Blueberry Barrens Talking Points Notes

	A	B	C	D
1	MAINE SUBDIVISION CRITERIA CHEAT SHEET
2
3	NOTES ON THINGS IN THE APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION-- Links are to references in the actual text		NOTES:	Who will talk about this?
4	STORMWATER	"RUNOFF TO THE SALT POND WILL BE INCREASED BUT DUE TO THE TIDAL NATURE OF THE WATERBODY FLOODING CONTROL STANDARDS CAN BE WAIVED BASED ON MAINE DEP CHAPTER 500 RULES. "	This is a quote from page 55 of their revised report. (page 5 of the stormater study) I tried to look into the DEP Chapter 500 waiver myself and it seems to say that any water flowing into the ocean is basically okay, and only specifically exemptedurban impatired streams but I didn't get that far.	Kristin (lawyer) and TIM
5	SEPTIC	Most of the septic fields will have to made with fill above the existing grade and be very large-- when they dug test pits they often hit water within 10-12 inches. This seems marginal.	Do we have any expert to talk about this? Also impacts scenic elements. The septic sites do seem non-ideal and it could be a water quality issue.
6	Wildlife	Their wildlife consultant clearly states the "findings are preliminary" and that the letter "should not be interpreted as a comprehensive review" but they paraphrase from this letter in their "updated" application without including these qualifications. Presenting these "preliminary" findings as fact is misleading and disingenuous besides being simply incomplete.	This was brought up, but not the dishonesty of putting it in this "updated" narrative out of context and without the qualifiers in the original letter from the Maine Department	Amy?
7	Their Open Area CALCULATIONS	Their updated submission includes an "open area calculation"-- but these calculations don't include the driveways or the septic fields. They do not encompass the full nature of the disturbances to the site. Because so much of the site is ledge and quite steeply sloped significant grading will have to occur-- through either copious amounts of fill or blasting. The contours of large portions of the site will be disturbed because of the nature of thes interventions.	I think it's important to emphasize that the slopes and "ledginess" of the site will require more disruptive disturbances to the existing topology and scenic nature of the site beyond the simple size of the houses.
8	RARE AND IREPLACEALE	They don't address how special the site is. They just say there aren't endangered plants there.	evidence of the Downeast Coastal Inventory and wider interest in the site. They do not address it in their narrative at all and skip to talking about plants.	Dan
9	WELLS (Letter from their expert not linked here but Tim has it under control I think)	Concerns about how quickly wells can refill with this much demand and water quality. Also whether the water quality in the area is acceptable-- others nearby need reverse osmosis systems because of saltwater intrusion.		TIM
10
11	HOA RULES	I'm confused about what of what they submitted is an HOA rules (which can be changed and what is a deed restriction. HOA rules can be changed and are not adequate for long term problem solving. The board seemed to agree with this at the 7/11 meeting when the Parker Point developer (Sergei) brought up the issue of the general unenforceability of HOA provisions and the weaknesses of relying on internal hoa controls for broader land use issues.	The board seemed to agree before at the Parker Point subdivision presentation that HOA rules aren't the best eforcement mechanism for issues relating to the wider community because only the HOA can enforce them, and most don't want to sue or fine their neighbors. Deed restrictions are much more effective mechanisms of enforcement and don't seem to be what were included here.
12
13	Pollution	they don't take into account the history of heribicide use on the site and the potential impact of disturbing the soils.
14
15
16
17
18	BLUE HILL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOTES AND LINKS		Notes:	Who Will Talk about this?
19	PROJECT NOT COMPATIBLE WITH SEVERAL LAND USE GOALS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN	TOWN GOAL IS TO PRESERVE "RURAL, SMALL TOWN CHARACTER" AND "PROTECT RURAL AND WATERFRONT AREAS FROM THE IMPACTS OF INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT"	Page 227 of the Comprehensive Plan-- the planning board is specifically cited as having part of the responsibility for achieving these goals.	LUCY
20	The SALT POND is idenitified as an "IMPAIRED WATERSHED"	Salt Pond is identified as an "impaired watershed" THE ONLY SUCH AREA IN TOWN. "DEP also maintains a list to encourage communities to take action to restore or protect waters impaired or threatened primarily by polluted runoff. The list also helps prioritize DEP nonpoint source water pollution controlefforts and grant funds. Blue Hill does not have any lakes or streams on the DEP lists of Impaired or Threatened watersheds, but Salt Pond is on the list of Impaired or Threatened marine waters dueto bacteria. (The DEP Water Resources map — Figure I-2—shows the watershed as Impaired, but the December 2022 NPS Priority List for Marine Waters puts Salt Pond in the Threatened category)." Page 141	Can the oyster people speak to this?	Oyster people?
21	Aquaculture	"Salt Pond (and Carleton Stream flowing into it) should be a focus of continued efforts to identify the nature of any NPS pollutants and, if identified, to mitigate the flow of these pollutants into these water bodies. As discussed in the Marine Resources chapter, all of the Blue Hill areas licensed for aquaculture are located in Salt Pond." Page 142
22	TRADITIONAL ACCESS TO PRIVATE LANDS	The Carleton Stream area has been traditionally used as access by not just the elvers? History of implied access to the site and important of that as a Maine tradition. Make sure Jan and others who have lived in the area for a long time submit written comments.	Can someone who has been in the area a long time speak to this?
23	Use of Unique Assets for Economic Growth	In the "Economy" Chapter -- Well said
24	SCENIC RESOURCES page 177	This field is listed as a SCENIC resource in the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN page 177 A quote from that page: "While there are no immediate threats to Blue Hill’s natural and scenic resources, there is the risk of longer-term and cumulative damage through future development."		Lucy And EVERYONE!
25
26	SHellfish Habitat/Pollution see page 172	"one failed septic system .... could close a mudflat" page 172 of the comprehensive plan.
27	Habitat Blocks pages 159-161	Page 161 "Blue Hill still has quite a few large tracts of undeveloped land. If development pressure increases and/or if state and federal environmental regulations weaken, the Town may want to consider additional efforts to try to preserve large undeveloped holdings, such as appeals for additional conservation. For example, requiring subdivisions to cluster homes on smaller lots to conserve undeveloped open space is one method that can reduce the fragmentation of habitat."
28
29
30
31	NOTES ON THINGS IN THE APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION-- Links are to references in the actual text		NOTES:	Who will talk about this?
32	STORMWATER	"RUNOFF TO THE SALT POND WILL BE INCREASED BUT DUE TO THE TIDAL NATURE OF THE WATERBODY FLOODING CONTROL STANDARDS CAN BE WAIVED BASED ON MAINE DEP CHAPTER 500 RULES. "	This is a quote from page 55 of their revised report. (page 5 of the stormater study) I tried to look into the DEP Chapter 500 waiver myself and it seems to say that any water flowing into the ocean is basically okay, and only specifically exemptedurban impatired streams but I didn't get that far.	Kristin (lawyer) and TIM
33	SEPTIC	Most of the septic fields will have to made with fill above the existing grade and be very large-- when they dug test pits they often hit water within 10-12 inches. This seems marginal.	Do we have any expert to talk about this? Also impacts scenic elements. The septic sites do seem non-ideal and it could be a water quality issue.
34	Wildlife	Their wildlife consultant clearly states the "findings are preliminary" and that the letter "should not be interpreted as a comprehensive review" but they paraphrase from this letter in their "updated" application without including these qualifications. Presenting these "preliminary" findings as fact is misleading and disingenuous besides being simply incomplete.
35	Their Open Area CALCULATIONS	Their updated submission includes an "open area calculation"-- but these calculations don't include the driveways or the septic fields. They do not encompass the full nature of the disturbances to the site. Because so much of the site is ledge and quite steeply sloped significant grading will have to occur-- through either copious amounts of fill or blasting. The contours of large portions of the site will be disturbed because of the nature of thes interventions.	I think it's important to emphasize that the slopes and "ledginess" of the site will require more disruptive disturbances to the existing topology and scenic nature of the site beyond the simple size of the houses.
36	RARE AND IREPLACEALE	They don't address how special the site is. They just say there aren't endangered plants there.	evidence of the Downeast Coastal Inventory and wider interest in the site.	Dan
37	WELLS	Concerns about how quickly wells can refill with this much demand and water quality		TIM
38
39	HOA RULES	I'm confused about what of what they submitted is an HOA rules (which can be changed and what is a deed restriction. HOA rules can be changed are not adequate for long term problem solving. The board seemed to agree with this at the 7/11 meeting when the Parker Point developer (Sergei) brought up the issue of the general unenforceability of HOA provisions and the weaknesses of relying on internal hoa controls for broader land use issues.	The board seemed to agree before at the Parker Point subdivision presentation that HOA rules aren't the best eforcement mechanism for issues relating to the wider community because only the HOA can enforce them, and most don't want to sue or fine their neighbors. Deed restrictions are much more effective mechanisms of enforcement and don't seem to be what were included here.
40
41	Pollution	they don't take into account the history of heribicide use on the site and the potential impact of disturbing the soils.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100