Construction continues despite no building permit in place for the proposed hotel at 20 Central Street in downtown Rockport.
Have you been down behind the buildings on Central Street lately, construction continues on the site? Once they finished the excavation and fill work on the 20 Central Street lot the developer started building framing and rebar for their foundation. While they continually deny that the work done is construction work or even that it relates to the foundation for the building, the work ties directly to the foundation plans submitted to the town office in their building permit application. As always, we encourage you to draw your own conclusion. Compare for yourself the foundation plan submitted to the town and a current view of the site from Central Street:
Specific elements of the work can be seen more clearly by focusing on key areas:
Rear wall, harborside, view from 22 Central
Wall from harborside along 22 Central
Components along 18 Central from harborside toward road
Construction continues. Yes, there can be no doubt that this extensive framing and rebar work is neither excavation nor fill, the only authorized work on the site. Why has the town enabled the developer to get all this done in advance of a building permit? We certainly do not know, and have been pushing on the matter for months. Perhaps you can help by writing to Scott Bickford, Code Enforcement Officer, and Bill Najpauer, Planning Director.
The developer has dumped a ton of design changes on the Code Enforcement Officer. He has no choice but to send the project back to the Planning Board with all these substantive changes.
The developer’s building permit submission is full of design changes galore. One might expect that the extensive site plan review process undertaken by the Rockport Planning Board would result in a set exterior look and feel. Indeed, the site plan review revolves around the exterior of the property, plus the uses and related parking needs. As we have already pointed out for you, the interior uses have changed dramatically. Their event center layout in the top level lounge space and lobby level bar have dramatic impacts on parking. Today we will focus on the esthetics of the building, and changes from the approved site plan. It is easiest to show you the drawings side-by-side. We highlighted some of the areas worth considering.
Central Street view as approved (color) and as submitted (changes noted) for building permit
Harbor side view as approved (color) and as submitted (changes noted) for building permit
Design changes range from the small points like support brackets to larger things like changing the front entry. With the controversy about meeting the LUO architectural standard, one might expect zero changes to the approved plan. However, you see arches, columns, roof lines and appurtenances changing, doors appearing and disappearing, and even a retractable roof!
The surprise appearance of a retractable roof, not to mention a bevy of HVAC and other appurtenances
The exterior design changes are incredibly numerous and substantive. There is no doubt the Planning Board would not be pleased to know this. We encourage you to write to Scott Bickford, the Code Enforcement Officer, and Bill Najpauer, the Planning Director. Ask that your comments be passed along to the Planning Board.
With their application for a building permit the developers of the proposed Rockport Harbor Hotel have again employed their standard bait and switch model. This time they have taken the approved 60 seat top floor lounge, added a retractable roof and shown an event configuration with 124 seats.
The developers of the proposed Rockport Harbor Hotel have filed their building permit application. It has some surprises you might not like, not surprisingly it is another bait and switch with parking. The Land Use Ordinance requires one off-street parking space for each 3 restaurant seats. Remember the ongoing saga of the ‘rooftop bar’ spoken of by the developer and their representatives during the approval process? Then their attorneys were quick to correct the appellants during the ZBA hearings. ‘There is no rooftop bar, there is a top floor lounge.’ This drawing submitted with the building permit application shows an entirely different thing. This is an event facility configured for 132 seated attendees with a retractable roof (no roof = rooftop). That is a rooftop event facility and often times lounge.
Bet you thought parking was an issue already. That concern goes up a couple of notches because they requested and received approval for “2 restaurants, total 84 seats.” They said: “The main function of the lower level restaurant (+/- 24 seats) will be breakfast for the guests. The top level restaurant (+/- 60 seats) will be busiest in the afternoon and evening with many of the customers being hotel guests.”
Bait and switch in Rockport as lobby breakfast restaurant grows by 10 seats, adds piano and bar.
Top floor lounge becomes conference facility with over twice the seating capacity reported.
The piano and bar in the breakfast restaurant might seem out of place, too. It shows 34 widely spaced seats (10 more than reported) without showing any bar seating. The rooftop event space shows 132 seats (62 more than reported), plus can easily accommodate 24 seats on the deck. Just imagine a weekend wedding event, with attendant off-site dinners, sightseeing excursions, bachelor(ette) parties, a whole weekend of mayhem on the harbor.
Just using their own numbers, 166 seats in the two venues and they admit to basically doubling what they requested and have approved … a little rational thought would add the 24 top level deck seats and let’s say six and six at the two bars … that’s 202 ‘restaurant’ seats vs. 84 approved! Using the LUO rules at the time of the Planning Board review (one space per three seats) that is 82 extra seats/3, meaning 28 unaccounted for spaces. Being realistic (without crowding seats in the lobby bar) it is 118 extra seats/3, 40 unreported spaces needed.
What can you do about this? Write to the town, Bill Najpauer, Planning Director; Scott Bickford, Code Enforcement Officer, and Bill Post, Town Manager. Tell them this building permit must be declined as it is not reflective of what the Planning Board approved.
