BOWDOINHAM
Selectmen briefly discussed a draft fireworks ordinance at its meeting Tuesday night, which is expected to go to voters at the town’s annual town meeting in June.
The town overwhelmingly shot down a proposed fireworks ban at the June 2013 town meeting in response to complaints of nuisance fireworks being set off in town. The ban was placed on that town warrant as a result of a citizen petition by a Post Road resident. Enforcement was a major challenge highlighted during the debate.
Town Manager William Post contacted a group of people who had previously complained about fireworks in town to meet with him. That group provided parameters for what they’d like to see in the ordinance. The draft ordinance the board discussed Tuesday would restrict use of fireworks within 1,000 feet of property with livestock on it.
Selectman Brian Hobart, who is a newly elected member of the House of Representatives, sponsored LD 177, An Act To Protect Farm Animals form Noise from the Discharge of Fireworks and Explosive. If enacted, the bill would prevent use of consumer fireworks and explosives within 1,000 feet of any pastures or field that contains livestock. Earlier this month, it went before a public hearing and work session with the Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety.
“I’ve got to tell you that bill does not even have a pulse,” Hobart said Tuesday.
His bill was less restrictive than four other bills and he said the response from the committee was: “Not now, not ever,” because the state wants to leave it to the towns to control fireworks, as one size doesn’t fit all. Hobart also suggested the 1,000-foot restriction is a bit too much.
While selectmen noted some restrictions in the ordinance are already state law, such as the restriction of fireworks use on Class 4 and Class 5 fire danger days, Post said they were items worth restating.
The ordinance as currently drafted, would be enforced by the Sagadahoc County Sheriff ’s Office and stipulates fireworks users would be financially responsible for expenses incurred by the town and all mutual aid response towns, for costs associated with the mitigation of any fire or other emergency resulting from the misuse of consumer fireworks within the town.
Post said the goal is to develop an ordinance that is reasonable and not too restrictive, so that it can be passed and if there are still problems, amendments can be made.
Because the voters may be voting on three ordinances of interest, Selectmen Tuesday decided to hold the annual town meeting in June at Bowdoinham Community School, a larger venue than Town Hall where most meetings have been held in past years.
In other business:
. Post announced that Cianbro, the contractor for Central Maine Power Co.’s Power Reliability Project that impacted the Brown’s Point and Pork Point roads, have agreed to pay the town $72,000 to repair damage to the roads sustained during construction. Not related to the project, Post said the small onelane bridge on Brown’s Point Road will be posted at 22 tons, which may prevent a loaded plow truck from crossing in the winter.
. Selectmen agreed to have an attorney review, at no cost, the Maxwell Cemetery Trust Account to see if the trust can be amended so that the approximately $347,000 in the fund can be used perhaps to maintain some of the more than 50 other cemeteries in town the town is responsible for.
dmoore@timesrecord.com
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less