting language that would (1) target properties with no existing septic documentation or systems constructed before 1995, (2) require periodic inspections for shoreland‑zone properties, and (3) include an enforcement mechanism requiring repairs or replacement within a set period. Committee members discussed a three‑year inspection interval as a reference point and suggested a one‑year window for correcting failing systems.

"I think we would skip the advertised rental properties at this point" and instead apply inspections more broadly in the shoreland zone, a member said during debate; another member added that short‑term rentals are being handled by a separate short‑term rentals committee. The committee named Brent Kryso as chair of the short‑term rental group while noting that that panel would likely address rental‑specific issues.

Enforceability and penalties: Members flagged enforceability as a central issue. "E has to have an enforcement part to it because saying it has to happen—what happens when it doesn't?" one member asked. The group discussed requiring permits and contractor oversight for repairs and having code enforcement inspect completed work; a per‑day fine was mentioned as a potential tool, but no dollar amount was adopted.

Next steps: Kimberly said she will draft the consolidated language and circulate a redline to committee members ahead of the next meeting. The committee also agreed to consult town staff (members referenced contacting Hans and Jason) about legal authority, enforcement mechanisms and the practicalities of maintaining a septic database.

Procedural note: The committee approved the minutes from its April 7 meeting by motion earlier in the session.

What’s next: Members will review Kimberly's draft and seek input from town staff and the planning board before deciding whether to present a warrant article or recommended ordinance language to the select board and before the public hearing noted for that evening.