Local Pleas For Quick Cap on Bed and Breakfast Rooms
Planning Board sets public hearings on multiple potential land use amendments
BAR HARBOR—The Bar Harbor Planning Board moved several potential changes to the land use ordinance to public hearings in January bringing the proposed amendments one step closer to voters, who in June will decide to approve those changes or not.
The steps came at the end of a two-hour meeting on Thursday, during which a majority of the time was spent working on another potential land use amendment concerning lodging definitions. That potential amendment would not be on the June ballot because it’s still in an earlier stage of development.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Because of timeline stipulations, in order for the issues to go on the town ballot in June, there must be public hearings called now on land use ordinance amendments. All the hearings will be at the January 3 meeting.
Those hearings are for amendments dealing with:
employee living quarters one and two;
expanding the number of zoning districts where shared accommodations 1,2, and 3 are allowed;
complying with the state’s “Increasing Housing Opportunities” initiative, LD2003;
tweaking the Design Review Board’s process and definitions.
LODGING USES PROPOSAL UPDATE
A bulk of the meeting was spent discussing Code Enforcement Officer Angela Chamberlain’s presentation on potential changes to the lodging definitions and was galvanized by a School Street resident’s plea for a quick cap on how many rooms local bed and breakfasts can have.
The lodging definitions Chamberlain discussed whittling down are within the town’s land use ordinance. This ordinance lays out the rules for the town’s zoning and development. The changes (when the proposal is finalized) would have to be approved by voters. The current timeline for that is the November 2024 election, meaning that the changes would go to public hearing in July 2024.
Chamberlain tried to incorporate suggestions into the newest draft of the changes that came up during the last listening session. She stressed that it is still just a draft and not the final document.
“I know that there will still be changes as we work through the proposal,” Chamberlain said.
There are specific restrictions in different districts to lodging. She proposes keeping a 25-room cap and allow Lodging-VI uses only in areas in blue where they currently exist.
Chamberlain said the Lodging-VI use is more restrictive. This is because anyone can convert an existing building currently in the downtown residential and have up to 25 rooms as the LUO is currently written.
Planning Board Secretary Elissa Chesler said she worried about nonconformities within the proposal and how they are handled. “I think we have nonconformity creep.”
Planning Board Vice Chair Ruth Eveland asked Chamberlain if these potential changes to lodging definitions would make it easier or harder when the town tries to reduce the number of districts later on. “I just want to make sure we’re not making more roadblocks for ourselves,” she said.
Planning Board Chair Millard Dority said it was a terrific presentation and he appreciated all the work done by Chamberlain and staff.
Chamberlain said, “I am proposing that all lodging uses be allowed by site plan approval by the PB except for Lodging II and VI in the Mount Desert Street Corridor and Lodging I and V in the Village Residential district where they will be reviewed by the Planning Board as conditional uses. No lodging use is proposed as only needing a building permit from the Code Officer.”
The Planning Board and Chamberlain also listened to members of the public to express their concerns about the perceived eroding of downtown neighborhoods as well as others’ support of potential changes.
Stewart Brecher said that the “hollowing out” of the year round population is his biggest concern. Increasing the number of “nonresidents” in a building to 12 would wipe out all the residences downtown, he said.
“I think that there are all kinds of side effects to losing the population downtown.” The communities that need to be downtown, he said, are the elderly and young families.
“It’s a struggle all the time,” he said.
Jim Mahoney said, “I appreciate that some modifications have been made including the removal of the motel from the downtown residential district. We have to drill down further in terms of the explanation of the change.”
“I am concerned. I appreciate your good intentions. I appreciate your hard work,” Cara Ryan said to Chamberlain, but she said there are still nine districts where she believes that lodging will be increased. “We need to play defense here.”
This, she said, is a secondary concern. She called the bed and breakfast definition a disaster that came in on a controversial 2010 town meeting and it’s been exploited since then. “People are frustrated.”
Ryan stressed that because of the way the zones are set up, bed and breakfasts aren’t just allowed on the town’s three main streets (Main, Cottage, Mount Desert). They are also allowed in residential districts and transitional districts, this, she believes, doesn’t safeguard existing neighborhoods.
Currently, TA-1, TA-3 and TA-4 are allowed in all the green and blue areas on the map. Chamberlain is asking to keep the 25-room cap for the proposed Lodging-VI definition and limit it to only the blue areas.
“I’m pleading with you to consider requesting that part of it be lifted out and drafted,” Ryan said, hoping for a faster timeline and not allowing bed and breakfasts in those neighborhoods. The part she refers to was also referenced in a November 29 email to Chamberlain. This is a potential proposed 12-room cap on all beds and breakfasts.
“The amazing amount of detail and domino effect that one little change” creates, Planning Director Michele Gagnon said, keeps staff from rushing through items that seem simple. A simple change can do more harm than good, she said.
Tom St.Germain also spoke during the meeting about the changes. “These changes are positive. I see them as a parallel shift with cleaning things up,” he said.
Carol Chappel said it’s important to hold the 1986 time frame mentioned in the slides and portions of the existing land use ordinance. She doesn’t want people tearing down houses and putting in lodging.
The current draft proposes allowing Lodging V and Lodging VI in districts where Bed and Breakfast III or TA-3 is currently permitted.
“Both Bed and Breakfast III and TA-3 do not have room number limits,” Chamberlain said, “but TA-3 does have to be operated in a building constructed prior to June 10, 1986. I added Lodging VI to Mount Desert Street Corridor as a conditional use, and Lodging V to Village Residential, also as a conditional use.”
In the current Land Use Ordinance there have some uses that require the building to be constructed before June 10, 1986 and June 8, 2010, Chamberlain said. “I included a date of November 1, 2024 for Lodging VI to be consistent with the previous dates that appear to be tied to the date of adoption of the amended language, but if either of those two June dates are deemed important to the application of these uses, I have no issue keeping whichever date is deemed appropriate.”
A workshop will be scheduled to further discuss the potential changes.
The land use ordinance can be amended via the planning board, town council, or citizen initiative. Gagnon asked that if anyone was thinking of moving forward via a citizen initiative that they bring it to the planning department—not for a judgement—but to see if the proposed change has issues within it.
Stewart Brecher said planning is about good outcomes, but moving forward without stated objectives is not planning.
BRIGADOON SUBDIVISION
Gagnon said the applicant for the subdivision off the Crooked Road is thinking of changing the scope of the project and focusing only on the Crooked Road housing sites.
The board members ruled unanimously that they didn’t currently need a second visit at this time.
CALENDAR
The Planning Board also adopted its calendar for 2024 and early 2025.
EXCUSED ABSENCES DISCUSSION
The board discussed the town’s excused absences policy and how it folds into the Planning Board’s policy. There is a 75% meeting rule, which means that board members must attend 75% of the meetings.
“The 75% meeting rule does not exclude excused absences,” Dority said.
Attendance rules are also part of the bylaws and rules of order for the Planning Board. Changes to those would have to go to the Town Council.
Dority said he’d ask Town Council Chair Valerie Peacock about how the process works about absences, the 75% rule, and excused absences. He’d also like to know who calls the question on the 75% rule if someone doesn’t make that.
Eveland said that in the past, the town manager or council chair was asked to speak to the person not hitting the requirement. This usually happened after a committee chair told the manager or chair.
“I don’t remember Council ever firing anybody from a committee,” Eveland said.
Dority said he’d report back to the board once he’s spoken to Peacock.
LINKS TO LEARN MORE
All images are either from the packet (linked above) or Chamberlain’s presentation.