Do Downtown Businesses' Flag Choices Fly in the Face of Town Ordinance?

Design Review Board Discusses Projects

BAR HARBOR–– With the summer season in full swing, businesses’ flag choices caught the attention of the Design Review Board, spawning discussion during its June 8 meeting in Council Chambers at the Bar Harbor Municipal Building. The board also discussed three applications. Member Kate Macko attended remotely and had some difficulties logging in during the beginning of the meeting.

During the other business portion of its regular agenda, the board discussed the flags that businesses have downtown.

There was no public comment from anyone attending the meeting and no comments via email. Board Chair Barbara Sassaman reminded the attendees seeking certificates of appropriateness at the meeting that they will need to get building permits before any approved projects are started.

Member Mike Rogers began the discussion, saying that a few months ago the board had an application from 2 Cats to put up an “open” flag and the board denied the request. Rogers then said that it appears as though about 50 percent of the businesses in Bar Harbor have open flags and he asked, “Is that something we are doing or not?”

He wondered if the board should be focusing on flags (and their approval) if so many businesses seem to be not abiding by the rules that govern those “open” flags, and if their constant use makes it as if the people have spoken. He expressed that many business owners are utilizing the “open” flags, some of whom have applied for its use and have been turned down.

There was discussion about seasonal flags versus “open” flags in the summer when the total number of flags in the summer tends to create visual clutter. The seasonal flags are approved and used as a means for businesses that are open, when many are closed, to show that they are open for business.

Conversation ensued about enforcement of the land use ordinance section 125-67 with Rogers saying maybe it should be more of an educational outreach telling business owners that you can do many types of flags but the “open” flag is expressly prohibited in the downtown area.

Macko said, “I feel like we are being confusing. If the issue is visual clutter, then changing to any other flag doesn’t really address that.”

---

Acadia Wellness Center

Regular business began with an application for a certificate of appropriateness from Acadia Wellness Center. Owner Christy Seed was seeking to install a sign at 1346 State Highway 102. Town Planner asked where the location is and Seed responded the old Aquarius Artifacts, which is across from the Town Hill Market.

Seed said that the sign will look like a real estate sign. It will have a horizontal supporting post and a vertical top post that holds the sign. Sassaman asked if the sign will come down in the winter and Seed said that it will be out all year. Secretary Andrea Lepcio asked if it is a 12-month business and Seed said it was.

Vice Chair Pancho Cole asked what the setback for the sign has to be from the state highway and Town Planner Michele Gagnon responded that she doesn’t think that is under their purview.

Deputy Code Enforcement Officer Michael Gurtler explained, “You don’t have to worry about it, it will be during the permitting process.”

Rogers said that it is in the board’s purview and it is supposed to be five feet behind the right of way line. Once again, Gurtler said that it will be during the permitting process. Sassaman said that she thinks Cole brought it up just to remind Seed that there is a rule for that.

Shortly thereafter, Sassaman moved to approve the application as submitted. Rogers seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Lepcio held up a piece of paper and said, “Question number one is, you already wrote this out for me.”

Sassaman replied, “Just the first part, you need to write in what we said we approved.”

Lepcio replied, “Okay.”

---

Siam Orchid

Sassaman moved on to item number two which was the Bar Harbor Lobster Pound, but the owner and meeting representative Aaron Jackson was not yet at the meeting. Sassaman then moved that they move on to item number three which was an application for a certificate of appropriateness from Siam Orchid at 34 Rodick Street.

Siam Orchid was represented by Heather Pellegren representing Hatsana Phanthavong, owner. Siam Orchid was seeking permission to install a prefabricated and freestanding pergola over a section of their outdoor seating.

At this time, Macko was able to join the meeting remotely.

Sassaman asked Pellegren to explain what their plans were and Pellegren stated that they have been evolving as the planning process has been going on. Instead of the awnings that they had originally proposed on the application that got denied, they had decided to go with a pergola.

Pellegren explained that the application is for one pergola, but their preference would be two pergolas, one for each patio area. The patio areas are divided by the entryway from the sidewalk to the front door of Siam Orchid. If they were approved for only one, they would want it to be for the smaller patio space which is closer to the Lompoc Café. The general consensus from the board was that if they approved one, they would approve two.

Macko asked about the firepit that is shown on one of the patio areas. Pellegren said that the firepit is actually a propane fueled fire table with a very low flame, which has been discussed during multiple meetings. In addition, the canopies of the pergolas are retractable and could be moved away if the fire source violated any fire codes by being under the canopy which is approximately 89 inches high, she explained.

After some more conversation about color preference and how the design of a pergola fits the restaurant and surrounding area, the board went through the design review standards list applicable item by applicable item, the board decided to vote to approve two pergolas.

Lepcio then made a motion to approve two pergolas in white or black for Siam Orchid. Cole seconded the motion and Sassaman moved to add that the design review standards have been met. Cole also seconded that and the original motion with the amendment passed unanimously.

---

Bar Harbor Lobster Pound

The board then moved on to the last application which was an application for a certificate of appropriateness from the Bar Harbor Lobster Pound located at 414 State Highway 3. It was determined that there was no representative from the business at the meeting. This application was for four signs along State Highway 3 leading to the lobster pound. The signs would be placed on the businesses property.

Sassaman started to say, “I would say that these are going to look like signs for—”

When Rogers interjected and said, “A flea market?”

For multiple reasons, the members of the board did not like the signs as designed. The signs did not meet the design standards or requirements, and they were worried about people having to try and read multiple signs in a row as they were driving and transitioning from a 45-mph speed limit to a 40-mph speed limit.

Sassaman made a motion to table the Bar Harbor Lobster Pound application. It was seconded simultaneously by multiple members and passed unanimously.

---

Other Discussion

After some conversation between the board and Gagnon about email procedure and site visits, Macko moved to adjourn the meeting. Sassaman asked a clarifying question about the site visit procedure that Gagnon had recommended, and Gagnon responded that she will get a ruling from the town’s attorney and let the board know what he says. Sassaman then seconded the motion to adjourn and the motion passed unanimously.

---

LINK TO LEARN MORE

To watch the meeting:

https://townhallstreams.com/stream.php?location_id=37&id=49602

---