Popular Searches
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
Wood boiler debate burns on in village
By Paul Crossman
It seems the debate over outdoor wood boilers refuses to be put out in the village of Kinderhook, as community members crowded into a public hearing on Tuesday to make their thoughts heard on whether the Village Board should pass a local law banning the installation of new OWB’s, and limit the use of those already installed.
After hearing people discourse on both sides of the issue, the board decided against enacting the law by a vote of three to two, and instead voted to extend the current moratorium for another three months, to further examine the issues involved and fine tune the legislation.
One of the biggest issues raised by the two members of the community who own OWB’s was the fact that they didn’t feel the burning period stipulated in the law — October through the end of March — was long enough, and requested that it be extended through the end of April instead.
Though the moratorium was extended to account for just this type of discrepancy, the board seemed to feel the request was very reasonable, and changed that portion of the legislation to reflect the longer burning time before the meeting had ended.
Everyone at the meeting, including the two boiler owners and regardless of how they felt about the overall banning of the machines, did agree that there were certain regulations that had to be undertaken in order to make the boilers more acceptable to the community. Some such regulations already included in the proposed legislation are taller chimneys, yearly inspections, and burning only dry, seasoned wood.
Though this was the case, Mike Urbatis, one of the boiler operators in the village spoke up, saying that he has always done everything in his power to make sure his boiler is acceptable to both the environment and those who live around him, that he has already gone through the review and compliance process the new legislation would require, and that he still feels the law would put some unfair restrictions on his method of heating his home.
According to Urbatis, some of the major issues he has with the law (aside from the burning season being too short) are that new installation of any boilers would be completely banned, a fact that he says doesn’t make sense, as long as the new boiler is more efficient and cleaner than the boiler he currently has on his property. This would also apply to anyone who met whatever requirements the village deems appropriate to enact on the boilers, and as long as they met these stipulations, new installations should be allowed to all members of the community.
“If there are no real problems,” he told the board, “new installation should not be banned.”
Urbatis is also unhappy with the fact that if passed, the legislation would prevent him from expanding on his current installation, and the fact that inspection of the boilers must occur every year, and that a fee would be charged for each inspection.
He also went on to say that he believed the state publication “Smoke Gets in Your Lungs” contained some misinformation, and that the decision to pass the law shouldn’t be based solely on that report.
“As a responsible member of the community,” he said, “I also deserve protection under the law.”
This was agreed to by several other people who attended the meeting, saying that there was an alternate study which had recently been given to the board that used the same sources as the OAG study, and came to vastly different conclusions.
Another community member spoke up in favor of the law banning the boilers, saying that until the issue had been brought to light in the village, he had been unaware of the dangers of OWB’s, but after seeing the state report which said that particulate emissions on the boilers could exceed 1,000 times that of wood stoves, realized that something needed to be done.
This was seconded by another village resident, saying the board and the community had all the information from the state and the Attorney General’s Office for months now, and the night of the meeting was a little late to bring up conflicting reports which may or may not be as factual as that of the OAG.
The arguments went back and forth for more than half an hour before the public hearing ended, with both sides supporting different points of view — and in the case of alternate studies, even different sets of facts. It was because of these rifts in public feeling, as well as the need for possible changes in the law, that led the board to vote to wait and look into the issue further.
In the end, the vote to continue the moratorium instead of passing the legislation as it was written went through by the slim margin of three to two, with Mayor William VanAlstyne and Deputy Mayor Rich Phillips being the two no votes.
Discussion, and possibly another vote on the issue will occur at next month’s board meeting on Dec. 9.
After hearing people discourse on both sides of the issue, the board decided against enacting the law by a vote of three to two, and instead voted to extend the current moratorium for another three months, to further examine the issues involved and fine tune the legislation.
One of the biggest issues raised by the two members of the community who own OWB’s was the fact that they didn’t feel the burning period stipulated in the law — October through the end of March — was long enough, and requested that it be extended through the end of April instead.
Though the moratorium was extended to account for just this type of discrepancy, the board seemed to feel the request was very reasonable, and changed that portion of the legislation to reflect the longer burning time before the meeting had ended.
Everyone at the meeting, including the two boiler owners and regardless of how they felt about the overall banning of the machines, did agree that there were certain regulations that had to be undertaken in order to make the boilers more acceptable to the community. Some such regulations already included in the proposed legislation are taller chimneys, yearly inspections, and burning only dry, seasoned wood.
Though this was the case, Mike Urbatis, one of the boiler operators in the village spoke up, saying that he has always done everything in his power to make sure his boiler is acceptable to both the environment and those who live around him, that he has already gone through the review and compliance process the new legislation would require, and that he still feels the law would put some unfair restrictions on his method of heating his home.
According to Urbatis, some of the major issues he has with the law (aside from the burning season being too short) are that new installation of any boilers would be completely banned, a fact that he says doesn’t make sense, as long as the new boiler is more efficient and cleaner than the boiler he currently has on his property. This would also apply to anyone who met whatever requirements the village deems appropriate to enact on the boilers, and as long as they met these stipulations, new installations should be allowed to all members of the community.
“If there are no real problems,” he told the board, “new installation should not be banned.”
Urbatis is also unhappy with the fact that if passed, the legislation would prevent him from expanding on his current installation, and the fact that inspection of the boilers must occur every year, and that a fee would be charged for each inspection.
He also went on to say that he believed the state publication “Smoke Gets in Your Lungs” contained some misinformation, and that the decision to pass the law shouldn’t be based solely on that report.
“As a responsible member of the community,” he said, “I also deserve protection under the law.”
This was agreed to by several other people who attended the meeting, saying that there was an alternate study which had recently been given to the board that used the same sources as the OAG study, and came to vastly different conclusions.
Another community member spoke up in favor of the law banning the boilers, saying that until the issue had been brought to light in the village, he had been unaware of the dangers of OWB’s, but after seeing the state report which said that particulate emissions on the boilers could exceed 1,000 times that of wood stoves, realized that something needed to be done.
This was seconded by another village resident, saying the board and the community had all the information from the state and the Attorney General’s Office for months now, and the night of the meeting was a little late to bring up conflicting reports which may or may not be as factual as that of the OAG.
The arguments went back and forth for more than half an hour before the public hearing ended, with both sides supporting different points of view — and in the case of alternate studies, even different sets of facts. It was because of these rifts in public feeling, as well as the need for possible changes in the law, that led the board to vote to wait and look into the issue further.
In the end, the vote to continue the moratorium instead of passing the legislation as it was written went through by the slim margin of three to two, with Mayor William VanAlstyne and Deputy Mayor Rich Phillips being the two no votes.
Discussion, and possibly another vote on the issue will occur at next month’s board meeting on Dec. 9.
Share this Article
 |
 |
|
| Gunman takes hostage at school | PHOTO: Mexican mural |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of registerstar.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
