Editor:
Contract zoning allows an applicant to do something at one specific location within a given land use zone that would not otherwise be allowed by the land use ordinance. That amounts to spot zoning. In exchange for being granted an exception to the requirements of the land use ordinance, the applicant must give something of value to the town. Therein lie the problems with contract zoning.
First, it allows one person to do something at one location that no one else can do in that zone. Second, it’s predicated on the applicant’s provision of something of value to the town. In other words, it’s a deal, a contract. You do this for me and I’ll do that for you.
Who’s to say what’s of value to the town? A parking lot for tour buses, for example? Of value to the tourist orientated businesses in town perhaps, but not to the rest of the town’s residents.
It’s hard to argue that allowing a contract zone might not ever be of value. And, if it were not for the fact that there are other more fair ways to accomplish most of the same ends, the argument for contract zoning might be more persuasive.
A reasonable alternative, however, is to amend the land use ordinance as was done when the town wanted to build a public parking lot on North Street in the village residential zone. At the time, public parking lots were not permitted or conditional use in that zone. So, the voters were asked to amend the land use ordinance to allow public parking lots in the village residential zone, and they did so. The same could be done in any of the land use zones as long as a majority of the voters agree that the proposed new use benefits the town overall. In other words, it’s a political process decision. And the benefit does not apply only to a single applicant. If it’s fair for one, it should be fair for all.
For these reasons, I plan to vote “yes” on Question 9 on the Kennebunkport 2008 Town Warrant to repeal contract zoning.
Bill Covel
Kennebunkport