The developers and the developers’ surrogates went on a public relations campaign in advance of the Planning Board hearing on January 27, 2022, and much of it smeared Friends of Rockport and individual plaintiffs. This Planning Board hearing was necessitated by the fact that we prevailed in most of our concerns over the approval process for the proposed hotel – no malice toward the Smiths, the Town, nor any town volunteers, simply concern for upholding our ordinances and the integrity of the town processes. Indeed, Justice Mallonee ruled in our favor on almost every claim: parking shortfalls, architectural harmony, and application of the two ordinance changes residents approved requiring a parking study for off-site parking and no more than 20 rooms per downtown hotel. In response to Justice Mallonee’s well considered and objective rulings, “Stu/Marianne/Tyler&Kristen” chose to attack us in writing on January 18, 2022 “…all this legal action against the town has been very expensive for the town taxpayers and is the direct result of negative and misleading efforts….”
The developers’ surrogates thought it prudent to suggest that we created the ‘much-vilified Smith family,’ when we focus our communications on the process, not people, and don’t name names aside from direct quotations. Of course, it is nothing new for the developer and their surrogates to impugn the integrity of the Friends and residents. Back in September 2021 in court filings they asserted “this statement is blatantly false” regarding exterior lighting claims which remain demonstrably true. The surrogates in a January 18 letter published as an advertisement in the local paper say that we “…formed with the avowed sole cause of fighting the hotel.” Sorry, in fact we’re not even fighting the hotel, rather, our clear and stated mission is “promoting smart growth of Rockport while preserving its iconic historical architecture, beautiful quiet Harbor and Scenic Views.” It just happens the process broke down in the case of the hotel, but it need not have. The surrogates end with an assertion that we “…will never countenance this hotel…” Not only has that never been said, or thought, we have indicated a desire to settle this matter directly with the developers throughout, including overtures in advance of the latest Planning Board meeting – to save the town money. As far back as April 25, 2021, in our post we said, “We have repeatedly sought and remain open to a reasonable compromise with the Town and the developer.” So, don’t believe the developers and their surrogates when they say we have “obsession with blocking this new business.” It is simply not true.
All this before the Justice hears post-judgment motions, one of which was by the Plaintiffs, including Friends, seeking reconsideration of the application of the Land Use Ordinance scenic view provisions. We continue to feel strongly about this matter, indeed, with the historical precedent jumping off the page in the configuration of the 18 Central lot. You will recall that the Planning Board allowed for annexation of some land from 18 Central to 20 Central as part of their site plan approval. That piece of vacant land had been vacant since at least 1875, prior to the construction of the Shepherd Block in 1892. Yet somehow, without saying so or reviewing any evidence, the Planning Board concluded that it was impossible to build a hotel on the 20 Central lot and preserve the view.
Still, the town went ahead with a Planning Board meeting to address the remanded matters on January 27, 2022, before the Justice could hear the pleadings on post-judgment motions from all parties which may influence the topics before the Planning Board and/or the Code Enforcement Office. Not only that, but the Planning Board reviewed parking without the benefit of the independent parking study now required by town ordinance. Keep in mind the Justice’s language in his ruling: the Planning Board has “…to consider all the overlapping burdens on the limited parking downtown. It could not simply and out of context attribute a minimum number of spaces to the project.”
With so many open items remaining, including adequacy of parking, preservation of scenic views, architectural harmony, the parking study, and reduction of rooms, the Friends remain open to resolution, but without the other parties, this could continue for some time. We just hope the town has sense enough to stop spending our taxpayer dollars and let the developers make their own case.