Town Council Will Make Final Decision
The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by Window Panes Home and Garden.
BAR HARBOR—A split planning board did not recommend that the Bar Harbor Town Council extend the lodging moratorium, October 14.
The decision came after the board substantiated one of the moratorium’s eight whereas clauses. The vote not to recommend was 4-3 and came after almost four hours of discussion and deliberation during the afternoon workshop.
“I am completely torn,” Vice Chair Ruth Eveland said prior to the vote.
Eveland said that there are things that the town needs to work on and there is typically a lengthy amount of time it takes to get things through the town’s legal process for changes to its land use ordinance.
That ordinance determines how land is used in the town.
Eveland said that she’s uncomfortable with penalizing an entire industry for what was also characterized as a larger problem of housing and other needs amid possible commercial encroachment, but also acknowledged that there are community worries about larger hotels being created. Others, she said, are more concerned about a Lodging 1 (a smaller lodging use) going in next door to their homes, she said.
Because of where she sits on the board, her vote was the fourth and deciding vote to create a majority after other votes had failed.
THE VOTES
“Based on the available data and after the review of the whereas clauses on the town council’s moratorium on lodging, the planning board recommended that the council consider not extending the moratorium,” Chair Millard Dority motioned initially.
There was no second. So, that motion failed.
“Based on the available data and after the review of the whereas clauses on the town council’s moratorium on lodging, the planning board recommended that the council considers extending the moratorium,” Teresa Wagner then motioned.
Guy Dunphey seconded that motion, which eventually failed.
The third vote, which was the same wording as Dority’s initial vote, was seconded by Eveland this time.
Dority, Eveland, Kathy St. Germain, and J. Clark Stivers voted to not recommend the moratorium’s extension. Wagner, Dunphey, and John Seavitt voted to recommend that it be extended.
BACKGROUND
If the town council enacts it again, the new iteration of the moratorium would continue for 180 days unless the town council extends, repeals, or modifies it. That would begin again in January.
On February 5, the town council voted to enact a 180-day moratorium on most lodgings. It was renewed in July.
Since then, the town’s planning board and staff have been working to collect data relevant to the “whereas” clauses in that moratorium.
Back in September 2023, the town’s attorney Stephen W. Wagner (of Rudman Winchell) explained that a moratorium is “essentially a pause on development.”
To do that, the councilors have to make certain findings: that the moratorium is necessary to stop a burden on public facilities and other aspects; that the existing comprehensive plan is inadequate to do so. In June, the town voted to update its comprehensive plan. The whereas clauses serve as those findings.
The October 2024 discussion was spurred on by a Bar Harbor dentist’s appeal before the councilors to think again about a moratorium on lodgings (transient accommodations) in town.
The topic came up after she was approached by a bed and breakfast owner about purchasing her property on lower Main Street, she said. That owner was not identified.
Some other residents were unsettled by a potential hotel near the Conners Emerson School.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS
“There has to be additional information conveyed to the council about this whole process,” Eveland said.
Planning Director Michele Gagnon said that her department would also put a memo together with recommendations to the council. Those concerns included parking requirements for lodging; Lodging 1 itself and if it should continue as is or be tweaked, look at the employee housing benefit for onsite housing. However, Town Hall Streams stopped due to a timing glitch for approximately five minutes during this discussion.
Seavitt also suggested taking an especially robust way to the council and community and potentially workshopping with the council about potential changes.
The town is working on multiple changes currently, Gagnon said, looking at modifications to the design review process, road setbacks, the affordable housing standards, lodging, and potentially campground and campsite definitions.
She said, “All hands are on deck. We are fully staffed right now.”
Recently hired Sustainable Economic Development Coordinator Emily Sprecher was also mentioned at the meeting.
One of the thrusts of the planning board’s moratorium decision was whether the moratorium was still needed to do work or get certain things done before lodging projects are put before the board.
A moratorium extension would have it continue another 180 days from the end of January. Dority said a simple change typically takes a year. An amendment must be ready to go six months prior to the election, which occurs in June and November.
Throughout the conversations, board members stressed they weren’t pro or against lodging.
“Our recommendation is a recommendation only. The council will act on whatever they feel necessary. Whatever we say, it’s up to them whether they extend the moratorium,” Dority said.
THE PROCESS ON TUESDAY
After multiple workshops in recent months, on October 14, the board went through the moratorium’s whereas clauses one by one and then decided if they were substantiated, partially substantiated, or not substantiated.
“There are a couple whereas (clauses) that we haven’t touched on,” Dunphey said of the process of workshops, data, and presentations that the board had gone through. Because of that, he thought the “partially substantiated” option was a good one.
Dority, however, worried about the definition “partially substantiated.” He worried that it might be a “cop out.”
“It’s either substantiated or it’s not,” he said.
Dunphey said there was data they were waiting for such as outlying areas being on private wastewater, the town is waiting for data on septic systems or a report on the health of the Northeast Creek Watershed.
“We don’t know if we’re having ground water issues or not,” Dunphey said.
“What you’re talking about would affect everything, not just lodging,” Dority said.
The group decided to keep the option of ‘partially substantiated.’
WHEREAS CLAUSE #1
“WHEREAS, the Town of Bar Harbor is experiencing ongoing pressure on public facilities and infrastructure due to an increase in Certain Transient Accommodations;“
Seavitt felt that this whereas clause was substantiated.
“It really is a financial cost to things,” Dunphey said. He said he couldn’t say that the increased services were due to lodging, but that property taxes and other expenses are increasing each year. “There really is no proof that our increased budgets are part of lodging.”
But, he said, he believes the cause is tourism.
There are many other commercial uses that contribute to existing conditions in the town, but it’s hard to blame it directly on lodging, Dority said.
Others remained worried about the lodging uses’ impact on budgets, but also thought the category was too broad and all-encompassing.
Dority said that it’s the town council and warrant committee that deals with budgets. The planning board deals with land use. He said both the police and fire chief said they get more calls from the bars and restaurants than lodgings, and he finds it difficult to make the cause fit to one activity.
“I can live with a moratorium on everything,” Dority said, but that it was hard to pin the ills in the town on one activity rather than seven activities.
“I don’t think anybody can make the case that one sector of our tourist economy is responsible for all pressure, but I think it’s clear that rooms in the town do put pressure on public facilities,” Wagner said, emphasizing that the she believed the town had to have enough water to have enough for the maximum amount of people that could be here. Similarly, she said the police department hires for its peak need.
“We’re managing at the moment. We’re handling things at the moment,” Eveland said. “The question is can we handle more?”
The implication is the town can handle a bit more, she said, judging from what the department heads said during previous presentations.
“There are so many other uses, folks, that use water. Here, we’re talking about one,” Dority said of the lodging use. “I’m approaching it from ‘we have a moratorium and we’re bringing all this other stuff in—these other activities that might happen.’ It’s hard for me to come up with an opinion on a single use.”
That’s especially true with police and fire response, he said.
The board split vote about whether the first whereas clause was substantiated.
Stivers, Dunphey, and St. Germain voted that the clause was partially substantiated; Dority and Eveland voted that it wasn’t. Wagner and Seavitt voted that it was substantiated.
WHEREAS CLAUSE #2
“WHEREAS, residents of the Town of Bar Harbor have expressed concerns about the development and operation of Certain Transient Accommodations, including impacts on health and safety, environmental quality, quality of life, adjacent property values, size, and the approval process, especially for accommodations approved without Planning Board review;”
The board split on this clause as well with a majority agreeing that it wasn’t substantiated.
“I don’t think all the residents of Bar Harbor have expressed concerns,” Dority said of the wording in the clause.
“There are areas in the town of Bar Harbor that we just don’t know,” about the quality of the environment, Dunphey said.
Since they don’t have the data, he said he’d vote substantiated or partially substantiated.
The piece that states “approved without planning board review” in that clause is wrong because the planning board does review those accommodations, both Dority and Wagner said. St. Germain said the process does what the residents want already.
Seavitt said that the discussion of adjacent property values hadn’t occurred in the workshops while Eveland said the board didn’t discuss health and safety with Mount Desert Island Hospital, which she said was a critical part of the infrastructure of the town.
“All of these are concerns, all of these things have been on my mind for a long time, but I couldn’t tie it to transient accommodations necessarily specifically,” Stivers said.
Dunphey spoke to noise complaints downtown and downtown residential conversions.
“How do you tie that in, Guy, that it’s lodging that’s doing that?” Dority said.
“Again, you can’t,” Dunphey said. He said the board asked for the data and they are looking for reasons to further look into the issues. He mentioned the planning department’s report that there have been noise complaints in areas within 300 feet of lodgings. “You can’t really separate lodging from all enterprises.”
“Well, the council’s done that,” Dority said.
“And they’ve left us to try to figure it out.”
“And it’s not easy. I hear you,” Dority said. “I hear you.”
“We can do our best with what we have,” Dunphey said.
WHEREAS CLAUSE #3
“WHEREAS, the Town of Bar Harbor’s current Land Use Ordinance is inadequate to prevent serious public harm due to the current approval process for Certain Transient Accommodations;”
A majority of the board found that this clause was not substantiated with Wagner and Seavitt finding it partially substantiated.
“I think this language is just incredibly flawed,” Wagner said. “Personally, I think we should move forward based on the reality we’re dealing with and not the semantics.”
“I find it insulting,” Dority said, “the language of this.”
They were both referencing the language of “do public harm.” That language is typical in emergency moratoriums.
WHEREAS CLAUSE #4
“WHEREAS, residents of the Town of Bar Harbor have expressed concerns that an increase in Certain Transient Accommodations will put undue strain on the water, sewer, and stormwater systems;”
A majority of the board members voted that this clause was substantiated, with Dority voting that it wasn’t and Eveland voting that it was partially substantiated.
Dunphey and Wagner focused on the peak capacity which can occur during summer months and heavy rain events. She was also specifically concerned about Hulls Cove.
Dority said the town was safeguarded by the TRT committee and he had a hard time pinning any potential problem just on lodging. “It’s just hard for me to lay all this on them.”
St. Germain said she did not get the impression that the town’s public works system was stressed.
“Sure, there’s lots of sources, but there’s a prominent source,” Seavitt said.
“Are we right to give the majority of our resources to one entity?” Dunphey asked. “Is it better to have one hotel or twenty houses as a community?”
WHEREAS CLAUSE 5
“WHEREAS, residents of the Town of Bar Harbor have expressed concerns that an increase in Certain Transient Accommodations will further exacerbate traffic congestion, degrading the ability of fire, health, and other emergency services to protect people within the Town;”
There was little discussion about the this whereas clause during the October 14 workshop.
The majority of the board members voted this was partially substantiated (Dunphey, St. Germain, Wagner, Seavitt). Stivers, Dority, and Eveland voted that it was not substantiated.
WHEREAS CLAUSE 6
“WHEREAS, residents of the Town of Bar Harbor have expressed concerns that an increase in Certain Transient Accommodations will put undue strain on parking in the Town;”
This was deemed not substantiated by a majority of the board members. Wagner and Seavitt voted that it was partially substantiated.
WHEREAS CLAUSE 7
“WHEREAS, the loss and conversion of year-round housing to seasonal businesses and seasonal worker housing, along with the encroachment of commercial operations into residential areas, pose significant challenges to the stability and character of our community;”
“This one doesn’t even mention transient accommodations,” Dority said of the clause which focuses on the conversion of year-round housing.
Eveland said the encroachment is something people feel, but she can’t tie it absolutely to lodging. She thinks it’s more short-term-rental related.
“That said, people feel this intensely,” Eveland said.
“It’s beyond a feeling; it’s a pressure,” Seavitt said of housing needs, to which Eveland quickly agreed.
Wagner said that this is the clause that matters the most and if it was the only one that was substantiated in the moratorium, it would warrant action.
“There’s only so much developable space,” Seavitt said, “and residential development” is not lucrative. Once it goes from the residential use, he said, it doesn’t go back.
However, there are some spaces in Bar Harbor that have gone from commercial to residential such as the former Ridgeway Inn, and Asygarth Station. During public comment, past planning board chair who is also a partner in the Pathmaker Hotel Tom St.Germain mentioned that he had sent a 20-plus-page document to Dority that morning. The document has multiple conversions from lodging to different types of housing listed. None of the planning board members had reviewed the document prior to the workshop.
Dunphey said that since residential properties are lost to conversions, it is substantiated though the language in the whereas clause does not mention lodging.
The majority of the board voted it was not substantiated with Dunphey, Wagner, and Seavitt voting that it was substantiated.
WHEREAS CLAUSE 8
“WHEREAS, the Town Council seeks to ensure that adequate time is provided to evaluate these concerns, determine the adequacy of existing land use ordinances and regulations, and, if necessary, develop additional ordinances and regulations to protect the health, safety, welfare, land use compatibility, environmental compatibility, and the well-being of all residents and visitors in the Town of Bar Harbor.”
Eveland questioned the phrasing of “develop additional ordinance and regulations” and if it was expected that the board would do that during the current evaluation period of the moratorium.
There was a lot of confusion about the wording of the clause among the members. Dority said he wasn’t going to vote on the clause because it didn’t make sense to him.
“I feel like our workshop has not addressed this topic,” Seavitt said. He said it felt it was the town council’s purpose statement. The board took no vote on whether the clause was substantiated.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The planning board members split over whether to allow for public comment during its October 14 meeting. They did allow public comment between the board’s discussion about the whereas clauses and before the board discussed its recommendations.
St.Germain said that his impression was that there were spikes during fires by a 55-60% capacity currently being used and questioned some of the board member’s assessments of the presentation by the town’s public works director last week.
He added that noise complaints within a certain radius of lodgings have not been linked to lodgings as their sources.
When services are created for a summer-time maximum capacity, the residents are able to still enjoy those services the rest of the year, which, he said, is why the town has such great police, fire, and ambulance coverage. Lodging already needs to provide parking, he added.
He said he hopes the board will look at other data that was presented, including the data he collated and sent to Dority.
“My data shows there is actually little to no growth to lodging,” he said.
Carol Chappell encouraged the planning board to recommend extending the moratorium. She spoke to the planning department’s 2025 work plan and that parts of that have not been finished. She also said the whereas language of the moratorium was problematic.
She said the moratorium should be extended for that 2025 work plan to happen.
Enoch Albert said that the town needed more time to work on planning issues. The wording of the whereas clauses is problematic, he agreed. He reiterated many of Chappell’s points about the town residents needing to have time to express concerns about the moratorium.
LINKS TO LEARN MORE
- Data collection overview and roadmap (uploaded 02.18.2025)
- Updated Moratorium Timeline (uploaded 05.01.2025)
- Workshop #2 (March 27, 2025) Meeting recording (uploaded 04.09.2025)
- MDI Historical Society presentation starts at: 04:50
- Bar Harbor Chamber of Commerce presentation starts at: 31:17
- Workshop #2: Staff Discussion Guidance Slides (uploaded 03.27.2025)
- Workshop #2: MDI Historical Society Presentation (uploaded 03.28.2025)
- Workshop #2: Bar Harbor Chamber of Commerce Presentation (Trends in Tourism Economy) (uploaded 03.27.2025)
- Maine Office of Tourism 2023 Economic Impact & Visitor Tracking Report (uploaded 03.28.2025)
- Maine Office of Tourism Downeast & Acadia 2023 Economic Impact & Visitor Tracking Report (uploaded 03.28.2025)
- Workshop #3: Staff Discussion Slides (uploaded 05.01.2025)
- Public Safety: Calls for Service Graph from 2018-2024 (uploaded 05.01.2025)
HELP SUPPORT THE BAR HARBOR STORY
Together, We’ve Built Something Special
Carrie Jones and Shaun Farrar·
When we started The Bar Harbor Story, we didn’t know if anyone would read it.
But you showed up. You shared. You sent tips. Now—over 400,000 views every month later—it’s clear: people here care about their community and each other.
We’ve kept everything free because news should never be out of reach, but every one of our stories take time to write, and your support keeps The Bar Harbor Story going.
If you value our work, please consider a paid subscription, a founding membership, or a sponsorship.
It truly helps us cover one more meeting, tell one more story, shine one more light.
Even $5 a month makes a difference. Click here to become a one-time supporter now.
Thank you so much for being here.
Founding member information can be found here.
Have questions about sponsorships? Just send Shaun an email at sfarrar86@gmail.com, he’d love to hear from you.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearlyDiscover more from Bar Harbor Story
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.