Category: 20 Central Appeal

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!

New Appeal Filed

Concerned residents have filed a new appeal to the Superior Court of Knox County seeking to remand the Planning Board approval of a proposed hotel in Rockport Village. Learn more here.

Friends of Rockport continues lending support to village residents seeking fair and full application of the Land Use Ordinance. These residents appealed the Zoning Board of Appeals confirmation of the Planning Board approval of the proposed hotel. At the same time, the residents filed a request for a temporary restraining order to halt construction during the appeal. The issues remain consistent: preservation of scenic views; traffic, safety and parking implications; light and noise pollution; and architectural compatibility with neighboring properties. The difference is that this appeal will be before an impartial judge, outside of the local politics of Rockport. The Land Use Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan are clear in these areas, and an impartial jurist should quickly and readily acknowledge these facts.

You already know how the developer has since changed the design from what was approved by the Planning Board. The open-air, top-floor event space, architectural design changes to the approved exterior, higher capacity lobby restaurant, and more warrant attention from the Code Enforcement Officer. So, how can you help? You can start by writing to the Town Manager, Bill Post, and the Code Enforcement Officer, Scott Bickford. Tell them you want the LUO enforced. Tell them that the changes from the approved site plan are unacceptable, and you want the plan sent back to the Planning Board. Then you can join us at Planning Board meetings to voice your views. This sliding photo comparison gives you some sense for the changes just in the front of the building.

Central St. view, Proposed HotelNow planned version of Central Street view

You can also show your support financially by donating to the Friends of Rockport. Learn how to do that here. You can donate by check or online with your credit or debit card. This is not an easy fight as the developer and the town very much want this hotel to happen as designed, regardless of the LUO or your opinion.

Hotel Satellite Parking

The proposed hotel on Central Street in Rockport cannot comply with the off-street parking requirements adjacent to the property. So, here’s their solution.

The proposed hotel on Central Street in Rockport in part hinges upon the first of its kind notion of satellite parking in Rockport. The scheme, of course, is that the hotel will have provided fully compliant parking under the Land Use Ordinance by way of having some 35 spaces nearly a mile away on Route 1 – the far end of the old Hoboken Gardens. One might imagine that the homeowners along Pascal Avenue with the ‘caution children playing’ signs might not like the notion of shuttles, extra cars, or even ‘electric scooters’ as the applicant has suggested rushing back and forth at all hours. The applicants are unmoved by any concern for safety, traffic, or parking implications.

Interestingly through the appeal process, the appellants have noted some procedural issues with the approval of the satellite parking itself. If you are not aware, they propose leasing space behind what is now the Guinea Ridge Farms greenhouses. You may recall, as most do, that has long been a storage yard for Farley & Sons. What you may really like is how Sarah Gilbert, counsel for the applicant, asserts in her latest written submission to the Zoning Board of Appeals “There is competent evidence in the record to support the Planning Board’s conclusion that the Hoboken Lot has an existing use as a parking lot….” She goes on to state “The referenced C-1 submission from the applicant’s expert, as previously discussed, contains an explicit notation that such parking spots at the Hoboken Lot constitute an existing use….”

These photos were taken today, December 10, 2020. Like Where’s Waldo? we challenge Ms. Gilbert, the applicant’s expert, or anyone to identify the existing parking spaces in these photos.

  • 310 Commercial Street existing parking lot
    Applicant’s existing parking lot at 310 Commercial Street for your consideration

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.

Excavation set to begin despite appeal. Why?

Excavation planning enters high gear on October 7, 2020, with Tyler Smith on site to ensure complete elimination of the historic scenic view corridor along Central Street in Rockport.

While the citizens’ appeal of the Planning Board approval for the proposed hotel is still in the offing (stay tuned for exact date and time), the developer appears willing to risk their own money to begin excavation work on the long vacant site (including the historic view corridor by the Shepherd Block). Continuing their disregard for the Rockport Land Use Ordinance, the developer seems sure their connections (and money) will see them through the appeal without change. You can help prove them wrong by donating today.

As you can see from these photos taken on Wednesday, October 7, 2020, Tyler Smith, representative of 20 Central, LLC (the developer) is planning demolition of the 18 Central Oyster Bar & Grill patio and excavation of the site to pave the way for their planned hotel. Of course, if we win the appeal they will have to restore the land to its current condition at their own cost. Winning the appeal is no certainty, and your anonymous donation, no matter how much, helps and sends a message.

We can use your support, both by being present through letters and attendance (if that is even possible) and your financial support. Please donate here as so many of your neighbors already have. Any amount helps, just use the drop down menu on our secure site. This groundswell of citizen support should mean something in the process, at least as much as the connections that got this approved in the first place. We may not stop their excavation, but we can make them pay for it and put it back how they found it!

Tyler Smith, representative of 20 Central, LLC, the developer, is pleased to be getting started eliminating the scenic views from Central Street, Goodrich Park, and the Shepherd Block.
Tyler Smith, developer representative, pleased to be entirely eliminating your scenic view.
Tyler Smith, developer representative, pleased with his work planning the excavation to eliminate most of your scenic view for their planned 'boutique hotel.'
The arrogance of the project personified.

Excavation Permit Issued

Unfortunately the developer has applied for and the town has issued an excavation permit for the 20 Central Street site of the proposed hotel. The strategy feels somewhat akin to the London Blitz of 1940-1941. The developer might think materially damaging the current vista by blasting and excavation will break the will of citizens concerned with the equitable application of the Rockport Land Use Ordinance, or that money spent will influence the Zoning Board of Appeals review of the Planning Board’s erroneous approval of the hotel site plan.

Your support for the Friends of Rockport is clearly needed now, more than ever. We need the developer and the town to know that this blasting and excavation work will not break the will of the people, and that the ZBA will not be bullied by sheer ‘we’ve already started, don’t stop us now’ logic.