Annlinn Kruger. Margaret O’Neil. Angela Chamberlain. Mary Galperin.

Carrie Jones

Oct 19, 2025

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY

We always welcome letter submissions to The Bar Harbor Story.

For details on our policy, please visit our about page and scroll down or just visit here.

As with all newspapers, the beliefs, opinions, and viewpoints expressed by the writers of letters to the editor and included here do not necessarily reflect the beliefs, opinions, and viewpoints or official policies of The Bar Harbor Story.

We do not have an exclusive submission policy. That means if your letter is published here, it is fine by us if it’s also published in other places and vice versa.

All the past letters to the editor can be found on the Substack site here.

---

DISAPPOINTED IN GOVERNOR MILLS’ CHOICE TO RUN

To the Editor:

Too bad Gov. Janet Mills could not stand up to Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer as formidably as she has to former governor Paul LePage and Pres. Donald Trump.

Schumer twisted Mills’ arm for Maine’s Senate race and she’s thrown in her hat. Too bad her better judgement did not prevail. It’s a shame that Mills will end her admirable political career in an ill considered spoiler campaign against much needed generational change and party reform.

Annlinn Kruger
Bar Harbor

---

Concerns Regarding Lodging Development and Oversight on Summer Street

Dear Members of the Planning Board,

I am writing to share my experience and concerns following the September meeting regarding local lodging development. I believe my prior experience with a similar situation on Summer Street offers important perspective for the board’s current deliberations.

I was the owner of 6 Summer Street, where I lived intermittently beginning in 1984. At that time it was my home, I had begun plans to add an additional apartment on the lower level of the home. The neighboring property also had the potential to be restored and brought up to code with renovation. Unfortunately, I learned that a nearby B&B; had purchased that property with the intention of demolishing it to create parking.

When I met with Michelle to explore possible options, I was informed that nothing could be done, as the new construction was permitted to build directly up to the property line.

The proposed thirty-foot structure would have blocked sunlight and surrounded my home, ultimately making it unlivable. Faced with these conditions, I reluctantly decided to sell the property, as the stress and loss of quality of life were no longer sustainable. In the process, three homes that could have continued to provide valuable housing were lost.

I am further concerned that the planning board may not have been fully involved during key stages of this project, which allowed certain liberties to be taken. The new construction was intended to align with my stairs—consistent with the Black Friar property line—yet it was instead extended to the road. Picture 2018. The structure was also built directly along the boundary with the casino parking lot, and its electrical boxes, steps, and gas tanks were placed on Bar Harbor property, surrounded by large rocks. Picture 2018. Additionally, the trees and shrubs that were removed have not been replanted as required, leaving the area unsightly. Before and after pictures can be viewed on google maps by going to 6 Summer Street and changing date.

I strongly believe that greater oversight and adherence to established review procedures would have prevented many of these issues. The role of the planning board is essential in ensuring fair and transparent development that respects both residents and the character of our community.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these concerns. I respectfully urge the board to maintain diligent involvement in all future projects to ensure that residential and community interests are properly protected.

Sincerely,

Margaret O’Neil

Bar Harbor

This letter was sent to the Bar Harbor Planning Board and then us concerning the town’s lodging moratorium.

---

SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTAL CHANGES

Dear Members of the Town Council,

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.

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.

Sincerely,

Angela M Chamberlain

Bar Harbor

This letter was sent to the Bar Harbor Town Council and us concerning the town’s potential changes to the Short Term Rental Ordinance. That goes before the council at its Tuesday, October 21 meeting.

---

Disappointed in Bar Harbor Planning Board’s Split Decision on the Lodging Moratorium

I recently read about the Bar Harbor Planning Board’s narrow decision to not recommend an extension of the lodging moratorium. Here are my comments:

Bar Harbor real estate is a finite asset; and, therefore, the allocation of its use must be appropriated and regulated. I would even say rationed. Not everyone will be happy.

Further, it is my understanding that one of the Town’s goals is to promote housing for year round residents, particularly families. We voted to authorize building a very costly school while student enrollment is dwindling. Certainly we should try to increase enrollment.

Allocating available real estate to increase transient lodging (along with increasing seasonal employee housing and parking) reduces the availability of real estate that can be used to achieve the goal of creating a thriving year round community.

Let’s stop working at crosscurrents with stated goals and committed actions (such as the building of a new school). I think the town council should extend the current lodging moratorium while we further examine how to best allocate our limited real estate. This is an important responsibility and it should not be rushed. The Town’s action on this very matter sets the cornerstone of the Town’s future.

Mary Galperin

Bar Harbor