“Vote With Empathy”: Residents Plead for Fairness in Rental Residency Rules
Concerns Over Deed and Proof-of-Residency Rules Stall STR Proposal
The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by Margo H. Stanley Real Estate.
BAR HARBOR—It’s back to the drawing board for potential changes to proving residency for short-term rentals classified as VR-1 in Bar Harbor, which are rentals that are the permit holder’s primary residence.
“We do it to survive,” Alexis Walls said of renting her home, “not to take advantage of the town or the system. What is so upsetting is how much this feels like a town is turning its back on the people who care the most, on locals, on families trying to build a future and survive here.”
She urged the council to pause and think, particularly since the data backing the changes shows just 10-12% of the total VR-1 owners being possibly not truly primary residents.
“What allows you and your family to live here? Now imagine having that taken away or grossly infringed on. Vote from that place. Vote with empathy. Vote as if it was your life, your rights, your privacy being affected,” Walls said. “I urge you to reject these changes and stand with the people who call Bar Harbor home that the VR-1 ordinance was originally designed to protect.”
The town council had a proposal before it which would have changed multiple aspects of how the home owners prove residency so that they can rent a room or their home, a way to earn money that has long been a tradition for many year-round families who try to make ends meet in the town, which has had increasing valuations and increasing taxes.
Janie Whitney said her concern was about any changes impacting her current bookings.
“It’s affecting my sleep, my life, and everything else,” she said. “I’m sick over it. I’m not happy with any of you especially a lot of you who have been pushing this. I wish I could leave. I’m so sick, so sick of the whole thing.”
After multiple residents pled for changes, the council sent the the proposal back to staff to rework.
The intent had been to make sure that people weren’t gaming the system. However, many worried about unintended consequences of the changes.
DEEDS
Speakers decried many of the components of the proposal, many speaking to the element of every name on the deed to the property having to prove that the property is the primary residence.
Often, a parent will help a child secure a mortgage for their home. That parent’s (or parents’) name might be on the deed, put there 20 or more years ago. They might not live there year round. They might live across town. They might have retired and moved south. They might have died. The current proposal would have made that VR-1 illegal.
That was the scenario that worried multiple members of the public. It also worried new councilors David Kief and Steven Boucher. Kief gave a litany of worries about scenarios and potential harms that the changes could have on year-round families as well as older adults.
Elizabeth from Town Hill didn’t give her last name, but testified that Bar Harbor residents have historically moved out of their homes for the season or rented rooms to tourists to combat the rising taxes they face. She cares for her disabled mother and was sick herself recently. She and her husband paid for renovations to bring their home up to code so that they could rent it for the summer. They moved in with their mother in law. Her husband’s parents are on the deed. His father is dead. His mother is in town. She asked for existing VR-1s to be given legacy status so that they wouldn’t have to jump through regulatory hoops that didn’t currently exist.
The Bar Harbor Town Council meeting began with an executive session at 6, with the regular meeting starting at 6:30 and Mary Ropp ran from work to get to the public meeting in time and has a similar situation as Elizabeth from Town Hill. Ropp said she has a VR-1 and depends on the income from it.
“If I wasn’t able to do that I wouldn’t be able to live here any more,” Ropp said.
But Ropp also would have a problem with the proposal as is, specifically about the deed requirements.
“My mom is on the deed with me, but she’s not a primary resident there,” she said. That means Ropp would lose her VR-1. “I love this town. I grew up here. I’m a Bar Harbor girl. If I can’t live here, I don’t even know where I would go.”
“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,” wrote former Bar Harbor Code Enforcement Officer Angela Chamberlain in a letter to the Bar Harbor Story. “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.”
Evan Sweeney spoke directly to this issue.
“This past March after my wife had an extended period of being unable to work, my family made the hardest decision to attempt to rent our house for the summer to get back on track with the bills,” Sweeney said.
They spent considerable time and money to rent the house.
“I built the house with help from my parents,” he said, working nights and weekends.
His father has since passed away. His mother still lives in her Bar Harbor home. Their names, however, are on the deed. “We would now be considered in violation.”
“I’m not an investor who sees a lucrative business opportunity in town hill. I am someone who has called this town home for the last 30 years,” he said. “These changes are too severe.”
Time and again, he said, people have been told that the primary reason for VR-1 permits is so that year-round residents and long-term residents can continue to stay in town and survive while the costs of living in Bar Harbor continue to rise. The changes, he said, run counter to this goal.
PROVING RESIDENCY
Nicole Dunn, a full-time resident homeowner spoke in opposition. One of her problems with the proposal was how she felt it treated the residents of Bar Harbor, a theme echoed in other public comment.
“At its core this proposal raises serious ethical concerns. It treats Bar Harbor residents—your neighbors—as if we’re trying to game the system. We’re not,” Dunn said.
“We are the people who live here year round, who contribute to the community and who use short term rentals in responsible, limited ways to afford to stay in our homes,” Dunn said.
She also didn’t like the proposed requirement that would call for multiple documents to prove residency.
“Under the current rules the tax return or driver’s license is enough to prove residency,” she said. “That’s reasonable, but requiring multiple documents, a sworn affidavit, utility bills, vehicle registrations and more? That’s excessive and it’s not just bureaucratic overkill, it’s invasion of privacy.”
It sends a message that people who rent their own homes are presumed guilty, she said. And worried about inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement.
“This won’t fix the housing crisis; it won’t stop outside investors or illegal STRs,” she said. “What it will do is burden the people who are trying to stay in Bar Harbor and contribute to its year-round vitality.”
If this proposal goes forward, she said, it isn’t simply tightening regulations to stop those who are possibly exploiting the system, but instead it would burden working families, retirees, and longterm residents trying to stay in the community that they call home.
Joel Richardson said he moved to town in 2002 and his three children have gone through school. He’s had a VR-1 since 2019.
He said he understood wanting to tighten up the rules to try to reduce the gaming of the system that “may or may not be occurring,” but also told councilors, “please don’t directly hurt the people you claim you are trying to help.”
OTHER CONCERNS
Other concerns about the proposal included VR-1 applicants proving that they pay tax to the state and the ability for the code enforcement officer to have inspections.
During the meeting, Boucher asked Town Manager James Smith to explain what kind of inspection a CEO can currently do. Smith deferred to the town attorney Stephen Wagner about the statutory authority for CEO inspections. Wagner said that anything approaching the interior of the home needs the consent of the owner. However, when someone has a license (such as for a vacation rental), they agree to be bound to the requirements of that license and if that license includes inspections that consent is given.
Other worries about the proposal included the ways to prove residence (people would have been able to pick which evidence to produce).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Prior to discussion, the board unanimously voted that Councilor Earl Brechlin had a conflict of interest because he owns a VR-1.
Both councilors Kief and Boucher disclosed that they own VR-2s, which are not primary residences, but short-term rentals. The town caps the number of VR-2s and there is no residency requirement. However, they must be licensed each year by a deadline and inspected. There is currently a waitlist for these types of rentals.
Wagner said that it’s a case by case determination about if it’s individually a conflict of interest. The town’s ethics ordinance says that no member shall in their capacity vote deliberate on any agenda item that they or their family member might have a financial or special interest in.
A special interest might be direct or indirect interest (economically) that may be altered and that is peculiar or unique to the member and which interest is not shared by the general public.
Is the VR-1 license unique? Probably, Wagner said.
Would Brechlin’s VR-1 license be altered by action the council might take that night? Wagner asked. It would be additional enforcement mechanisms and further definitions and requirements to prove residency.
He also mentioned that in case law, conflicts of interest are measured differently and the most scrutinized conflict of interest potential are for board of appeals or planning board (quasi-judicial) members rather than boards acting in legislative capacities.
“I want to err on the side of caution,” Brechlin said and mentioned that he’s disclosed that he has a VR-1 before.
Vice Chair Maya Caines moved that Brechlin does have a conflict.
“I always try to err on the side of caution on these things,” she said.
Councilor Randell Sprague said he trusts Brechlin’s integrity and intent, but understood the rules. Chair Valerie Peacock said that voting on it does impact Brechlin’s license.
The council unanimously agreed that Brechlin had a conflict of interest.
He stepped down for the council discussion but—like any member of the public—was allowed to speak for three-minutes. A proponent of the need for changes for months, the recently reelected councilor agreed that the proposal needed fine-tuning.
“There need to be some tweaks to this. The unannounced inspection thing seems a little too strident,” Brechlin said. “Being able to revoke a license for a violation of state, federal, or local law? Why is state and federal in there? We don’t need that.”
He also said the deed stipulations could be changed.
It was included, he said, because people were adding others to the home’s deed to claim residency. He said the other names on the deed should be taken into account when other VR-1s are looked at.
ORDER TO ADOPT AMENDMENT TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY
A second order on the council’s agenda was unanimously adopted. This order adopts the amendment to the land use ordinance that went before the town voters at the June 10 meeting.
NEXT STEPS
The council took no action.
In discussion, it was suggested that a potential tweak would be if a deed has two or more names on it, any of those names can only be associated with one VR-1. For instance, if a parent helps their adult child buy a house and their name is on the deed (or they tweak the deed as their child reaches maturity) and that property is a VR-1 where the child and their family lives, then the parent can’t have a VR-1 at their own home.
Other potential steps included having town staff look at those deed requirements, inspection provisions, residency provisions, and other aspects.
Councilor Sprague suggested workshopping changes again. It was unclear if that would happen. Both Smith and Peacock suggested that staff look at the proposal, revise it, and bring it back to council.
Smith also stressed that any changes that go through would not impact the current season.
During council comments, Brechlin suggested that each year a list of VR-1 and VR-2 permits be posted on the town’s website. That information is not currently posted, but can be requested from the town.
LINKS TO LEARN MORE
June 17 Council Meeting Agenda And Packet
Follow us on Facebook. And as a reminder, you can easily view all our past stories and press releases here.
If you’d like to donate to help support us, you can, but no pressure! Just click here (about how you can give) or here (a direct link), which is the same as the button below.
If you’d like to sponsor the Bar Harbor Story, you can! Learn more here.