Letters From Our Readers

Angie Chamberlain, Al Boynton, Diane Vreeland

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY

We welcome letter submissions to The Bar Harbor Story; for details on our policy, please visit our about page and scroll down or just visit here.

The beliefs, opinions, and viewpoints expressed by the writers of letters to the editor and included here do not necessarily reflect the beliefs, opinions, and viewpoints or official policies of The Bar Harbor Story.

All the past letters to the editor can be found on the Substack site here.

---

Worries about Short-Term Rental Changes

I have read the proposed short-term rental changes to Chapter 174 in the Municipal Code and have several concerns and comments.

First and foremost, this feels like government overreach by imposing excessive burdens on year-round citizens (those are the people who are applying for the VR-1 registration) and infringing on privacy rights under the guise of improving the integrity and enforceability of the program.

The proposed changes to the VR-1 registration process are extreme and will undoubtably have unintended consequences to some full-time, year-round residents. With property tax increases reaching unattainable limits, this is how many local residents supplement their income and afford to pay the rising costs of living in this town. This amendment is so strict, it will undoubtably disqualify legitimate property owners who are year-round residents but can’t meet these excessive requirements.

Has it actually been established that there is truly a widespread problem with the ordinance that needs addressing to this extreme?

The Whereas for the May 20 Town Council meeting stated that 12% of the 2024 VR-1 registrations MIGHT be noncompliant. It hasn’t even been established that they are in fact noncompliant, so this number hasn’t been determined to be accurate. The Whereas then claims that these “findings” support the need to strengthen verification procedures. These are not findings, they are suspicions.

The Whereas also states that part of improving the integrity and enforceability of the program includes requiring proof that the property owner is registered to pay taxes to the Maine Revenue Services. Where in the Purpose of the ordinance does it say anything about it being the Town’s business to ensure a property owner pays tax to the Maine Revenue Services? As far as I am aware, no other use in Bar Harbor is required to prove that they pay taxes to the Maine Revenue Services. The Purpose of Chapter 174 is to “ensure that the quality of short-term rentals within the Town of Bar Harbor is adequate for protecting the health, safety and welfare of occupants of STR’s and of the community.” It says nothing about ensuring that sales tax is collected by the State.

This amendment proposes to require every person listed on the deed to provide proof that the property in question is their primary residence. I can think of several properties registered as VR-1s which are owned by multiple people, often times other family members, who don’t all live at the same residence. This should not automatically disqualify them. I know of an example where a mother and son own a property together, the mother lives in the home year-round and the son lives elsewhere in Bar Harbor. These are year-round community members who’ve lived in Bar Harbor their entire lives, and they would now be ineligible to register under this new requirement. Another real example is a year-round resident who owns a property and whose adult children are also listed on the deed, along with her sister. They do not all live together at this residence so she would also be disqualified. This is a woman who has operated this rental for many years, followed all the rules, passed the required inspections, and done everything required of her, yet her registration will not be renewed because of these proposed rules. There is another property owner with a VR-1 registration whose spouse has recently passed away and he’s still listed as a property owner. Again, she would be ineligible until she is able to remove him as a property owner. This proposed requirement is not an appropriate solution to the alleged problem.

There is also new language that authorizes the code enforcement officer to have the discretion to make a determination of eligibility based on “the owner’s conduct or pattern of behavior” using examples of “time spent at the property, usage patterns of utilities and services” and so on. This feels like an attempt to invade the privacy of the citizens by analyzing and monitoring their day-to-day activities, which quite frankly, is not the business of the Town.

I am especially concerned about the new language that allows the CEO to conduct random audits such as unannounced site inspections. Does the code enforcement officer conduct any random audits and unannounced site inspections on a regular basis to any other use in Bar Harbor? After I build my house and get a certificate of occupancy, can the CEO just come back and make random unannounced inspections to ensure that I haven’t blocked an egress window or put a bed in my office?

I reiterate, these rules will apply mainly to the community members, the Bar Harbor year-round residents. A VR-2 on the other hand, has to prove nothing more to register than demonstrate that they registered the year prior.

I realize that the current ordinance as it’s written is not perfect and needs some adjusting, but this proposal is more than housekeeping or a buttoning-up of the regulations, these are major changes and have very real, detrimental consequences to innocent property owners who are not abusing the rules. I hope the Council votes not to approve this ordinance amendment. Simply answering that the town knows this proposed language is not perfect and can be changed later is not of comfort to people that rely on their rental to supplement their income. Get it right the first time.

Angie Chamberlain

Bar Harbor

---

In Support of Diane Vreeland for Town Council

After the last few years of dramatic increases in the town budget and taxes, the need for the town to reign in the budget has reached a critical point. The levels of increases have been well above the wage increases of any working person, as well as the increases for anyone on a fixed income. That the council has continued to allow new optional items on the budget when we have had such huge increases is incomprehensible.

We need new council members like Diane, who consider the cost issue as the top issue. She has strong experience as an analytical person, has contributed significantly to our community, and has long been an advocate and fundraiser for local churches and organizations. She takes practical action on individual issues such as dangerous crosswalks to get something done.

Most importantly, her actions have shown a love for our town, our quality of life, our finances, and our environment. My first litmus test for anyone running for town office is if they genuinely love—and have shown through action—the town they live in. I believe Diane has shown this clearly and would be a powerful addition to our town council.

Al Boynton

Bar Harbor

---

GLOSSARIES IN COMREHENSIVE PLANS

Maine planning laws don't mandate glossaries in comprehensive plans, but encourage it for clarity so all stakeholders understand the vision, plans and implications.

I had to look up such words as infill, gentle density and missing middle housing, which are used in several focus areas in this comprehensive plan as well as how they are being used.

Infill development refers to the process of developing vacant or underutilized parcels of land within existing urban areas.

Gentle density is a concept in urban planning that advocates for gradually increasing the number and variety of homes in existing neighborhoods, particularly those zoned for single-family detached homes.

Missing middle housing refers to diverse housing types, like duplexes, townhomes, triplexes, apartments and fourplexes, that fall between single-family homes and mid-rise apartment buildings .

Missing middle housing is a term used interchangeably with gentle density, which increases housing density by infilling with these types of housing.

All information that I read states that this use of gentle density is in urban areas with infrastructure.

In the 2035 Comp Plan’s Future Land Use strategies, downtown (focus 1) recommends infill with these types of buildings which does have the infrastructure. But, Town Hill (focus 3) supports gentle density with these types of buildings with no infrastructure, sidewalks or transportation.

Rural (focus 5) makes up 65% of land outside of the park. Throughout the comprehensive plan, it states we should prevent sprawl and rural areas should be retained and buffered from future development. But the 2035 comprehensive plan suggests having tools and performance standards for additional housing configuration beyond single family residential units that could be permitted and even enforced. We have an abundance of natural resources and wildlife in the rural area with no plans or policies to protect them.

Town Hill residents have a strong desire to protect our quality of life and value the strong rural character, open fields, vernal pools, wildlife, marshy areas and housing styles that maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Many residents participated in the public outreach and this plan doesn't reflect the community's vision, and we were told that we would be taken out of the growth area, but Town Hill is replaced with another word for growth: gentle density.

Diane L. Vreeland

Town Hill

---