By Wayne E. Rivet

Staff Writer

If Doris Kimball sees a change on the election ballot proposed by the Planning Board, she often votes “Yes” because if officials put it on the warrant it is likely deemed necessary.

Now, she is somewhat skeptical.

Kimball told Bridgton selectmen Tuesday night that she is both “upset” and “confused’ regarding a referendum question planned for the July 14 ballot. 

Question 9 asks, “Shall the Town enact an ordinance entitled, ‘Miscellaneous Amendments’ to the Town of Bridgton Land Use Ordinance”?

One of the amendments would open the door for a proposed Assisted Living project to be developed on North High Street, in Kimball’s neighborhood. 

In a letter to selectmen, Kimball pushed for the piece addressing the Assisted Living project to be its own question for voters to decide.

Kimball wrote, “What percentage of voters would you think has a clue as to what they would be voting on? I’m assuming that the Assisted Living Amendment is included, but I don’t know that for sure…After looking for, and not finding, an article for Assisted Living, chances are a voter would think it’s not on the list and would, therefore, just vote ‘Yes’ on the remaining miscellaneous amendments. This would result in, ‘Yes, I agree that Assisted Living be allowed in the Village Neighborhood District.’ Totally not a fair move by the Planning Board! Although that may be the desired outcome for members of the Planning Board, there are those who feel that these business facilities do not belong in a Village Neighborhood. If Assisted Living remains in the list, I would have to urge a ‘No’ vote, which would also apply to the whole list. Therefore, it seems to me that rather than being hidden, it should be listed as a separate article with its own number so voters could easily find it. It could read, ‘Do you approve the insertion of the verbiage Assisted Living Facility so that any structures associated with such uses are allowed in the Downtown Village Neighborhood District? (By the way, I question ‘any’ structures? If taken literally, that could mean a skyscraper).”

Although the referendum ballot questions were discussed at a joint public hearing by selectmen and the Planning Board (it was a “virtual” hearing on April 7), Kimball said more time was spent on the eight marijuana questions than the “miscellaneous” question, other than a few comments made by Mary Shorey, who also lives on North High Street.

“When Mary Shorey called in to suggest that Assisted Living be listed as a separate article and given its own number, she was told by the Planning Board chairperson that once the articles were on the warrant, there could be no changes made (or something to that effect). Bear (Zaidman, selectman) asked why each marijuana question was listed separately, but Assisted Living could not be? After some discussion, it was decided that if any changes were to be made, they would have to be done tonight. Wording for the separate article would also have to be provided. A call was put in to someone for clarification, but had not called back prior to the end of the meeting,” Kimball wrote. “Question: If no changes are allowed once the articles are placed on the warrant, why was time not made available so that the articles might be presented to the public for input prior to their being placed on the warrant? When was there to be a time for specific public input, if any? Unless it is stated in Planning Board literature that the board is not obligated to accept input from the public, it should not be encouraging input, then saying it’s too late; the articles are already on the warrant.”

She ended the letter saying, “By not allowing Mary (Shorey’s) public input at the first chance to do so, I feel her rights were violated. Would you please check on this, and if possible, reverse the decision.”

With Kimball one of 23 people signed in for Tuesday’s virtual selectmen’s meeting, officials indeed reconsidered the decision. 

Board Chairman Lee Eastman wondered whether it would be prudent to pose a question for each Land Use amendment, and not simply single out the Assisted Living change.

Community Development Director Linda LaCroix said planners felt listing each one, along with the eight marijuana questions, would be too confusing for voters, which was why they went with a “miscellaneous” amendment for Land Use.

LaCroix pointed out that the “process was followed and done right” in respect to the public hearing and presentation of referendum questions. 

Town Clerk Laurie Chadbourne immediately reached out to Maine Municipal Association regarding the matter. MMA’s Legal Services Department responded the next day, “If Bridgton decides to hold its election to coincide with the state primary on July 14, Bridgton’s ballot questions will have to be certified by the selectmen to the clerk no later than 60 days prior to the July 14 election. All other requirements (e.g., a town warrant, absentee ballots, a public hearing, etc.) will also apply with respect to the July 14 election, the same as with any other municipal secret ballot election. If you had nomination papers in circulation for an earlier election date, however, that deadline is not extended from its original filing date.”

By pushing the election date to July 14, Bridgton has the needed time to rework the referendum questions, since Chadbourne had yet given the printer the go-ahead to produce ballots.

LaCroix can discuss question wording with legal counsel, and present that finding to selectmen at their May 12 meeting. A decision will be needed then to finalize the ballot. To meet statutory guidelines, the certification deadline is May 15.