Ex-code officer again challenges Bar Harbor's revised amendment to monitor vacation rentals
Chapter 174 on owner-occupied rentals is 'a solution in search of a problem'
BAR HARBOR, Oct. 20, 2025 - Angela Chamberlain, the town’s former code enforcement officer, called the latest revision of the amendment to crack down on alleged vacation rental scofflaws “frivolous,” “confusing,” an intrusion into privacy and a violation of citizens right under the Fourth Amendment.
In a letter to the Town Council, Chamberlain wrote, “I am a property owner in Bar Harbor and write to express continued serious concerns with the proposed amendments to Chapter 174 Short-Term Rentals, scheduled for discussion on your October 21 agenda.
“In my view, these proposed changes undermine constitutionally protected rights and fair procedural safeguards for homeowners.
“The Town Council heard a proposal very similar to this in June and received numerous thoughtful public comments at that time. While I acknowledge that some language in the revised draft has improved, significant areas of concern remain.”
Complaints about the overreach of the town’s enforcement of proof of residency for short-term vacation rentals started as soon as the agenda for the May 20 Town Council meeting was publicly posted days prior.
But it was Chamberlain’s letter in Bar Harbor Story June 1 which forced the issue prompting the town manager to seek a revision.
The crackdown on owners of VR-1 short-term rentals was inspired by current code officer Michael Gurtler and council member Earl Brechlin.
VR-1 is the category of vacation rentals permitted by the town for owner-occupied dwelling units. Council member Brechlin has been pushing for the enforcement of proof of residency to cut down on the “skulduggery” of fake VR-1 applicants.
Chamberlain wrote in May:
“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.”
The following is Chamberlain’s recent letter:
1. Lack of Direct Notification to Property Owners
“Before addressing the substantive issues in the ordinance, I urge the council to notify all current short-term rental registration holders directly about these proposed changes. While this may not be legally required, using the contact information already collected by the code enforcement office would demonstrate good faith and promote transparency. Given the controversy surrounding this issue, proactive communication is essential to foster public trust and avoid the appearance of backdoor policymaking.
2. Overreach in Documentation Requirements
The proposed language places an unreasonable burden on property owners to prove ownership. Specifically, requiring applicants to submit town-generated documents (such as the Bar Harbor property record card) back to the town to verify ownership is both unnecessary and appears frivolous.
Beyond that, the new language requires an applicant to:
Submit an application signed by all individuals claiming the property as their primary residence;
Sign an affidavit attesting it’s their primary residence; and
Submit three forms of proof of ownership and residency, which may include highly personal documents such as tax returns, utility bills, Medicare benefits, or a Maine Revenue Service Sales Tax and Service Provider Certification.
This level of intrusion into private records is excessive and unjustified, especially for homeowners who are already in compliance with the town’s current short-term rental regulations.
3. Confusing and Vague Terminology
The ordinance inconsistently uses the terms property owner, applicant, and individual throughout the document. This imprecise language creates confusion and could prove problematic to apply. For example, it is unclear whether the term individual refers only to the owner or also to parties who may reside at the property.
3. Unclear and Intrusive Primary Residence Requirements
Section 174-6. C., which seeks to define and verify “primary residence,” is especially confusing and overly complex. The language appears to shift from verifying the owner’s primary residence to including all individuals who claim the property as theirs. Does this mean, for example, my adult daughter who considers our home her legal address must also provide documentation, even though she has no ownership interest?
Moreover, the exceptions related to estate planning and caregiving—as well as the evidence required for ownership by limited liability companies, corporations, and trusts—are confusing, overly complicated, and unreadable to the average layperson. This complexity invites inconsistent interpretation and makes it extremely difficult for property owners to confidently comply.
I can’t even begin to unravel and understand the requirements and limitations for someone who has joint ownership in more than one property which is registered as a short-term rental.
4. Erosion of Fourth Amendment Protections
Currently, all short-term rentals are subject to annual registration and inspections every three years. However, the proposed amendments authorize the code enforcement officer (CEO) to conduct inspections based merely on suspicion of noncompliance. This new provision, along with potential unannounced audits, essentially conditions permit approval on a waiver of Fourth Amendment protections. Homeowners should not be presumed guilty without clear cause or due process.
5. Expanded and Punitive Violations Section
The existing ordinance contains a straightforward section on violations and penalties. In contrast, the proposed amendments stretch this to two and a half pages. One troubling provision allows the CEO to notify a property owner of a violation by phone or email and require correction within just seven days. Failure to comply may lead to permit suspension or revocation, and monetary penalties.
This punitive system conflicts with the appeal language that gives property owners 30 days to challenge planning department written decisions. Homeowners are entitled to written notice of any alleged violation, an opportunity to respond based on evidence, and a fair appeal process before any permit is suspended or revoked.
6. A Solution in Search of a Problem?
We’ve been told that the Town conducted an audit of VR-1 permit holders and found “inconsistencies.” If the Town has identified specific violators, why not address those issues directly rather than enact broad and burdensome regulations that affect compliant property owners?
The proposal reads more like an enforcement mechanism designed to trap homeowners in technicalities than an ordinance intended to promote compliance. The repeated use of the term “bona fide” implies a presumption of bad faith, placing property owners in a defensive position from the start.
These changes appear overly punitive and bureaucratic. They risk eroding the trust between the Town and homeowners who are trying to follow the rules. Instead of imposing new layers of regulation and suspicion, the Town should focus on addressing specific violations through existing enforcement mechanisms.
I respectfully urge the council to reconsider this ordinance and engage in a more transparent, measured, and collaborative process with Bar Harbor’s property owners.”
The revised Chapter 174 starts on Page 35 of the council’s agenda Tuesday night.
So far the only person benefitting from the back-and-forth is the town’s outside counsel.
Chamberlain was hired away by the Town of Tremont in December after serving 25 years in Bar Harbor.