Ex-code officer says Bar Harbor's method is overreaching its authority to seek proof of residency

In stinging rebuke, Angela Chamberlain calls out former bosses

BAR HARBOR, June 1, 2025 - 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.

Today, the former code enforcement officer launched a broadside against her former boss in a stinging open letter in Bar Harbor Story.

Without mentioning her name directly, Angela Chamberlain challenged Planning Director Michele Gagnon’s characterization of the proposed changes as “housekeeping” and merely “buttoning up” existing codes.

“This proposal is more than housekeeping or a buttoning-up of the regulations,” Chamberlain wrote. “These are major changes and have very real, detrimental consequences to innocent property owners who are not abusing the rules.”

The legal maneuver to effect the changes smacks of the same failed strategy the Town Council attempted last November to take control of cruise ship oversight away from citizens.

The proposal moves that power out of the Land Use Ordinance, Chapter 125 of the town code, to Chapter 174, just like it attempted to move cruise ship passenger regulation out of 125 to a new chapter, 50.

And just like Chapter 50, Chapter 174 giving new powers to the code enforcement officer would happen only if citizen voted June 10 to amend the LUO.

One resident wrote the QSJ to say:

• ”The town is voting away voter control - By moving the definition of ‘primary residence’ from the voter-approved land use ordinance to town code, we're handing control to town council members. Future changes won't need voter approval. Most people voting June 10 probably don't realize they're giving up their say in this major issue and the stringent changes being proposed, they just see that the Planning Board recommended passage. This is all being done before the public hearing on new enforcement rules takes place and members of the public really understand what is coming.”

• “The CEO would monitor our private lives - The new rules let the Code Enforcement Officer access our water bills, track our mail delivery, and judge our ‘patterns of behavior’ to decide if we really live here.

• “They want to see our tax returns - I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the town can't demand to see federal tax returns. The IRS doesn't even let local governments do that. Yet refusing could cost us our permits. This seems wildly overreaching. (Tax returns are one of four examples of documentation of privacy - valid ID from Maine, income tax return, vehicle registration, recent utility bill. The town required three.)

Bar Story Story published an article May 29 about some residents who worried that the proposal was too strict.

Then came today’s blockbuster letter from none other than the former code enforcement officer Angela Chamberlain as a letter to Bar Harbor Story.

“The proposed changes to the VR-1 registration process are extreme and will undoubtably have unintended consequences to some full-time, year-round residents,” she wrote.

“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 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. These are not findings, they are suspicions.”

The proposal also 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?

“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.”

“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.”

Chamberlain wrote that the discretion given the code enforcement officer “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.”

One reader questioned how a town administration which couldn’t safeguard the confidentiality of Cara Ryan, the appeals board member who was accused of a bogus ethics violation, could manage the privacy of potentially scores of tax returns?

I emailed Town Manager James Smith to ask what process he would implement to ensure the privacy of the tax returns. He did not reply.

This was not the first time Chamberlain publicly disagreed with town decisions. She publicly opposed granting a solar farm a permit to clear cut 10 acres of land in the Town Hill Area two years ago.

Last August Chamberlain served a notice of violation on Golden Anchor LLC, which was operating an unpermitted use of its dock to disembark cruise ship passengers. Golden Anchor sued the town and named Chamberlain in its court papers. She left her job at the end of the year to become the code officer in Tremont.

She was succeeded by her deputy Michael Gurtler, who would be the person enforcing the new residency requirements and conducting random audits.

On Memorial Day, Gurtler was spotted by a candidate for Town Council handling campaign signs at the Rt. 3 intersection at the head of the island. On Saturday Bar Harbor Story reported that some candidates were missing signs.

VR1s is the category of vacation rentals permitted by the town for owner-occupied dwelling units. Council member Earl Brechlin has been pushing for the enforcement of residency proof to cut down on the “skulduggery” of fake VR-1 applicants.