BLUE HILL — Confusion appears to reign supreme regarding this week’s referendum on a proposed building moratorium.

The ballot that voters face at elections Friday, March 20, includes what selectmen have described as a nonbinding vote on a proposal to ban commercial building projects of more than 5,000 square feet until a revised comprehensive plan is completed.

The question was put on the ballot as a result of a 166-signature petition that resident Kevin Poland submitted to selectmen earlier this year. Although Poland said the petition was not specifically aimed at Rite Aid’s plans to build a “megastore” in town, many petition signers have publicly opposed the drug giant’s plans, on grounds the store would not fit in with the town’s rural character.

According to Selectman Gordon Emerson, the Maine Municipal Association has advised that the moratorium could not be enforced. Whereas the petition specifies that the moratorium would expire at town meeting a year from now if no plan is completed, state law dictates that moratoriums must be limited to 180 days.

That’s why two of three selectmen voted recently to consider the moratorium unenforceable. But several participants in Friday’s regular selectmen’s meeting raised questions about the proposed moratorium that no one appeared able to answer definitively.

First off was the question of whether the moratorium is truly unenforceable. Asked by Selectman Jim Schatz for his opinion, town attorney James Patterson wrote in a letter that although such a ban must be limited to 180 days, an ordinance could be passed to extend the building ban for additional 180-day periods under certain conditions.

The law states that a moratorium can go into effect only to “prevent a shortage of public facilities” or if existing ordinances are inadequate to “prevent serious public harm” from commercial development in the area in question.

Waterville-based developer Rared Co. Inc. filed March 9 to build a Rite Aid store of more than 11,000 square feet on South Street. Patterson advised that if the moratorium is passed prior to Planning Board review of the Rite Aid application, which is set for April 6, the moratorium could be considered to apply to Rite Aid. .

Patterson predicted that if the moratorium passes, an opponent could question whether the moratorium complied with the state law. In other words, was it necessary to prevent potential serious public harm or to protect town facilities? They could also note that the one-year moratorium exceeds the 180-day limit, he said.

“It looks like no matter how this turns out, it’s going to cost money,” resident Rachel Leach said at Friday’s selectmen’s meeting. Since selectmen had officially voted to consider the moratorium unenforceable, it should never have been placed on the ballot, she said.

In hindsight, Selectman Gordon Emerson agreed. “I think you’re right,” he told Leach.

Emerson said the petition had come in “at the last minute,” and that the selectmen felt compelled to make a quick decision on placing the question on the ballot. He said MMA had ultimately advised that the question be posed as a straw poll advisory question, which is what selectmen tried to do.

But resident Bill Grindle noted that the question’s physical placement on the ballot is confusing, since it appears on the portion devoted to binding questions, and not on the part devoted to straw polls.

Meanwhile, The Friends of Blue Hill Peninsula organization is holding a meeting at 7 p.m. Wednesday, March 18, at the Blue Hill Town Hall. The agenda includes a “Nightline” video about Rite Aid, and strategizing on how to get the company to build a smaller store.