Land-use ordinance nixed by Lubec voters

During a four-hour town meeting on August 6 that drew 233 voters, Lubec residents decisively turned down a proposed land use ordinance while narrowly adopting a local aquaculture ordinance. They also adopted updates to the town's Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. The votes to decide on the three ordinances drew the large crowd, with last year's town meeting only attracting 48 voters.

Lubec residents are also concerned about rising taxes, and they are not alone in their concern, as it is a frequent issue in many communities. Locally, the total projected increase includes municipal, school and county taxes, coming to a 9.6% hike over the 2024‑25 fiscal year. This includes an increase of $173,223 for municipal operations. The $218,832 hike for school operations has already been approved, as has the $68,922 for the town's share of the county budget.

Under the guidance of moderator Harold Bailey, the meeting opened with a motion being made to move the three ordinances, originally numbers 62‑64, to the beginning, on the assumption that many participants were concerned about those articles. That motion was "pretty much unanimous," said Bailey.

Article 62 was a state‑mandated update to the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, which deals with construction and other projects within zones adjacent to the shore. Despite the state request to make adjustments to the existing ordinance, the matter generated much discussion and ultimately a motion to "move the question" forced the vote, which passed by a large majority.

Article 63 dealt with the long‑debated Land Use Ordinance. Dana Bradley led the charge against accepting this ordinance, which he termed an "insidious piece of work," and he moved for a paper ballot. Peter Howell responded to the comment by stating, "Lubec is the only town in this part of Washington County that does not have a land use ordinance." It was pointed out that the only mandates were setback requirements for new construction and proper sewage disposal systems. One resident garnered considerable applause when he observed, "If you start giving up your liberties you never get them back." The debate went back‑and forth, with many people presenting differing viewpoints on both sides of the question. Many made comments suggesting they were unfamiliar with the details, despite the committee having held a series of public workshops.

The paper ballot for the Land Use Ordinance vote snaked around the room and into the hall, requiring nearly a half‑hour for all to cast ballots. In the end, 139 nay votes were cast, with 75 voting in favor.

Article 64 dealt with an ordinance supported by a citizen's petition, titled "Industrial‑Scale Coastal Waters Aquaculture Ordinance," triggered by Cooke Aquaculture's plans to reintroduce salmon pens to Lubec waters, primarily in Johnson Bay. Two separate motions to allow a non‑resident to speak were defeated. One was from the supporters of the ordinance for an individual who was not identified, while the other was from select board Chair Carol Dennison for a representative from Cooke. Neither garnered the two‑thirds majority allowing them to speak, but there were still plenty of opinions on both sides. Again, a motion to move the question was put forth. It was accepted, leading to a final vote on the ordinance. It passed, with 94 votes in favor and 81 opposed. At this point, better than half of the meeting attendees left.

Now with a much diminished crowd, the meeting returned to Article 2, which dealt with general administration expenses. Few of the next series of articles drew questions, and all passed, although a few drew nay votes. Article 7 dealt with the cost of a series of public safety departments. The annual cost of the shellfish warden ‑- $27,277 -- drew questions, as few were aware of that employee's role.

By this time it was 9:20; the meeting had run better than three hours. Selectman Joanne Case moved that articles 24 through 40 be dealt with as though they were a single item; the motion was readily accepted. This group dealt with small dollar appropriations, many of which were third‑party funding requests; it was approved en masse.

Article 53 dealt with the process involving the town's seizure of tax-delinquent properties. The process often leads to questions, partially as state regulations are evolving. The basic issue is this: "Who keeps the funds over and above the back‑due taxes?" Until recently, this money went to the town, but now it is required to go back to the original owner. Language clarifying that transition is frequently questioned.

The meeting concluded at 10 p.m.