Ogunquit News
Local voters say no to zoning, split on TABOR
By Melissa Wood
OGUNQUIT - Last Tuesday, Nov. 7, voters said no to a warrant article that would have adjusted 14 areas in the zoning ordinance to comply with the town's Comprehensive Plan.The article was the result of the Planning Board and Land Use Office working together to comply with state law that requires towns to adjust zoning laws within two years of implementing a Comprehensive Plan to act in accordance with the plan.
Ogunquit's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2004 to control the future growth of the town. If the article had passed on Tuesday, the town would have made the deadline for compliance.
Despite this state requirement, however, the article faced opposition from residents who were against the idea of the sweeping changes in the one article, and specifically the provisions for hotel and motel expansion along Route 1.
"Even though the Comprehensive Plan states that new hotel construction and expansion should be encouraged, there was a group that organized opposition to Article 4 that felt there should be no expansion in GBD2," said Planning Board Chairman Stephen Wilkos.
Wilkos said that voters were most likely opposed to the changes to sections 3.5 and 9.8 of the zoning ordinance that would have allowed hotel/motel expansion in General Business District 2. GBD-2 is a four-square-mile area along the Route 1 business corridor reaching from the Wells town line roughly to Hoyt's Lane and from the York line to the flashing light at Admiral's Inn.
Going forward, the Planning Board is holding an open forum to ask voters why they voted against Article 4 on Monday, Dec. 11 at 6 p.m.
Meanwhile, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) passed in Ogunquit by one vote, but failed at the state level.
The initiative had asked voters, "Do you want to limit increases in state and local government spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth and to require voter approval for all tax and fee increases?"
Supporters of TABOR had cited it as a win-win scenario for Maine because it would have limited increases in spending and helped lower taxes.
But opponents had questioned whether the impact would ultimately be harmful to the state by forcing "negative spending" through cuts to existing budgets and programs.
