Category: Article 6

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