Month: April 2021

Rockport Parking: A Brief History

A series of miscues leaves Rockport parking a shambles…before adding the hotel. Will the town move to correct the record?

Rockport parking is at the heart of the hotel controversy. Parking shortfalls are an everyday occurrence in the summer. It happens more frequently in the quiet times, too. The Land Use Ordinance requires developers to provide off-street parking. The developer is trying to claim that 21 parking spaces are available behind the Central Street buildings – but these spaces have already been allocated.  The developer claims that the Town previously decided that Union Hall did not require any parking spaces, but this clearly self-serving interpretation is inconsistent with the actual record. So, how does this happen?

It is quite easy to explain. Rockport’s Code Enforcement Officer is responsible for just what the title implies. Developers are also responsible for compliance with applicable ordinances. So, what went wrong? Three, readily identifiable issues have happened.

First, in 2017 the developer applied to convert the gallery at 22 Central into a coffee shop. This change of use and change of intensity of use triggers a site plan review under LUO section 1300. The Planning Board would have found section 803 required allocating 11 additional off-street parking spaces. No site plan review occured.

Then, the Planning Board misread the minutes from 2012 review of the Union Hall renovation (ZBA June 19, 2012, and PB June 20, 2012, July 11, 2012, August 8, 2012) . That developer outlined the required parking for the project, “27-31 spaces,” in their application page 5. There is clearly no intention nor request to receive a parking waiver for the project. One of many citations during the hearings is the bottom paragraph of page 1 on August 8. Here, as in the application, the developer stated “these parking needs will be almost entirely satisfied within the parking lot expansion noted above, which will provide an additional 25 spaces.” Similarly, on page 12 of the ZBA minutes, the developer stated “just think if there was some separate owner that didn’t have the opportunity for parking.” Acknowledging, yet again, the shared parking nature of the Sandy’s Way lot and the 25 new spaces for Union Hall use. Yet during the site plan review of the hotel, the current Planning Board erroneously reallocated 21 of these spaces to the hotel by calling them available!

Finally, in the late fall of 2020 the developer applied to add a deck to the Shepherd Block. This change of a previously approved site plan and change in intensity of use also triggers LUO section 1300. Here the Planning Board would have found section 803 required allocating at least 30 additional off-street parking spaces. No site plan review occurred.

So, what happened to Rockport parking? Twice the Code Enforcement Officer missed applying the code – LUO section 1300. With the Planning Board’s inadvertent reallocation of 21 off-street parking spaces, the current developer is at least 62 spaces short of code. That is without any hotel!

So, what have the Friends of Rockport been doing about this? Since the fall we have been trying to get the town to acknowledge and rectify the missing site plan reviews. Their response has been to say that the time has passed to appeal the building permit issuance. That is not the point, nor the request. Our hope here, as always, is for the town to simply apply the Land Use Ordinance as written. In these two cases, allocating the 41 spaces required for work already done because of lax oversight. Plus, acknowledging the misinterpretation of the 2012 Planning Board decision on Union Hall. We have also commissioned an independent parking study of the downtown area which clearly demonstrates these very points and the added strain which will be caused by the hotel.

What can you do? Write to the town to tell them you’re fed up with the lax enforcement on Central Street. Tell Orion Thomas, the new planner, you insist they complete these site plan reviews and acknowledge the parking requirements. Plus, have him clarify the record on the 2014 Planning Board approval of Union Hall, acknowledging that 25 Sandy’s Way spaces were allocated and just a handful waived.

Progress in Superior Court

FOR made progress in Superior Court effort to stay construction, while litigation is heard. Meanwhile, developer redoubles efforts to thwart compromise.

Friends of Rockport make progress in Superior Court. Justice Mallonee’s second decision represents an impressive victory for the residents of Rockport! We won outright on three of the four criteria for getting the hotel construction enjoined for the second time. And while we have not yet won on the final point, Justice Mallonee has invited our attorneys to submit an additional brief on this issue.

Thanks for keeping the faith even as you witnessed the developer’s relentless and expedited construction, day after day, after the first injunction was lifted. We know it has been painful and maddening to watch as the developer blocks a century old view of the Harbor and defaces the historic Shepherd Block. While our repeated protestations to our Town officials have fallen on deaf ears, Justice Mallonee mercifully has heard us loud and clear. It truly is progress.

When Justice Mallonee enjoined construction the first time, he expressed the concern that “20 Central, by continuing its construction even as litigation was pending, was manufacturing reality that would change to its (unfair) advantage, any future calculation of remedies by any body charged with enforcing municipal building ordinances.” As the Justice considers our request for a second injunction, he noted, “That concern has been, if anything, amplified by 20 Central’s unhindered construction in the last two and a half months”.

Unlike our Town officials, Justice Mallonee also recognizes and respects our efforts to enforce our scenic view ordinance. “Plaintiffs have made a persuasive preliminary showing that construction of the hotel in accordance with 20 Central’s building permit will close off sight-lines for townspeople that have existed for decades. In a scenic harbor side village in which both civic enjoyment and commercial success are predicated on scenic values, this could constitute a substantial loss. The potential loss is amplified by potential congestion or other complications resulting from traffic and parking that exceeds municipal capacity.”

Justice Mallonee has also eloquently and strongly advocated for our petitions which our Town officials have not only refused to uphold, but have actually used our taxpayer dollars to try to defeat! “Further injury relates to the process of citizen petition and civic government. Plaintiffs did exactly what they were supposed to do when aggrieved; they employed a statutory process to secure the relief they sought. They did the hard work of gathering signatures, generating a vote, and persuading their neighbors to support their cause.”

“They ‘failed’ only because their efforts ran afoul of a disease that overwhelmed the entire country. For the statutory relief, Plaintiffs sought to be frustrated by a pandemic that ejected their neighbors from their jobs, schools, entertainment, churches and synagogues; the homes of their aged parents and infant grandchildren; and the hospital rooms of their dying loved ones, at a time when specific and substantial legal relief was otherwise offered by every body of State government, appears to contravene foundational ideas of participatory government. The court deems this to be irreparable harm of considerable magnitude.”

Although we are grateful for Justice Mallonee’s decision, we must correct his understandably mistaken belief that the developer’s second design “lower[ed] the building profile.” Although the developer reduced the number of rooms to 26 and eliminated one floor, this redesign did not reduce the height of the building nor its volume and footprint at all. Therefore, it is not a “substantial accommodation.” The design is substantially similar, retaining the offensive wall-to-wall approach and replacing a historic scenic view of the Harbor with a sea of brick. In fact, the developer has vowed that it will continue to block the scenic view if required to comply with the 20 room restriction in the ordinance. That redesign is hardly progress or sensitivity to the feedback of townspeople.

As to the Justice’s inquiry about the economic impact of “further trimming,” our choice of a 20 room limit in the ordinance was responsive to this concern. The developer is on record saying that a 20 room hotel is what he intended to build because it is a good size for weddings or business conferences.  (34:53 https://livestream.com/Rockportmaine/events/7198735/videos/154495579). Indeed, the developer’s 16 Bay View Hotel, on which the Rockport Harbor Hotel is based, has 21 rooms.

We have repeatedly sought and remain open to a reasonable compromise with the Town and the developer. Your steadfast support will enable us to continue to fight the good fight until we finally get one. If you have not yet made a financial contribution, please consider doing so to help cover our legal costs. Thank you for supporting our mission to promote the smart growth of Rockport, while preserving its iconic historical architecture, beautiful harbor, and scenic views. Strangely, progress comes with a price.

Radio Silence…Not Really

As the Superior Court considers a temporary injunction to stop construction, developer races to eliminate scenic views and fill the space to intimidate any future town review of the project.

Radio silence, no doubt it feels that way as you watch frantic construction on the disputed hotel site. The truth is entirely different. As you know the Friends of Rockport and its members have a number of initiatives relating to the hotel. You know our effort to have the town enforce the Land Use Ordinance changes approved in the last town meeting. Plus, the appeal of the planning board approval in Knox County Superior Court. We are only there because the zoning board of appeals ruled against us. These two initiatives include a request for a temporary injunction to halt construction pending a ruling on the each case. The radio silence stems from waiting on that temporary injunction. That is why the frantic construction work because they want to be ‘too far along’ to apply the LUO now.

The latest, effort to rein in the misapplication of the Land Use Ordinance is an appeal of the building permit. This appeal is predicated on the myriad changes from the approved site plan to the building permit application. This, too, will go first to the zoning board of appeals. This time, though, the rules are somewhat different, and they are not bound by the planning board record.

We will continue to keep you apprised of all these efforts, and thank you for your continued support of FOR. We expect a lot more action now, and promise no more radio silence!