Greencastle open burning curfew flames out

A proposed ordinance from the Greencastle Common Council in regards to when residents could participate in an open burn across the city flamed out Thursday night. 

After approving first reading of the measure last month by a 6-1 vote in favor of a curfew, the council did an about face and voted against the proposed ordinance with a curfew, which included a hefty fine to violators. Instead, the council voted unanmiously to approve the measure without a curfew on when people could have a fire on their property. Councilman Vincent Aguirre was the lone no vote last month, asking council to reconsider restricting property rights without evidence of compliant history to justify it. 

According to the ordinance, the purpose is to protect public health, safety and welfare by regulating open burning within the City of Greencastle. The ordinance stated that "open burning can create air quality hazards, increase the risk of uncontrolled fire, and generate nuisance smoke." 

"The City encourages alternatives to open burning—such as composting, mulching, recycling or reuse, or municipal yard waste collection—to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and particulate pollution. These practices align with the City’s sustainability and climate resilience goal," the ordinance read. 

The sticking point in the ordinance was talk of a curfew that would have made it unlawful to ignite or maintain any fire between the hours of 1 a.m. and 8 a.m. 

Anyone caught maintaining or igniting a fire during that time would have faced a fine not to exceed $2,500 per offense, with each day constituting a separate violation. Authorities could require repeated violators to complete an educational program on sustainable waste management and air quality. 

Councilman Dave Masten said he had spoken with Greencastle Police Chief Chris Jones to gauge how big of a problem open burning was across Greencastle and noted the police department historically had not dealt with many complaints. 

"The response was we got a few, but it wasn't crazy," Masten said, adding that was along the lines of what he thought. 

As a result, Masten said his idea was to drop the curfew and have the police department monitor for issues over the summer and fall months and review the data in 2027 to determine the extent of the problem, if one exists. He said that after giving it some thought, it appeared as if the curfew may be a "solution in search of a problem," and he recommended the passage of the ordinance on second reading without the curfew in place. 

Aguirre said he was "confused" about the change of heart from his fellow council members. 

"I'm grateful the council came around to this perspective, but I'd be dishonest if I didn't note how strange the whole thing felt. This was the exact argument I made last month, that we should look at the data before acting and that this might be a solution in search of a problem. Last month, that position earned a 6-1 vote against me. This month, the mayor prompted Councilor Mastin to present essentially the same reasoning, and it was treated as though it were a fresh and novel idea that no one had considered before," Aguirre said.

Aguirre said what was most troubling was he had heard from constituents who were coming to speak out against the curfew who were told before the meeting the ordinance was changing and were sent home. 

"I appreciate that those residents were given reassurance, but the council had not discussed this topic in any public setting in the month between meetings. Residents who showed up to participate in their government were turned away before they had the chance to speak, based on a decision that had apparently already been made behind the scenes. I’m glad the right outcome was reached. But the process matters. Public comment exists for a reason, and decisions should be made at the table, not before the meeting starts," he said.

Under the new ordinance, it will be unlawful to burn leaves or grass clippings, household garbage, refuse or paper waste, construction or demolition debris, tires, waste oil or petroleum based materials, any material producing toxic smoke or odor, any fire in violation of IDEM or State Fire Marshal regulations and any burning that conflicts with the City of Greencastle's adopted sustainability or air quality goals. 

Permitted fires will include: recreational or cooking, ceremonial or community, agricultural or land management burns and air curtain destructor operations. 

All fires must be constantly attended by a competent person 18 years of age or older until fully extinguished and the fires can be extinguished by water house, extinguisher or sand. Should the Greencastle Fire Department determine the fire is a nuisance, hazard or air quality issue it will have to be extinguished immediately. 

Those in violation may be subject to the aforementioned fine and have to attend a class. 

The motion to drop the curfew details was approved unanimously and second reading of the motion was approved unanimously.