Editor:
In the last issue of the Kennebunkport Town Review, the town manager asserts that repair and restoration of the Goat Island Lighthouse cannot be done except by the use of contract zoning because the land use ordinance will not permit it. This is not true. Whatever land use ordinances stand in the way of the repair and reconstruction of the Goat Island Lighthouse can be changed in a warrant item restricting the problematic ordinances by allowing an explicit exception in the case of lighthouses in Kennebunkport, contingent on the approval of the planning board.
That is much easier than going through the nightmare of contract zoning. If that way of getting the lighthouse repaired does not work, then why not just write an ordinance for lighthouses and other important historical sites allowing rebuilding as a conditioned use in the relevant zone? That’s even easier.
Or do the same thing the town did to allow repair of the Arundel Golf Course: simply define repair and rebuilding of lighthouses as permissible or conditional use in the appropriate zone without the constraints imposed by any land use ordinances that might prevent the repair or rebuilding.
Secondly, what exactly is the “benefit to the Town as a whole” of having a boardwalk rebuilt and other improvements made under contract zoning at the Goat Island Lighthouse?
In another note in the same issue of Kennebunkport Town Review (presumably funded by taxpayers), the town manager urges that the warrant item proposing the amendment under Question 8 will allow greater public participation and understanding of the process, and above all else allows the citizens of the town to determine whether the contract zone offers a benefit to the town as a whole. 
However, the plain truth of the matter is that the amended version of the contract zoning article is as defective as it ever was because, without requiring a full site plan and positive recommendation of the planning board before the town votes on the contract, the citizens are being asked to approve of a contract the most important details of which are not specified until after the town votes and even then, the town vote can be nullified by the recommendation of the planning board.
In other words, the proposed amendment has the effect of asking the voters to approve of a contract whose crucial details are left unspecified by way of the consequences of what the contract implies after the full site plan is completed after the vote. 
The town has asserted that, under this proposed amendment, when the citizens vote on a proposed contract they are merely voting for the establishment of a contract zone which is distinct from voting on the details of the contract, details which will state specifically what is to be allowed by way of such items as volume, setbacks, height, uses, water and sewerage matters.  In fact, the contract is empty until such details are specified and approved by the planning board before the contract is voted upon by the citizens.
Vote “No” on Question 8 and “Yes” on Question 9!
Laura Celi
Kennebunkport