Not only does this reader thinks the Pathfinder B&B will be a great addition to Cottage Street aesthetically, it will contribute greatly to our tax base which is constantly eroding from an unregulated proliferation of non-profit entities.
Coston thinks it's personal? Nobody in town thinks that building belongs in where it is besides the two owners. It's a monstrosity for Bar Harbor and should have been approved by a zoning board not a zoning loophole.
As if the "zoning board" (actually it's the Planning Board) can choose whether or not to enforce the code.
We followed the plain language of the land use ordinance. The Planning Board would have approved this building just like the Code Enforcement Officer did.
Whether you and anyone else likes the building or not, it is plainly legal.
The way you put "legal" in quotations as if your counterfactual persistence in presenting your narrative/personal preferences determines the language of the code, LoL. You see, this is why I say it feels personal: you (and others) don't like the project, so you simply say whatever supports your narrative with zero regard for the context and pertinent facts.
The language that plainly allows this building was approved by 75% of Bar Harbor voters at the June 2010 ballot. In 2018 Inn on Mount Desert was constructed under these same rules, through planning board, and held up through an appeal, all while being just as unpopular as Pathmaker and, on top of that, meeting the most challenging standard as a conditional use.
These are facts. It is also a fact that I've told people openly for years that if they don't like the rules they should simply initiate the public process to change the rules. Finally, a year or so ago, they took me up on that, and in November the voters will once again have it their way. Just as it should be.
It is also a fact, by the way, that I have never even once opposed changing these rules. In fact, I have gone on the record publicly supporting the changes on multiple occasions, both in the newspaper and at public meetings.
You don't like my project. That's fine. But that does not entitle you to your own set of facts, nor does any degree of popular opinion render your non-facts facts.
I deal in facts, not cognitive biases, narratives, and logical fallacies. I encourage you to give that a try.
Legal is legal. There is no "". That's one nice thing about the LUO: it's just a bunch of words with assigned definitions (either via the ordinance itself, or via Webster's. All you have to do is read it.
Not only does this reader thinks the Pathfinder B&B will be a great addition to Cottage Street aesthetically, it will contribute greatly to our tax base which is constantly eroding from an unregulated proliferation of non-profit entities.
Well done!
When the pathfinder Hotel was built 2 homes were destroyed . Mine and the the one next store on Summer Street
That is a really important thing to know. Can I message you?
Coston thinks it's personal? Nobody in town thinks that building belongs in where it is besides the two owners. It's a monstrosity for Bar Harbor and should have been approved by a zoning board not a zoning loophole.
As if the "zoning board" (actually it's the Planning Board) can choose whether or not to enforce the code.
We followed the plain language of the land use ordinance. The Planning Board would have approved this building just like the Code Enforcement Officer did.
Whether you and anyone else likes the building or not, it is plainly legal.
It sure sounds like the "legal" loophole is closing quickly because of this project. Luckily nobody is going to starve when it closes.
The way you put "legal" in quotations as if your counterfactual persistence in presenting your narrative/personal preferences determines the language of the code, LoL. You see, this is why I say it feels personal: you (and others) don't like the project, so you simply say whatever supports your narrative with zero regard for the context and pertinent facts.
The language that plainly allows this building was approved by 75% of Bar Harbor voters at the June 2010 ballot. In 2018 Inn on Mount Desert was constructed under these same rules, through planning board, and held up through an appeal, all while being just as unpopular as Pathmaker and, on top of that, meeting the most challenging standard as a conditional use.
These are facts. It is also a fact that I've told people openly for years that if they don't like the rules they should simply initiate the public process to change the rules. Finally, a year or so ago, they took me up on that, and in November the voters will once again have it their way. Just as it should be.
It is also a fact, by the way, that I have never even once opposed changing these rules. In fact, I have gone on the record publicly supporting the changes on multiple occasions, both in the newspaper and at public meetings.
You don't like my project. That's fine. But that does not entitle you to your own set of facts, nor does any degree of popular opinion render your non-facts facts.
I deal in facts, not cognitive biases, narratives, and logical fallacies. I encourage you to give that a try.
Legal is legal. There is no "". That's one nice thing about the LUO: it's just a bunch of words with assigned definitions (either via the ordinance itself, or via Webster's. All you have to do is read it.