Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Septic Systems Cyanobacteria topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stoddard committee weighs new septic rules, 25-foot lakeside buffer and education to curb cyanobacteria
Summary
At a May 19 Stoddard Cyanobacteria Committee meeting, members discussed adopting new septic-system language, questioned enforcement responsibilities, proposed a pesticide/fertilizer ban and a 25-foot lakeside buffer, and called for drainage review and public education; minutes were approved and the group adjourned.
Committee member Steve Jacobs told the Stoddard Cyanobacteria Committee on May 19 that the town is committing to new septic-system language intended to reduce cyanobacteria risks linked to nutrient runoff. The meeting, held at Stoddard Town Hall and called to order at 6:36 p.m., brought several proposals about enforcement, shoreline protections and public outreach.
Steve Jacobs raised questions about enforcement authority and record-keeping, saying the state should track new septic installations and asking what role the town should play in enforcement. Compliance officer Harry Powers described how septic-system designs account for bedrooms, noted waterfront construction standards are more stringent, and emphasized that building permits are required for waterfront work.
Committee member Rex Rodanas urged stricter land-management practices, including a recommendation to prohibit pesticide and fertilizer use on new builds and existing structures. He proposed that lakeside properties maintain a 25-foot buffer to protect shorelines and cited the Shore Protection Act as relevant to shoreline standards. "Lakeside properties should have a 25’ barrier," Rodanas said.
Committee member Helen Tam-Semmens said the town currently lacks authority to enforce some measures and suggested reporting violations to the state while expanding public education on identifying and preventing cyanobacteria. She recommended that the town link to state resources, including the DES vegetation guidance and LakeSmart materials, and distribute flyers or posters at town events.
Patrick Leonard recommended a drainage review and outreach sessions during town events; he asked whether the state can provide example supplies or programs the town could use. During open discussion, participants raised questions about the Capital Improvement Plan and how much funding would be needed to improve drainage infrastructure to reduce runoff.
Procedurally, Tam-Semmens moved to approve the previous meeting minutes, Rodanas seconded, and the minutes were approved unanimously. The committee set its next meeting for June 10 (staff was asked to coordinate a 6:30 p.m. start), and Tam-Semmens moved to adjourn; Rodanas seconded and the meeting closed. Committee recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Board for consideration.
The committee focused its next meeting agenda on follow-up items: clarifying enforcement responsibilities with state agencies, pursuing drainage-cost estimates for the Capital Improvement Plan, and preparing education materials for distribution at town events.
