Half-Mile Rule, Full-Town Impact: Southwest Harbor Discusses Reach of Soil Testing Ordinance

Carrie Jones

Mar 19, 2026

The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by Choco-Latté Café.

---

SOUTHWEST HARBOR—Just months after voters overwhelmingly approved new soil testing rules aimed at protecting residents from pollution, town officials are reconsidering how far those protections should reach—and who, exactly, they are meant to protect.

At a March 17 workshop, the Planning Board and new Code Enforcement Officer Jarrod Kushla began reworking the citizen-led ordinance, grappling with fundamental questions about its scope, intent, and unintended consequences such as whether it could restrict development across more of the town than voters realized.

Approved 554–187 in November, the ordinance requires soil testing for certain projects near state-designated “uncontrolled” contamination sites. But as written, officials worry it may apply more broadly than intended, potentially triggering testing requirements in areas tied to sites that have already been remediated or for uses that might not disrupt much soil.

“My goal for this meeting is to determine the who, what, where, when, why, and how. I want to take that citizens’ initiative that was drafted and just backtrack a little bit just to determine those, those different categories so we can frame, make sure we can better frame that ordinance and better outline,” Kushla told the Planning Board members.

Within Southwest Harbor, the only site considered “uncontrolled” and not remediated by the state is the Worcester Associates landfill property, which is in between Long Pond and the Marshall Brook Road and began in the 1930s with an open burning dump that was used by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and then the town. It has polluted ground water in the area.

The Planning Board Vice Chair Lee Worcester was part of the March 17 workshop. He is a member of Worcester Associates, which has had a recently approved subdivision (the Trundy Farm Subdivision) in the area of the landfill.

The subdivision is what inspired a citizens’ initiative for new soil testing requirements for builds that require Planning Board approval within .5 miles of state-determined “uncontrolled” sites.

Acadia Disposal District Representative James “Jim” Vallette has appealed that subdivision’s approval. That appeal will likely be heard by the town’s Appeals Board, April 1.

Kushla and others have worried that because the ordinance just says “uncontrolled,” soil testing rules apply to all three sites in town—including those remediated—, therefore limiting where development can occur without testing. Those three sites would be the Worcester Landfill, which is near the newly approved Trundy Farm subdivision, the Fox property, and the Stanley Boat Yard.

---

WHO ARE THEY PROTECTING

During the hour-long workshop, March 17, Kushla hoped to focus on the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the ordinance and began with who the ordinance is trying to protect.

“I want to start off with the who, who are we trying to protect?” Kushla asked.

The residents of town was the easiest of the answers.

Others added “visitors” and the “environment” and there was discussion about laborers who work the land as well.

---

WHAT ARE THEY PROTECTING THEM FROM?

“What are we protecting all of these people from? Would that be soil contamination, regardless of where it is in the town, if it’s known, that’s what we want to protect them from, so if we have known areas?” Kushla asked.

“We have unknown areas, too,” member John Williams said.

“We’re using the word ‘protect,’ and I don’t know when it comes to, frankly, any other part of our ordinance that we administer this in the sense of protecting,” Worcester said. “We are identifying certain things that you need to meet. I don’t think the town has ever assumed the role of that we’re going to ensure that no harm will come to anyone due to the application of this ordinance. We’re identifying, we want to identify things that could and that can be dealt with in a responsible manner.”

”To that same end, a board is about permissions,” Chair Eric Davis said. “And if we’re allowing an activity to occur, there’s certain standards to be met. And I think that’s where there’s concern that the soil might be contaminated and that there’s activity that might be stirring it up.”

It really pertains to soil disturbing activities, he said, not the existence of the contaminated land itself.

Vallette, speaking from the public, read the town’s land use ordinance, stressing the word protect as he did so, saying that the land use ordinance’s purpose is to protect.

He said, “The Land Use Ordinance seeks to protect buildings and lands from flooding and accelerated erosion, to protect archaeological and historic resources.”

Worcester then said that he meant it differently.

“I took it as far as the fact that we are going to protect individual instances and so on that it will not do to make it specific to a person or an event or whatever. And this one, I mean, I think it is a matter of how are we using the word protect? And it can have a lot of definitions,” Worcester said.

Vallette asked. “Would you agree that the land use ordinance purpose is to protect the environment, the neighbors and natural resources?”

“Those that are listed there, you know, I’d agree with that,” Worcester responded.

Chair Davis suggested, “It’s to regulate our permissions to do so in a protective, environmental way.”

And not, he said, to take the job of the state’s environmental agency.

“I think Jared, we’re going to get to a point where we’re not qualified to make that decision,” Davis said.

---

WHERE SHOULD THE RULE APPLY

Some members of the board thought that the new soil testing rules should apply to the entire town.

They spoke about having the ordinance not confined to just areas near uncontrolled sites with known hazardous chemicals.

“It feels like it’s punishing the entire town,” Charlotte Gill said. “I have a question, and I just want to know for my own personal desire, is why hasn’t this been capped and closed, and when is that going to happen? Is there any kind of plan in place for that? Because it does seem like that is the elephant—”

“I’m not prepared to answer that tonight, but in a proper form, I’d be happy to,” Worcester said.

“Because otherwise, I think we’re just chasing it forever, because it’s just going to continue to happen,” she said, stressing it wasn’t a personal attack.

Worcester said he believed the proper forum for him to answer that question wouldn’t be at the workshop, but with the town Select Board.

“I think it’s a question that probably most people have. That is the obvious,” Gill said. “We’re doing this because of that. And that’s going to continue. So, it just seems logical.”

Kushla said that the ordinance has to cover the whole town and can’t just pick out sites within the town.

Vallette said that the reason why the citizens used the measure of .5 miles from an uncontrolled site is because that’s a state metric.

“But in their own standards, they call for testing within a half a mile of any site that receives sewage sludge because of the PFAS (forever, toxic, cancer causing chemicals) concerns,” Vallette said. “So this uncontrolled site received sewage sludge for a period of time in the late 70s, early 80s. We don’t know how much, but we do know that we’ve seen PFAS in Trundy Farm subdivision, the testing round that you all just saw and voted to approve. So we know that there’s an uncontrolled site listed by DEP that used sewage sludge, and DEP standard is to test within a half a mile of that site. So that’s, you know, the spirit and the reasoning behind that in the ordinance.”

---

THE HOW

The group discussed potential tweaks to the ordinances, exemptions and triggers. None have been finalized. There was also discussion of how to find a mechanism to identify possible other sites in town and what sorts of activity would trigger review (such as major soil disturbance rather than minimal) and who the review authority would be: code enforcement officer or planning board.

Kushla also spoke to changing the language of what contaminants would be looked for if the ordinance was town-wide.

​​“I was very ambitious in my plans to get this through by June for the June election,” said Kushla. “It’s a little unrealistic, and I want to edge any expectations towards that. My goal is still June. I’m hoping for the best and planning for the worst case scenario is that we’d have to wait til November to get that on the ballot.”

The Planning Board will likely workshop the proposed changes again, Tuesday, March 31. This will be at the Southwest Harbor Firehouse at 6 p.m.

---

PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE

There was no public comment during the public hearing about the town’s plan to rebuild its uninsurable public works garage. The Planning Board then voted to reaffirm their previous decision on the performance and completion standards for the facility.

---

LINKS TO LEARN MORE

Planning Board packet

Planning Board minutes archive with recordings is here.

---

Follow us on Facebook or BlueSky or Instagram. And as a reminder, you can easily view all our past stories and press releases here.

Bar Harbor Story is a mostly reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Thanks for being here with us and being part of our community too!