Category: 2020 Rockport Town Meeting

Superior Court Update (August 12)

Superior Court Update after plaintiffs submit comprehensive brief covering all aspects of the various appeals in process. Read more here:

A Superior Court Update for the week of August 12, 2021, a follow-up to the recent Court ruling. As ordered by the Court, the plaintiffs in the various actions regarding approvals for construction of a hotel at 20 Central Street filed a new, comprehensive brief. On August 12 attorney for the plaintiffs, Kristin Collins, filed a brief outlining the key claims citing legal precedent, legislative records, State Attorney General opinions, and more.

The key elements of the case remain that the Planning Board erred in various ways in their role enforcing the Land Use Ordinance. Key among these are enforcement of the parking requirements, architectural standards, and preservation of scenic views. The brief also outlines the failure of the town to enforce the ordinance changes approved by the voters in August 2020 citing both a Constitutional argument and the fact that the building permit was not issued until six months after the changes. Finally, the brief addresses the Code Enforcement Officer’s error in application of various provisions of the Land Use Ordinance, many repeating Planning Board errors. These errors include architectural standards, consistency with plans approved by the Planning Board, and others.

Simply driving, walking or biking past the construction site on Central Street one can now clearly see the incongruity of the new building vis-a-vis the historic neighboring properties. The town and 20 Central Street LLC have until August 26 to submit their brief to the Court. We will continue to keep you apprised with a new Superior Court Update at that time.

Town Overrules Voters

The Town of Rockport has chosen to use your tax dollars to fight implementation of Article 3 and Article 4 from the 2020 Town Meeting. This overrules your votes to limit hotels to 20 rooms in the village and require the developer to provide a traffic, safety and parking study before approval.

The Town of Rockport overrules voters and their successful citizen initiatives by strictly applying the Maine statute limiting applicability of ordinance changes to 45 days. Despite voter intentions and a growing national wave of court rulings supporting voter rights in the unusual pandemic year, the Town decides to issue building permit to 20 Central Street LLC. You recall Article 3 (requiring developers to provide a parking/traffic/safety study before any new development). Article 4 limits each hotel property to 20 rooms to ensure the opportunity for competition and keep development appropriately scaled for the village.

What, you may ask, is at issue here and what overrules voters? The two voter initiatives apply retroactively under Maine 30-A M.R.S. §3007(6) allowing such provisions to look back 45 days. The Select Board chose to move the Town Meeting from June 9 to August 18. Thus allowing time to hold the vote safely in light of a global pandemic. The application before the planning board for 20 Central Street LLC was approved on May 21, 2020. This just days before the planned Town Meeting on June 9, 2020. The Town’s position is that pandemic, or not, they are applying the 45 day rule from August 18.

That decision overrules voters on these citizen initiatives and sets a dangerous precedent. Both the Maine Constitution and US Constitution guarantee voter’s rights to petition the government. A multitude of cases across the country have ruled that pandemic driven changes in dates cannot adversely impact voter rights. Yet, the Town of Rockport persists in their mission to move forward. Hypothetically, anytime the Select Board does not like your citizens’ initiative they can push the Town Meeting to avoid it.

The worst part is they are spending your tax dollars to fight this in court! So, you voted to implement changes in the Land Use Ordinance, and the town is spending your money to ensure they do not get applied as you intended. Does this bother you? Share your thoughts with Bill Post, Town Manager. He can push the Select Board to stop spending your money on this.

Those citizen’s initiatives postcards

A review of two postcards received by Rockport residents regarding the Citizen’s Initiatives, one from the Friends of Rockport and the other anonymously.

You likely received two postcards recently about the upcoming Rockport Town Meeting and the Citizen’s Initiatives. The first mailing focused entirely on the Citizen’s Initiatives, Article 3 and Article 4 (Learn more here: Article 3 and Article 4). You may have noticed that it was not claimed by any organization or person, it was anonymous. Then you received one from the Friends of Rockport, your local, citizen based, non-profit seeking to preserve our community. Let’s consider them separately:

The Friends of Rockport postcard:

  • The postcard (and the links above) helps you better understand the issues and implications of the Citizen’s Initiatives. They share with you drawings of the proposed hotel and a 20-room alternative which preserves the view, still adds to the tax base, and continues revitalization of the harbor area.
  • The Citizen’s Initiatives have over 300 certified Rockport resident signatures.
  • The remaining Articles are put forth by the five member Select Board, and not seen or reviewed by citizens beyond a Select Board meeting discussion. We particularly suggest you consider this Article 6 and Article 9.

The anonymous postcard:

  • Suggests that the Citizen’s Initiatives are an attempt “to stop a downtown Rockport boutique hotel.” They are not, they are meant to help the town stay true to its character, including the developer living up to their word on a 20-22 room hotel and following the Land Use Ordinance, Architectural Review Standards. Those standards state “…Structures shall impede as little as reasonably practical, scenic views from the main road or from existing structures or nearby undeveloped areas.” and “The architectural design of structures and their materials and colors shall be visually harmonious with the overall appearance of neighboring structures.”
  • Suggests “out of state VRBO owners” are behind the Citizen’s Initiatives. You now know that to be untrue, over 300 residents signed those petitions.
  • States that the five person Select Board opinions and recommendations are somehow better for the town than the 300 plus residents and your opinion.

Simply put:

  • Central St. view, Proposed Hotel
    This?
  • A 20 room alternative design retaining the scenic view and with architecture consistent with neighboring buildings.
    Or, this?

Learn more about this here: https://www.penbaypilot.com/article/we-hope-you-will-consider-our-rockport-recommendations-neighbors-fellow-citizens/136954

Select Board comments about the postcards on July 27, 2020:

  • Debra Hall at 7:07 in the meeting states “… The idea … that an ordinance can be passed allowing for a hotel, that someone can purchase property with those ordinances in mind, … and then to have another bite at the apple, …. That is offensive to me, it continues to be offensive to me, it will always be offensive to me.” Of course we know from the timeline that the land was purchased when hotels were not allowed in the downtown district, and the developer pushed for the ordinance change by proposing a 20-22 room hotel.
  • Denise Munger at 8:26 in the meeting states “... This petition adjusts the number of hotel rooms, it does not reduce the size of the hotel. The Hotel will still be allowed, even if Article 4 were passed, to stay end-t0-end between the two buildings. It would just result in larger hotel rooms, um. So, I think it’s important for people to understand. ….” Of course we know from the Land Use Ordinance section 1003.Architectural Review Standards that a hotel compliant with the ordinance would “…impede as little as reasonably practical, scenic views from the main road or from existing structures and nearby undeveloped areas.” The current proposal does none of these, eliminating the windows on the Shepherd Block Westerly wall and entirely blocking the view from the main street and Goodridge Park.

VOTE NO on Article 6

Article 6 proposes changes to eliminate the requirement for off-street parking to satisfy the Land Use Ordinance required numbers. Instead allowing for on-street parking and off-site parking to deliver the needed space … using public parking to support private developers.

Article 6 proposes a change to the Land Use Ordinance section 803.1 Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The new language is:

“The purpose of this Section is to provide for adequate off-street parking spaces to meet the needs of the use or structure. The off-street parking shall provide sufficient spaces to minimize the need for on-street parking.”

The proposed language (a Yes vote on Article 6) eliminates the current language “all new construction, alterations and changes of use, there shall be provided off-street parking and loading space adequate for their use.” Essentially meaning ‘you need not meet the parking requirements, if you ‘minimize’ the use of on-street parking.’ Vote “NO” on Article 6.

A “YES” vote on Article 6 delivers this broad, subjective language to a current Planning Board with a track record of using subjectivity to favor developers over the greater good of Rockport. Vote “NO” on Article 6.

A “YES” vote on Article 6 also approves an important new provision in the proposed language regarding off-site parking is “…may be located at a separate location subject to the approval of the CEO (Chief Enforcement Officer) or Planning Board.” In other words, off-site parking can happen without a public hearing! Vote “NO” on Article 6.

A “YES” vote on Article 6 hypothetically paves the way for developers to build on property which provides off-street parking today, like the parking behind the Shepherd Block and Union Hall. Given the Planning Board’s willingness to disregard the Land Use Ordinance scenic view provisions, you can imagine a new building rising behind Mary Lea Park. The Select Board will simply say ‘there’s a great view right down on Beauchamp Point.’ Vote “NO” on Article 6.

A “YES” vote on Article 6 would allow developers to provide remote parking for guests by operating “transit buses” or “valet parking” services through our streets instead of providing parking on site or within reasonable walking distance as currently required. (803.5). Vote “NO” on Article 6.

A “YES” vote on Article 6 would completely eliminate all  requirements relating to the Town’s upgrading of public way, including giving notice to those residents whose homes abut the project! (803.4). Vote “NO” on Article 6.

Vote NO on Article 6

VOTE NO on Article 9

Vote NO on Article 9. The proposal eliminates all landscaping requirements for off-site parking. It even eliminates grading and drainage requirements!

A “YES” vote on Article 9 is impactful mostly for what it removes from the existing ordinance. A “YES” vote on Article 9 removes the need for individual spaces for each required parking spot, grading and drainage requirements, and all landscaping requirements. It’s easiest to simply show you. A “YES” vote will strip out all these redlined words … you decide for yourself if that sounds reasonable? What if that new off-site parking where in your neighborhood?

All from the Planning Board (page 17-19) https://www.town.rockport.me.us/vertical/sites/%7B6F0724F7-400D-4D0B-B299-FF5E21F5B92A%7D/uploads/06-11-2020_Planning_Board_Packet(1).pdf

A “YES” vote would place historic buildings at risk by exempting them from landscaping, architectural design and parking area requirements.  (1001) This would eliminate all landscaping for parking lots, resulting in ugly barren lots in our neighborhoods. (1004)

Vote NO on Article 9

VOTE YES ON ARTICLE 4

Article 4 provides a means to responsibly limit downtown hotel construction, enabling more than one developer to benefit from Rockport’s historic harbor.

Article 4 to Limit Downtown Hotels to 20 Rooms

Citizen’s Petition, Article 4 – signed by 300 Rockport Residents; and 200 more on Change.org

You did it! With 599 residents voting, Article 4 passed 328 to 271.

  • Yes on Article 4 would reduce residents tax burden without necessitating an oversized, non-compliant (you decide here) building that overwhelms our historic downtown.
  • Article 4 would not require blocking the century old scenic harbor view or defacing the western wall of historic Shepherd Block.
  • Article 4 will preserve public parking for residents and other visitors to existing restaurants, galleries, concert series and the library.
  • Article 4 will allow for more than one true boutique hotel to prosper in our historic harbor.

Alternative future views from Central Street and Goodridge Park.

  • Central St. view, Proposed Hotel
    Proposed 26 two-room suite hotel …
    vote NO, definitely get this.
  • A 20 room alternative design retaining the scenic view and with architecture consistent with neighboring buildings.
    20-room hotel …
    Vote YES, hopefully get this.

A critical look at the timeline of events:

  • 20 Central, LLC purchased the property on July 22, 2016. No hotels were allowed in the downtown district at the time of purchase.
  • The Ordinance Review Committee, one member is the engineer for the developer, approved it’s 2017 work plan on October 11, 2016 including the number one priority, hotel use in the downtown district. The Planner’s Notes indicate “This maximum number of rooms recommended by the ORC to be allowed in the 913*zoning district is 40 (forty), to be permitted on a first-come, first-served basis.”
  • The PenBay Pilot noted in their January 2, 2017 article about proposed changes to the ordinance “The proposal to amend the town’s ordinance followed a request by Stuart and Marianne Smith, who purchased several Village lots and a building on Central Street in July 2016, to find a way that would allow them to construct a new hotel there.”
  • The April 18, 2017 Select Board meeting minutes state “Stuart Smith – about twenty to twenty-two sleeping rooms. 16 Bayview Street has twenty-one rooms and the Lord Camden has thirty-six rooms.” He never mentioned a restaurant or rooftop bar. You can watch and listen here at 34:53 in the recording: https://livestream.com/Rockportmaine/events/7198735/videos/154495579
  • The ordinance was changed to allow up to 4o hotel rooms in the district on June 13, 2017. Developer then submitted a plan up from “twenty rooms, twenty-two rooms” to 36 two-room suites and a ‘rooftop bar,’ eliminating potential for competitive hotels within the 40 room maximum.
  • At the June 11, 2020 Planning Board meeting Stuart Smith denies his comments from April 18, 2017 (above) “…We never talked about building a 20 room hotel. Our very first plan had 36 rooms….” You can watch and listen here at 1:58:10 in the recording: https://livestream.com/rockportmaine/events/9158089/videos/207330803

VOTE YES ON ARTICLE 3

Article 3 will require new development to require a traffic, parking, and safety study to be paid by developer, not taxpayers.

Article 3 to require an Independent traffic study by a qualified professional paid by developer, not taxpayers’ dollars.

Citizen’s Petition, Article 3 – signed by over 320 Legal Rockport Residents and another 200 on Change.org  

You did it! With 582 votes cast, Article 3 passed 332 to 250.

A “YES” vote on Article 3 would add new language to the Land Use Ordinance Section 803.1(3) as follows:

“No off-site or shared parking, or waiver of parking requirements, shall be approved unless it is supported by an independent traffic study prepared by a qualified professional, hired by the reviewing authority and paid for by the applicant, which establishes that the parking facility is adequate for the proposed use and any shared use(s), will not cause undue burdens on traffic or parking in the vicinity, and will not cause safety concerns.”

Why wouldn’t you want a traffic, parking and safety study done?

  • Rockport Police stated concern with the blind corner of Maine and Central with the consideration of a proposed hotel. Residents are already concerned with traffic, parking, pedestrian and cyclist safety on Central Street without the hotel. Two accidents have already occurred at blind uphill corner where hotel’s valet drivers to offsite parking and delivery trucks will be turning.
  • Parking and vehicle circulation impacts from development should be reviewed and studied by qualified and unbiased traffic engineers.
  • It is already difficult to park if you come into town for an evening event without a hotel.
  • Then director of planning and community development for the town, Jamie Francomano stated “…the Planning Board will have very wide discretion and waiving the number and customizing that…” of the parking requirements for hotels at the Select Board meeting on April 18, 2017. See here at 38:40 https://livestream.com/rockportmaine/events/7198735/videos/154495579
  • The adequacy of parking and safety concerns related to traffic caused by proposed development are long term and cumulative.
  • Parking and vehicle circulation impacts from development should be reviewed and studied by qualified and unbiased traffic engineers.

Will this impact traffic, parking, and pedestrian safety in the harbor?

Central St. view, Proposed Hotel

You decide. If yes, vote YES on Article 3.