To rationalize the changes the Windward House wants via Article 2, the owner says that if the Windward House had been serving dinners 30 years ago she would have been allowed to do what she wants today. But that was not the case, so that fantasy is irrelevant. What someone might have been allowed to do in Camden 30 years ago is no more relevant than the fact that B&Bs in this area were previously restricted offering only two rooms not 10.  It is no more relevant than what might have been allowed 50 years ago, before Camden had any zoning code. 

What is relevant is that the rules the Windward House now objects to were in place 13 years before the current owner bought the inn.  So, if these rules were too restrictive for them, they had the opportunity at that time to buy an Inn in Camden in a commercial zone which doesn’t have these restrictions.

It is certainly true that the inns in Camden serve a valuable function- both the ones in commercial zones and those in residential neighborhoods and all these Inns should be allowed to continue operating where they are. However, it is not only appropriate, but necessary that the residential area inns have more restrictions than those in commercial zones. These restrictions prevent increasing the commercialization of our living areas.  Article 2 would remove these necessary restrictions and encourage commercial creep into neighborhoods.

Having lived in areas where ill-considered zoning changes like Article 2 were allowed, I have great concern that we not follow that path.  Each such change is used to justify the next as just another "small change.” But, the net result is that it greatly alters the character of the town over time.  So far, Camden has avoided that fate, unlike many coastal towns in Maine.  We should not follow their example, but instead vote no on Article 2.

Dennis McGuirk

Camden