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.
The four-plus hour meeting of the Rockport Zoning Board of Appeals confirms my worst fears of both the process and the likely outcome of building a hotel in downtown Rockport.
For starters, meetings of the Planning Board were held between October 2019 and May 2020. This had the effect of minimizing input from seasonal residents, a major part of the community. Furthermore, no attempt was made by the Planning Board or the Select Board to adequately notify residents of a project which would drastically change the nature of our jewel of a town.
The one-hour presentation by Kristin M. Collins enumerated an endless list of procedural and process errors by the Planning Board which failed to protect the interests of residents, particularly scenic views, traffic problems, architecture, and parking — virtually every aspect of the project. Without a doubt if the Zoning Board of Appeals upholds the Planning Board’s approval of this project, there are grounds for a lawsuit claiming that the Planning Board failed in its obligations to follow well-established parameters of Rockport’s Land Use Ordinance.
Stuart Smith’s attorney seemed to be concerned with a very narrow issue of whether John Priestley was an abutter in an effort to short-circuit any discussion on what should have been a broad conversation about the greater welfare of the community.
The thought of a bus/van/shuttle going back and forth between the hotel and the Hoboken property many times a day as hotel guests arrive and depart is abhorrent. Has the Planning Board consulted with residents of Pascal Avenue to see how they feel about living in the midst of greatly increased commercial traffic? Has the Rockport Fire Department been consulted on how they expect to navigate double parking of more tourists and trucks supplying the hotel/restaurant?
The virtues of the hotel are largely non-existent to most residents. We don’t come to Rockport for the nightlife or restaurants which will serve weekend tourists or crowds of visitors. If you want action, see what a visit to Martha’s Vineyard or Cape Cod is like where traffic and crowds create a nightmare of traffic jams and loud music.
A hundred years ago Rockport very wisely split from Camden and it would be a crime to reverse that very wise move.
Stuart Smith has stated on several occasions that he is not undertaking the hotel project to exploit Rockport’s beauty for his own gain but for the good of the town. Do we need him to decide what is good for us? This recalls Thoreau’s statement that “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.” Smith is stealing the character of the town from us and telling us what a great favor he is doing. On top of this, his son Tyler has stated that objections to the hotel come from residents who want to rent out their homes on Airbnb which is a gross misrepresentation of sincere opposition to the hotel.
Why is Smith rushing ahead with pouring concrete when he knows there is an appeal under way and there is so much opposition? Doesn’t this show contempt for both process and the interests of town residents? Or is he just dying to do us all the great favor he says he is doing for the town?
Smith’s Rockport Hotel exhibits a rapacious disregard for the interests of Rockport residents. He should immediately stop all construction. If he continues, the Planning Board should seek an injunction.
Deliberations on the new Rockport Library took five years before completion. Planning for downtown Rockport should be a considered process involving all segments of the community during months when everyone is here and there is adequate consideration of the interests of everyone. Any efforts to push through the Smith proposal should be stopped right now and tabled until we are free of Covid-19 and everyone is fully informed.