UPDATE: Can every 'dwelling unit' in Bar Harbor be turned into a motel or hotel?

BAR HARBOR, Aug. 13, 2023 - Former Planning Board chair Tom St. Germain replied to my post to clarify that his request for a change for Destination Health at 124 Cottage Street was from a permitted “dwelling unit” and not from a licensed vacation rental.

I wrote him to state that I appreciated his response. I stand corrected as St. Germain is one of the leading authorities on the Land Use Ordinance.

But his clarification only muddied the issue.

St. Germain was acting as an agent for the business and sought approval from the board Aug. 2 to designate the change from one permitted use to another permitted use as “minor” which would not require a public hearing. But the owner nor St. Germain disclosed that the registration of the four units as rental units had lapsed.

Two board members said they did not have that information. One, Elissa Chesler, said had she known, she would have had additional questions for the “true intent of the request.” The board voted 4-1 on Aug. 2 to not require a public hearing.

The entirety of the discussion appeared to assume that the applicant was still running a transient accommodation business - vacation rentals - so it was not deemed significantly different from running a motel or hotel.

But Destination Health lost its “license” to operate a vacation rental on May 31, when it failed to renew it. For 74 days since, that neighborhood has presumably benefitted from those units being unoccupied - fewer cars, fewer tourists and less noise and pollution.

So unless Destination Health has been renting them illegally - a matter for the code enforcement officer to investigate - the current status is different from that of a transient accommodation.

Had that fact been made public, would abutters and other residents have come to a public hearing to say, “We like the new status just fine, with less intrusion.”

You may watch the Aug. 2 proceedings and judge for yourself, starting at Minute 22:45.

Vice chair Ruth Eveland was clearly troubled by the specter of eliminating the opportunity for the public to participate. But she, like some others, voted in favor of not requiring a hearing based on the assumption the units were being rented out as transient accommodations.

“In terms of the the functional differentiation of how you're using the space, it's pretty minimal,” she said.

“My concern is that what it looks like on paper is a change from something that is listed as an apartment to something that is listed as transient accommodations. The public reaction to that phrase could be an issue. That's literally the only hesitation I have about this whole process - as to whether or not that's that's enough reason to call for a public airing.”

The owner did not offer that the units were no longer allowed to be rented out as short-term rentals.

Planning Director Michele Gagnon also appeared not to know that the license was not renewed when she said that a motel or hotel would be “very similar to a transit accommodation right now.”

Later when she asked for details of how different the new motel or hotel would be from the present use “so we can pass the straight-face test,” the owner replied, “It’s exactly the same as how we’re operating now.” She did not return two calls from the QSJ. I wanted to know what she meant by “now,” whether they were renting the units illegally.

Compound that by all the 42 VR2 registrations which did not renew this year. How many of them were in transient lodging (motel/hotel) districts? And unless those landlords were cheating, the loss of traffic to the town should have been substantial. (32 of the 40 zoning districts in town allow transient lodging.)

It is prima facie evidence that the vacation rental ordinance to reduce them is working. Why would residential neighbors around those dwelling units want to go backward? If those landlords also apply for the permit-for-permit change as proposed by St. Germain, would the board disallow public hearings in each case.

Finally, could all 2,400 permitted dwelling units in town be allowed to become motels and hotels since they now are in the same permitted class as Destination Health?

The purpose of the vacation rental ordinance passed by voters in November 2021 was to place a cap on new permits and allow existing permits to remain fallow, if not renewed, until vacation rentals declined to 9 percent of the town’s housing stock. The 42 permits not renewed by the May 31 deadline was 9 percent of all VR2, including four by Destination Health.

VR2 is a class of rentals which requires a four-night minimum. VR1 has a two-night minimum and must be owner-occupied

One man’s tale of the unaffordability of MDI:

Dear reader, please forward any story similar to this one about folks forced off the island. The writer identified himself as a wooden boatbuilding and marine tradesperson.

By Dave Hancock

I'm a former resident of the island and recently made the painful decision to take a position on another part of the state.

The only reason: housing affordability and quality.

There is no reason whatever that a high skilled worker in the marine trades making a competitive wage should have to cough up over half their income for an ever dwindling housing stock. It positively killed me leaving what was quite possibly the single best job I ever held in my life at a mid-sized boat yard on Somes Sound.

It's striking that I (and many like me) am good enough to do world class work on yachts owned by the Rockefellers, Mellons, Fords, Millikens and indeed the Rales Brothers - yet are essentially priced out of being able to live in the very communities we serve.

This is not a problem that a few well intentioned wealthy can, or even should be solving. Foundations such as the Island Housing Trust and MD 365 are mere band aids on a severed limb. Municipal, state and the federal governments have absolutely got to step in to resolve this - the issue has gotten to the point that there simply is no other way. In the meantime expect months long waits for contractors and boatbuilders to continue - perhaps we'll be able to get you back on the water a little after Christmas.