Bar Harbor Maps Next Steps for Lodging Moratorium

Carrie Jones

Nov 12, 2025

The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by Havana.

---

BAR HARBOR—Bar Harbor’s town council is wrestling with how to balance its visitor economy with the housing needs of potential year-round residents as it decides what comes next for the town’s moratorium on new lodging construction.

At a workshop November 6, town planning staff presented months of data and public input gathered during the year-long pause on new lodging projects, a pause meant to give the town breathing room to understand how its visitor economy intersects with year-round housing, potential infrastructure strain, and quality of life for residents.

“We’re just looking for your direction,” Town Manager James Smith told councilors.

That direction would be about what elements of the lodging moratorium were still important and what policy objectives the council might want to prioritize.

With the moratorium set to expire in January, town officials are now weighing whether to extend it, revise local land use rules, or shift focus to broader commercial impacts after planning staff concluded that lodging is only part of the pressure on Bar Harbor’s housing market and infrastructure.

No official action was taken in the town council workshop, which lasted approximately 90 minutes. The public were able to comment near the end of the meeting.

“I just truly want to thank them for all the hard work,” Planning Director Michele Gagnon said of the planning board and then of her planning staff, specifically Housing and Community Planner Cali Martinez and Staff Planner Hailey Bondy.

“They need to be commended for the tenacity that they had in compiling an amazing amount of data that is going to serve us so well in making decisions now and in the future,” Gagnon said. “It’s things that we did not have. It’s things that we did not track. Is it perfect? Probably not. Is it really, really good?”

Yes, she said, and more than that, it’s sufficient to make decisions.

“This was just was just a great amount of patience and tenacity to get through that,” Gagnon said of her staff’s work.

The planning board took the data and conversations collected by planning staff and tried to identify a path forward in what would be an implementable solution to concerns raised through the lodging moratorium. There are seven areas that needed attention.

There is a common thread in the planning board’s findings, Gagnon said.

That thread is that “all commercial activities are kind of responsible for the issues and concerns that have been raised to a certain extent. It is not just singular to lodging.”

In some areas, lodging might have a “slightly bigger’ impact, she added.

“Those activities that mostly service our visitors have a pretty significant impact,” she said.

Though there is available capacity in the town’s infrastructure, she said, there is some pressure on the system at peak during certain times of the year. When homes are converted to commercial uses, it isn’t only because of lodging, but also other commercial uses, though, she said, the town’s data showed about half of the conversions are due to lodging.

Septic systems and water systems that are not connected to the town’s infrastructure need to be looked at more, she said.

Noise complaints from restaurants and bars show the pressure of commercial activity intruding on nearby apartments and houses, which creates a pressure for the quality of life for those residents in those areas, Gagnon said.

The goal is to come back with an organized work plan with a policy for the council to look at again.

The next step, Smith said, is for Gagnon to engage with the planning board and then council in conversations about potential changes.

Eventually, the council would “look at the moratorium and make a decision on the future of the moratorium: what does that look like,” Gagnon said.

---

THE PLANNING STAFF’S WRITTEN REPORT

The planning department also presented a report summarizing the planning board’s findings.

“Based on this review, the board found that the existing Land Use Ordinance provides a reasonable foundation to manage lodging and related uses. Many issues identified extend beyond lodging and relate to other commercial activities,” the report reads. “For these reasons, the board voted (4-3) not to recommend extending the lodging moratorium. While the board chose not to recommend extending the lodging moratorium, it identified several areas that warrant attention.”

Those include system capacity, residential conversion, environmental resources, downtown noise, downtown pressures, neighborhood character and stability, and parking.

The report also outlines the planning board’s suggesting to “better align future lodging development with the town’s infrastructure and neighborhoods.”

Those include:

• “Revise lodging (L) definitions including, but not limited to, L1 to prevent its use in lieu of proper short-term rental registration and compliance; L4 and L5 to establish a clear cap on the number of guest rooms; and refine the definition of guest rooms to account for its occupancy capacity rather than simply its number.
• “Define suitable areas for new lodging uses to ensure scale compatibility with surrounding land uses, discourage residential conversions near lodging establishments, and protect the character of established neighborhoods.
• “Clarify the application of the ELQ (employee living quarters) lot coverage bonus, specifically whether it applies to all uses or only to the addition of an ELQ structure.
• “Review parking requirements to ensure proportionality to unit size and provide adequate employee parking.”

---

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

“I think this is a great place to start,” Councilor Earl Brechlin said of housing conversions and potential areas of attention. “Every one we lose is a tragedy.”

Brechlin also thinks that employee living quarters conversion of residential properties needs to be looked at.

“That takes them out of the year round community just as hard,” Brechlin said. “That’s a housing issue.”

“I agree with Earl,” Councilor Randy Sprague said about homes being used for lodging employees, asking if there was a mechanism available to make lodgings provide housing for workers.

Gagnon asked for an informal nod about whether or not the suggestions were something she should move forward with.

“It seems like a pretty good framework to work with,” Councilor Joe Minutolo said.

Brechlin wanted a harder look at parking rules and requirements.

Council Chair Val Peacock had some questions about the parking requirements in terms of scale. Similarly, she had questions about blanket provisions.

“We don’t want to lose housing and I think that’s the number one priority,” she said, but when there are parts of the economy and opportunities for people who live here with incubator projects, she wondered what the implications might be when tweaking the L1 lodging use and the overlap between lodging uses and employee living quarters.

“That’s the one I really need to pay a lot of attention to a lot of the impacts,” Gagnon said. “What does that look like, right?”

There are dwelling units that have home occupation and there are some that have vacation rentals, Gagnon said. That overlap needs to be looked into as well.

“These kind of overlaps happen and they’ve happened forever,” she said.

Brechlin said when the short-term rental wave began, the smaller homes were snatched up for that.

“I think this looks really great. I’m excited about this. I think this is a good step forward or five steps forward,” Vice Chair Maya Caines said. “There are ELQs that are occupied year-round and those individuals are part of the community.”

She also wanted people to remember that some employee living quarters (ELQs) are year-round and the town should be mindful of that, while some are seasonal. “I don’t know how we’d make that distinction, but I think it’s important.”

Sprague also said that residents being able to rent a room for a whole season, a shared accommodation (SA), also needs to continue.

---

WHAT HAPPENS TO POTENTIAL PROJECTS IF THE MORATORIUM EXPIRES BUT LAND USE CHANGES ARE NOT IN EFFECT

Brechlin also asked what the net effect for proposals in the pipeline would be if the moratorium ended in January, someone decided to do something in February, and then if it was possible to make a new land use ordinance retroactive.

“That’s a question for the attorney,” Gagnon said.

“The planning board’s done all this work. We’ve gone through the moratorium. We don’t want to have a four-month free for all,” Brechlin said.

Brechlin explained that he didn’t want a four-month free-for-all if the moratorium wasn’t renewed during the time between its end and then the land use changes, which could happen in the voting booth in June 2026 or November 2026 at the earliest.

Peacock said that it would be helpful to figure out the work that needs to happen.

And then, she said, the council can talk about if they need a moratorium or the same moratorium or different changes.

Smith said they have 45 days of workshop time before the council has to make a decision in December. The moratorium automatically expires in January. There is time, he said, for the council to determine its direction and plan and coordinate with the planning department and town attorney if they decide to do something.

---

WHAT MIGHT SOME OF THOSE CHANGES BE?

The big question is what might some of the suggested changes to the town’s rules governing lodging placement and construction be?

At this point, they would basically be suggestions in the planning board’s written report to the council to cap guest rooms in certain lodging categories, to clarify the definition of “guest room” so that it’s about occupancy capacity, making sure new lodging has “scale compatibility with surrounding land uses,” trying to prevent homes being turned into lodging, protecting current neighborhood character, tweaking employee living quarter’s lot coverage bonus, and reviewing parking requirements.

Among other things, the town could potentially initiate new amendments to the town’s land use ordinance about lodging definitions or criteria about where different types of lodging are allowed. It could clarify the lot coverage for ELQs to make sure they are consistent. It could also review and change the parking requirements for lodging.

---

LOOKING BY CATEGORIES

Gagnon shared another document with councilors about categories as she tried to find out from the council if things were needed or not. This would create a priority work list.

• Should the town look at graduated size options for hotels, such as have an upper limit for guest rooms for lodging types four and five?
• Should there be limits on business types and sizes in certain areas of town?
• Should the town establish spacing or intensity standards, such as 200 feet between bars? (Gagnon stressed this was only an example.) Or a number of businesses or maximum occupancy per acre?
• Should there be buffering and transitional standards between districts?

“I think they are all kind of needed,” Sprague said, but wished it wasn’t a simple “needed or not needed” choice.

Peacock said that some things may not need land use amendments to help tweak projects to be better, but ways to do that during the approval process.

“I’ve heard so much about protecting residential,” Peacock said and wondered if there was a way to frame it more as protecting residential areas rather than as limiting businesses.

“That feels like a different—the goal is different. This feels like a goal of limiting businesses,” Peacock said rather than the goal of protecting residential places.

She also said she wasn’t sure how she felt about the density goals because there could be unintended consequences, which include sprawl.

Brechlin, however, said that he welcomes the discussion about sizing and intensity.

“There are big areas of downtown now,” Brechlin said that “are in a single ownership.”
He worries that once two properties in that cluster are sold, he’s afraid they will be bulldozed to build one large business.

“Then it’s all bulldozed and one big thing goes in,” he said. Instead, he wanted to see something respectful to the town’s pattern and history.

Sprague brought up the concept of contract zoning and if that should be looked at in the long term.

“Contract zoning in Maine is a land use tool that allows municipalities to create specific zoning agreements with property owners for developments that do not fit within existing zoning ordinances,” according to documents put out by the town of Durham, Maine.

Gagnon said there are other avenues than contract zoning for what Sprague was talking about.

Caines said she was interested in the buffering. “We’re not a large city where that buffering can happen….Part of the charm of Bar Harbor is the small-town community feel.”

The workshop isn’t to give the town a specific policy solution set, it’s to elicit feedback to understand the council’s sentiment to give staff clearer direction, Smith said.

Caines also asked how much of this work combines with the town’s Safer Streets for All project and the vision for downtown.

Peacock said that holistically that is a part of it, determining what they want the town to be. She looked for clarification if changes about home conversions to commercial uses were across the board for all businesses?

“There’s other types of businesses that the community needs that are beneficial to the community and helpful,” Peacock said. “I would like to know if there are examples of what that looks like in other places and if there are impacts. Is this across the board for any type of business or is this specifically for tourism/lodging types of businesses? It’s already hard enough to have a business in this town. Land use values are high. Rents are really high. You’re dealing with a layer of tourism on top of it. There are businesses in this community that don’t exist because of those reasons already. Are we adding another layer of things if we want to diversify and have year-round businesses: those are goals, too.

Peacock said Bar Harbor isn’t currently a town that recruits economic activity or for businesses to come to the town.

Caines said part of the conversation might need to be how to encourage businesses when they rebuild or remodel to add another level of housing to that property and if there needs to be land use changes to facilitate that.

“I think it’s unfair that we’re in a position that people have to work for a certain place to have housing and they can’t just have a house and also have a job in this community. People’s safety and ability to live here is really tied to their job. The ELQ and SA are great, but is there a way out of that?” Caines asked.

It’s hard to nail down, Minutolo said. His own bicycle shop business transformed during the decades it existed.

“We’re trying to protect our residential areas to keep them livable and comfortable,” Minutolo said.

Peacock asked if there were ways to incentivize businesses to create housing.

“A lot of this is going to be market driven, no matter what,“ Minutolo said.

Another question was should all downtown businesses be required to provide parking?

Caines wanted to incentivize not using cars. She worried about losing parking revenue and was curious to learn more. She also mentioned a parking garage as “a real potential solution.”

Potentially not allowing commercial activities in certain zones was also a quick part of the discussion as was creating a formal system for the public to complain about commercial activities. Creating a formal system was not supported. Creating a fee system for commercial activities for public infrastructure use so that “high demand” or seasonal businesses “contribute fairly” to the cost of use was mentioned. That could be licensing, connection fees, a fee for utilities being turned off, a pay for use fee. Requiring that a minimum level of service standard be maintained before approving or permitting a commercial project was also mentioned. So, a project would have to provide mitigation before its approval.

David Kief arrived late to the workshop, having thought it began at 6 rather than 4:30. Steven Boucher arrived approximately one hour into the workshop due to another obligation. The next workshop is tentatively scheduled for December 2.

---

PUBLIC COMMENT

During public comment Mary Galperin said, “I feel it important to point out that the lodging industry is not a stand-alone commodity. It cannot be overlooked that the lodging industry begets companion needs for seasonal housing, parking, bars, and restaurants.”

She said the Pathmaker Hotel built a restaurant on its site, which she believed required seasonal housing needs.

She hoped the moratorium is extended “until all loose ends relating to the lodging industry” are resolved.

She was the only one who spoke during the first public comment.

Later, Noreen Hunter asked about trash removal by businesses. Peacock said that the town is currently doing a study about its solid waste.

---

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

The day before the council’s workshop, the town’s planning board briefly heard of potential changes to the town’s design review board and campsite/campground definitions. If moved forward, those would go before voters in June.

---

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CHANGES

One potential change would be to the town’s design review board. The proposal would be a repeal and replace of the current ordinance. There is expected to be some minor changes as well to the draft prior to January.

The draft amendment to the Design Review Board’s purview clarifies, reorganizes and simplifies its role. It adds an extra level of standards for properties listed in the National Historic Registry. The standards are taken from the United States Department of Interior. It addresses standards for restoration and rehabilitation. It also gives a clear process for demolition and what can be done to save one of these historic properties.

Everyone with property within that purview was notified about the potential change, Gagnon said.

“I think it’s a solid piece,” Gagnon said. “I think it’s a plus for the town.”

The design review board rewrote the chapter. The planning board would take action to move it along in the process to go before voters in June.

The design review board has been working on the changes for a while but had been asked to table it as the planning board dealt with the lodging moratorium recommendations.

Planning Board Chair Millard Dority thanked the design review board members for their patience.

“I know you’ve been waiting on this for a long time,” Dority said.

---

CAMPGROUND AND CAMPSITE AMENDMENTS

Code Enforcement Officer Michael Gurtler explained, “We are taking another stab at updating campground language. We decided to start at ground zero.”

The goal is to make one definition of campground. Currently, they are not the same and differ throughout some of the town’s zones.

The definition of private campsite and whether or not private campsites should be allowed in districts that are not shoreland districts will also be addressed. Two weeks ago, they sent out information looking for comments. There will be listening sessions this week about those potential changes on November 12.

“So essentially we’ve been asked to tread water until the council workshop,” Dority said. “I agree with you John (Seavitt), waiting for things that we’ve already delineated as an issue, that seems ridiculous to me.”

Dority didn’t want the planning board to look like they aren’t taking care of issues, but they’ve been asked to wait until the council gives them guidance.

---

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

Bar Harbor is developing a Sustainable Tourism Management Plan, and your voice matters. We’re asking residents to take a few minutes to complete a brief survey that will help shape the future of tourism in our community.

Take the survey online here:

https://polco.us/sn3krf

Prefer paper? Printed copies are available at the Municipal Building (93 Cottage Street).

Your input will help guide thoughtful, long-term strategies that reflect the values and needs of Bar Harbor residents. Thank you for participating!

---

LINKS TO LEARN MORE

Watch the November 5 Planning Board Meeting

November 6 Council Moratorium Workshop Agenda Packet

Watch the November 6 Town Council Workshop

---

HELP SUPPORT THE BAR HARBOR STORY

Thank you so much for being here with us.

We keep our news 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.

Even $5 a month makes a difference. Or click here to become a one-time supporter now.

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.

---