There are many reasons to vote no on Article 2 on the upcoming town ballot this coming November.  Here are a few.

One, the proposed amendment attempts to convey a benefit to one inn (and possibly two others, neither of which have yet expressed a desire or need to serve dinner to their guests) at the expense of all the other inns and restaurants in town. This is the very essence of spot zoning.  Writing zoning regulations or amending existing ones to promote a special advantage to a single individual is bad policy. Don’t encourage it by voting in favor of Article 2.

Two, the proposed amendment favors commercialization of residential neighborhoods – moving Camden in the direction of Boothbay Harbor and Bar Harbor and damaging Camden’s reputation as a unique place to visit or live on the Maine coast. 

Three, the proposed change flies in the face of the spirit of the current zoning regulations concerning nonconforming uses. The tone and intent of the current regulations strongly discourage the expansion of commercial uses that were grandfathered into approval at the time of the passing of the current ordinance. The proposed amendment is billed as a “small” exception. Keep in mind, however, that residential zones become commercial in a series of small steps like this one. Let’s not take the first step.

Four, the very idea that the Zoning Board of Appeals should grant special exceptions for any kind of commercial expansion to any inn in a residential neighborhood is fundamentally unfair to all the other bed-and-breakfast inns in town, especially those that are in a commercial district who paid a premium price to acquire their property in order to be able to operate legally in a commercial way. On top of that they pay higher annual taxes.

Five, it is potentially harmful to  local restaurants. While it is not certain that any particular restaurant will go out of business if Windward House is granted a special exception to serve meals other than breakfast to its guests, it is true that all the restaurants will suffer to some degree. A few dinners here, a few there, and over time the lost revenue will build up.

Six, the proposed amendment encourages a spot-zoning mindset, and should not be included in any part of our zoning ordinances

Seven, the proponents of voting yes have attempted to make the case that the primary issue underlying Article 2 is the promotion of small business. I respectfully disagree. The issue is one of zoning policy. It is not a referendum on small business.

There are many other reasons not to approve the proposed change to our zoning ordinances. In the interest of brevity, I will sign off with a simple plea: vote no on Article 2.

Neale Sweet lives in Camden