Despite pleas from residents of Pine Point to take action, the Scarborough Town Council voted unanimously Sept. 5 to table indefinitely a proposed ordinance that would create a new process for hotels and motels to go through in order to convert to condominiums.
“Don’t put it off any longer,” said Harold Hutchinson, who spoke in favor of the ordinance.
The vote stalls the effort by Lighthouse Inn owners in Pine Point to move ahead on its controversial condominium-conversion effort. Nick Truman, who would like to convert his 22-unit motel into 22 condominiums, spoke against the ordinance, claiming it was targeted at his business.
“There will be legal challenges if this ordinance is passed,” he said.
Though Councilor Sylvia Most said she would not be persuaded by a threat of legal action, she said she would not support passing the ordinance. Most, who is also the head of the ordinance committee, said she thought the ordinance was still too confusing to pass.
Chairman Jeff Messer agreed. He said in order to pass an ordinance, he must be able to explain it to a resident in a minute or less – something he couldn’t do the condominium conversion ordinance.
“I believe this is going to continue to create problems,” Most said.
The ordinance came about when the code enforcement office determined that converting a hotel or motel into individually owned condominiums would be considered a change of use. The ordinance outlines what would be required of a hotel or motel if it were to sell off its individual units without changing its use. If the motel met those requirements – such as having a front desk and linen service – it would not have to go to the zoning board for approval.
Truman has argued that his property would not change its use if the individual units were sold, but also believes the requirements in the ordinance are unnecessary.
Most said she didn’t think a motel could sell its units without changing its use. Despite the work of the ordinance committee, she said, she believed the ordinance might be altogether unnecessary, and that the decision to let the properties change their use should remain in the hands of the zoning board.
Councilor Carol Rancourt disagreed, saying she believed the ordinance provided a definition for what would not be a change of use and would give the code enforcement some necessary guidelines to make that determination.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
