Couple suffers setback in fight against salt building

BELFAST — A Frankfort couple lost the first round, but they will have another chance Friday to halt the town’s construction of a salt and sand storage building they say threatens their water well.

Justice Andrew Mead denied the request by Joseph and Deborah Tyler for an emergency temporary restraining order against the town of Frankfort, but scheduled a hearing for 1 p.m. Friday on a preliminary injunction against the half-finished building.

In a complaint filed Nov. 23, the Tylers charge that the the town’s property across the Loggin Road from their home has for years been used not only for open storage of road salt and sand, but also as a burial ground for sewage sludge, oil and other pollutants, which have infiltrated their water supply. They also allege that the site preparation and foundation work for the storage building have buried those materials.

Affidavits filed by Selectmen Evelyn Adams, Lawrence Brassbridge and Sandra Andrews state that only salt and sand have been deposited on the site during the 20 years the town has used the property, and that excavation for the foundation turned up no other materials.

The selectmen also state that a laboratory test of water from the Tylers’ kitchen tap in June showed a level of chloride well less than half the state’s limit and a level of sodium less than one-fourth the limit.

Voters approved construction of the state-required building at a special town meeting Sept. 14. Frankfort has since been awarded two state grants totaling $64,000 for the $94,500 project.

Site preparation began Nov. 20 with the temporary relocation of the salt and sand pile to another area on the town’s property. The selectmen state in their affidavits that a halt in construction now would create a danger of well-contaminating runoff. The $30,000 steel building is scheduled to be delivered to the town Dec. 18.

In ruling against the temporary restraining order, Mead wrote that the evidence “does not indicate the likelihood of serious, irreparable harm.” While it is possible the materials on the site “may have infiltrated the plaintiffs’ water supply,” Mead wrote, “it appears that the defendant’s current course of conduct alleviates, not exacerbates, the situation.”