Month: November 2020

Too Much of a Good Thing?

Concerns about traffic, safety, parking, noise, lights, and all the things glossed over during the Planning Board process for approval of the proposed “boutique hotel” in Rockport village are mirrored everywhere. You may see it in Camden, whenever you like. Is it too much of a good thing?

Our biggest problem with parking is that all the uses are concurrent: Nina June, 18 Central, Rockport Opera House, Bay Chamber Concerts, and a 26 room hotel with another restaurant and top floor lounge. This in the face of already universally agreed parking shortfalls, without the hotel, restaurant and lounge. The developer’s solution? Run a valet parking service to the old Hoboken Gardens, just like they have in Camden. Well, not really just like it because here the lot is more than twice as distant as in Camden, and the shuttles will be passing through the residential area on Pascal Avenue with small children living along the road.

Do you want this congestion? The shuttles and more cars competing for available on street parking?

This piece Tourists Can be Too Much of a Good Thing for This Maine Town from All Things Considered on National Public Radio shares perspectives from our neighbor Down East, Bar Harbor. Hopefully we can all internalize this message, especially hopeful developers in the audience.

Appeal before Zoning Board of Appeals I

The appeal process is underway with a 4.5 hour meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals behind us, we share some highlights here.

Tuesday evening, November 17, 2020 was the beginning of the appeal process for the Planning Board approval of a site plan for 20 Central LLC. Four plus hours later we await the next session which will pick up with ZBA board members asking questions of the many attorneys on the screen. Each side did present their basic case, though, and that gives us some things to share with you.

Hits

Kristin Collins, attorney for the appellants, documented a process which was orchestrated for approval from the start, with much evidence of lax treatment of the developer, their not being held to the LUO standards, and instances where they were given a pass where others may have endured greater scrutiny. She outlined how the Planning Board must inquire as to whether the loss of the scenic view is the only “reasonably practical” option for the desired purpose under LUO section 1003 point 1 “structures shall impede as little as reasonably practical, scenic views from the main road or from existing structures and nearby undeveloped areas.” She noted that they did not, nor did they ask for alternative designs that did honor the provisions of the LUO and Comprehensive Plan. She presented a site plan prepared for 20 Central under prior ownership. Ms. Collins suggested that the Planning Board could easily have used this reference point for comparison with the current site plan and evaluation of alternative, compliant designs. Does that not seem like a reasonable way to get 20 hotel rooms, or 26 for that matter, onto the lot?

Ms. Collins made the point during her presentation that the applicant failed to provide the necessary lease agreement, nor have approval for off-site parking for the 21 spaces in the lot belonging to the Shepherd Block. She subsequently asked Mr. Tyler Smith directly if 20 Central Street LLC owns the Sandy’s Way lot. Mr. Smith responded “20 Central Street LLC does not own the Sandy’s Way lot, but 20 Central Street LLC is building a building that is spanning both the 20, the lot owned by 20 Central Street LLC and the lot owned by the Sandy’s Way lot.” The fact that the lot is under different ownership means that the arrangement requires both a lease agreement and ZBA approval, neither of which occurred prior to the Planning Board’s site plan approval. Plus, a good portion of the building they propose is being built on neighboring property. Try that with your neighbor! The Planning Board likely did not ask these questions because the applicant shared a document which incorrectly showed the land and the parking as part of the 20 Central Street LLC property.

Misses

The appeal itself utilized the term “rooftop bar” consistent with the usage throughout the approval process by the applicant of the term. Counsel for the applicant, Sarah Gilbert, was quick to point out “…there’s no rooftop bar….” That is true, as we have said here before, but there is a bar/lounge which consumes at least two-thirds of the top floor, opening to a deck the full width. That is likely worse than a “rooftop bar” because the sound can only go one way, out onto the harbor! So, thank you, Ms. Gilbert for highlighting that.

Perhaps five of 15 citations regarding LUO Section 1003 General (2) “the architectural design of structures … shall be visually harmonious with the overall appearance of neighboring structures” referred to the initial applicant submission. Leaving those outdated references was an oversight, but in no way denigrates the integrity of the other ten issues.

Other Highlights

Mr. Smith, presenting for 20 Central LLC made the false equivalence of decks on several nearby private residences to the 30 balconies on the proposed hotel. He also cited the decks on 18, 22, and 24 Central Street as a way of insinuating that decks and balconies are everywhere in the downtown. As you know from our piece on the Shepherd Block deck, this was added since the site plan approval, and without site plan approval of its own. There are two decks on 22 Central, one of which is also residential. The deck on 24 Central was added during the renovation of Union Hall in 2012.

Smith Family PR Campaign Continues

Penobscot Bay Pilot article provides platform for Mark Coursey, attorney for 20 Central LLC, to share strategy for coming appeal.

A new article has appeared, this time in the Penobscot Bay Pilot. Far from the tone of the Village Soup article explaining both sides of the appeal, this one attacks the appellants as individuals and their rights to appeal the approval. Perhaps we can debunk this article point-by-point.

Quoting attorney for 20 Central LLC, Mark Coursey, “The Appellants main claim to having the standing necessary to make this appeal is not that their property will be directly affected by this project, but rather that there is the potential that they will be bothered personally when they visit downtown by increased traffic, less parking and impaired scenic views.” No, Mr. Coursey, the appellants all live within walking distance of the proposed hotel, and will be directly impacted by the parking, traffic, noise, lights and loss of scenic view. Perhaps more importantly, though, the arguments for the appeal are based upon failure to follow the Land Use Ordinance. So while the appellants all do have standing, they are not arguing for themselves, but rather the sanctity of the town’s Land Use Ordinance and the processes meant to enforce it.

The article goes on to say that Coursey states that “… (the basis for the appeal) should be whether the planning board’s decision was made within the board’s scope of authority, not whether the board made errors of law, abused its discretion and made findings not supported by substantial evident in the record.” I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that the “scope of authority” of the planning board should not include making errors of law or abusing its discretion or making findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record. So, they each seem like a reasonable basis for an appeal. Right? Do they really have the ‘right’ to do those things?

He also comments on the scenic view provisions of the ordinance. The article says Coursey comments “…the scenic view dispute is not “of the type” that needs addressing, given that the space, “has been of changing character throughout Rockport’s existence.” Let’s start with the ordinance itself this time. Section 1003 states “structures shall impede as little as reasonably practical, scenic views from the main road or from existing structures and nearby undeveloped areas.” It says shall, not may, and does not say ‘things change’ is a way around the code. Oh, and if things change so often, how is it that since at least 1875 when this map was drawn there has been open space there?

Rockport Hotel in the News

The Smith family kicked off their PR campaign ahead of the scheduled appeal of the Planning Board approval for their Rockport hotel project on Central Street. This article in the online edition of the Village Soup provides some fresh insight into the thinking of the Smiths.

Their take on the Rockport hotel elimination of the view from Central Street, Goodridge Park and most of the West wall in the Shepherd Block is most telling. “We’re not building it here because we need to make any more money,” Stuart said. “They have two points to make in response. One is that people will still be able to enjoy the view. They can come to the hotel to see it. The public will have some access to the top floor lounge area, they said.” Plus, “They have also constructed a patio on the back of 18 Central to allow customers to enjoy the harbor from there.”

You know the deck they are talking about, this one that was built without proper review by the Planning Board.

As for the Rockport hotel itself, the one that disregards multiple provisions of the Town of Rockport Land Use Ordinance, “the vast number of people in Rockport are very much in favor of it,” Stuart said. He went on to say “They can enjoy the harbor. Great views, great parks. This is an ideal place to be.” As you now know, you need only patronize their buildings to enjoy the view, and Goodridge Park will be a whole lot less great when the view is gone.

A couple of other things you should look for in the article:

“Stuart said this was the location of the Rockport Ice Company building until about the 1970s.” The thing is we all know the Rockport Ice Company building did not adjoin the Shepherd Block. Funny, though, how they provided a photo which might make you think it did because it was taken up the hill. The photo provided by Clare Tully, on the other hand, clearly shows the large view window that was there since the Shepherd Block was built.

With respect to the Land Use Ordinance requirement that the project must be “visually harmonious with the overall appearance of neighboring structures” Tyler Smith said “Traditionally in architecture, if you’re building a new building out of brick, you try and source your brick and your clay (which the brick is made from) as close as you can. This helps it match.” So, having bricks that are pretty similar satisfies the Ordinance requirement? Never mind all those lights and balconies and wrought iron railings … just look at the bricks.

Notice the new deck?

The developer’s disregard for the Rockport Land Use Ordinance is on full display with the new deck added to the back of the Shepherd Block.

Yes, the Friends of Rockport truly is dedicated to the preservation and improvement of the historic character of Rockport, Maine. The sudden appearance of this new deck attached to the historic Shepherd Block building is a fine case in point. As the citizens’ appeal of the Planning Board approval for the massive proposed hotel at 20 Central Street notes, the adjacent properties (Shepherd Block included) are not covered in porches and decks from top to bottom. Indeed, the Shepherd Block, had no appurtenances and only one light on the rear elevation … until they started digging up the neighboring lot for their hotel. It represents a disturbing trend by the developer who’s disregard for the Rockport Land Use Ordinance (LUO) has now moved from the proposed hotel to the Shepherd Block.

One might wonder why there has been no Planning Board review of this new deck. Indeed, section 1303 of the LUO calls for a Site Plan review in several circumstances, including “The construction or expansion of buildings, including accessory buildings and structures, for commercial use by a total floor area of 1,000 sq. ft. or more.” Does that seem greater than 1,000 square feet? Maybe not, but with the bathroom conversion into restaurant space and annexing the adjacent office space for tables? The LUO also calls for Site Plan review for “Revisions to an existing Site Plan seeking an amendment to that previously approved Site Plan.” Leucadia followed the ordinance and submitted a Site Plan when renovating the Shepherd Block, why would this developer not seek an amendment as required? It definitely changes the character of the building. The LUO also calls for Site Plan review when “Any change of use in which the intensity of use – as reflected in traffic generated, impacts on municipal services, the environment and surrounding neighborhood – will differ in a substantial way from that of the preceding use.” (emphasis added) Will this new deck and the restaurant tables on it not cause additional traffic and parking issues? In bypassing the Site Plan process, this developer evaded that discussion and exacerbates the already untenable parking situation in the harbor area and reinforces the pattern of disregard for the town’s rules.

Where was the Planning Board on this? How about the Select Board?

Voice your opinion on this now with both Town Manager, Bill Post and Director of Planning & Community Development, Bill Najpauer. You may also want to mention it in respect to the already controversial hotel proposal. Indeed, make your letter multipurpose, covering the hotel issues outlined on the Appeal page and this new twist. We also encourage you to participate in the appeal via livestream on November 17, 2020 at 6:00PM Eastern Time.