Westbrook residents will face three referendum questions on the June 10 ballet. In addition to the school budget validation vote, city voters will be deciding whether to pay for a new consolidated public services building and a rezoning of acreage on Stroudwater Street.

The zoning issue is fraught with complications – legal and ethical – and voters should do their homework before marking one of the ovals. Voters are being asked whether the open space across from Westbrook Middle School – an area that has served as active grazing farmland for about 100 years and was recently rezoned to allow for a mixed commercial-residential use – should revert to a contract zone that was put in place 2008 when the site was being considered to host what was billed as an upscale Maine Mall, complete with a Nordstrom.

Voters are seeing the ballot question because Jason Snyder, who tried to develop the property that his family had owned, gathered the requisite number of signatures to put the question on the June ballot. Snyder, who lost the property to foreclosure due to unfortunate financial circumstances in the wake of the recession, as well as the death of his business partner, says he is hoping to put a stop to J.B. Brown’s plans to turn the property into what Snyder considers low-quality commercial and residential use.

J.B. Brown’s representatives, on the other hand, say Snyder’s ballot question is illegal because the previous contract zone was struck between Snyder and the city, and doesn’t transfer to a new owner. Snyder disagrees with J.B. Brown’s legal analysis, saying a clause in the contract struck in 2008 mentions potential transfers to successive owners. If the question passes June 10, J.B. Brown would likely seek legal recourse to void the results, which will no doubt lead to legal fees for the city.

Residents should be clear about what they’re voting for in Question 3. A “yes” vote will revert the property to the previous contract zone with specific building guidelines. For example, it calls for a performing arts venue and more stringent design standards. In fact, the terms of the contract zone are so stringent, J.B. Brown has said it would not be able to develop according to the contract since the marketplace wouldn’t support it and the payoff wouldn’t be worth the investment.

A “no” vote will leave the recent rezoning in place.

As if that wasn’t complicated enough, the acreage has about 15 acres of wetlands. Whether the terms of the contract zone can even be realized, therefore, is unknown.

We may not love the idea of that beautiful stretch between Stroudwater Street and the Westrbook Arterial developed into another commercial venture with cookie-cutter houses and boxy commercial buildings, and we agree with Snyder that J.B. Brown’s intended use isn’t as welcome as Snyder’s vision. But we recommend residents vote no on Question 3 for the simple reason that it’s not fair to impose the former contract zone on an unwilling partner, J.B. Brown. The contract zone was developed with pre-recession 2007 in mind, not the new normal of today’s economic climate. The contract zone had its shot but failed. J.B. Brown’s vision is more in line with the marketplace.

Also, voters should think hard about breaking a covenant with a company that bought the parcel for $2 million earlier this year after working extensively with the city to rezone the property into something workable. We respect the citizen-initiated process and Snyder’s tenacity and passion, but in this case, it seems inappropriate to ask residents to put in place a defunct contract zone.

Vote yes for fleet facility

Compared with Question 3, Question 1 is pretty straightforward. It asks Westbrook voters to approve a new public works facility for 371 Saco St. that would consolidate the fleet vehicles of public works and the schools. The facility would not exceed $9 million in principal.

The current facility was built in 1969 and is deemed outdated with vehicles out in the weather and less-than-ideal working conditions. It makes sense to consolidate the city’s three repair facilities into one central location.

The tax impact of the 20-year loan is minimal, despite the cost of the project, which officials whittled from an initial $17 million. For all these reasons, we urge a yes vote.

–John Balentine, managing editor