The Citizen Petitions you voted to adopt are under fire again by the Rockport Select Board in their October 11 meeting. After spending your tax dollars to fight applicability of the revised Land Use Ordinance the Select Board has chosen to simply remove the language you approved.
The Citizen Petitions you voted to include in the Land Use Ordinance are in the cross hairs of the Select Board again. Today’s PenBay Pilot reports that tonight’s Select Board meeting at 6PM in the Geoffrey C. Parker Meeting Room (basement of Opera House) will begin the process to remove the language you approved during the height of Covid-19. We encourage you to participate online through the town’s video feed or in person at the Opera House.
They give no reason for the proposal to eliminate a parking, traffic and safety study for proposed off-site or shared parking or waiver of parking requirements by the Planning Board or Planning Department. Remember, the Superior Court upheld these Citizen Petitions. Nor is any reason given for striking the language limiting the size of hotels in the harbor area. One might think that the Rockport Harbor Hotel has plans to regain their monopoly lost through the successful citizen petitions process. Whether that means reverting to their original plan at 20 Central Street, using the copious vacant space in the Shepherd Block or more construction at 14 and 16 Central Street remains to be seen.
It is absolutely worth the time to ask the Select Board why they are continuing to fight the will of the voters. After spending your tax dollars to fight against the Citizen Petitions in court, they now want you to again eliminate third party oversight of the planning process by eliminating the reasonable traffic, parking and safety study requirement. Speak up tonight.
Planning Board moves swiftly to confirm all their original errors in the face of clear guidance from Superior Court.
The Court’s rulings were clear. With respect to parking, “in this court’s view, for the Planning Board to make a factual decision on 20 Central’s application, it had 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.” Further stating “specifically, with respect to off-site parking, remand is necessary for the Board to consider and enter findings of fact regarding the parking requirements that were actually waived for Union Hall and the extent to which the Sandy’s Way lot is shared with other establishments and with the general public.” As for architectural harmony the Court erroneously concluded, “Plaintiffs now confine their challenge to the balconies that extend from every guest room on the front facade of the hotel.” Yes, the balconies are among the most obvious variations from the neighboring historic properties, but the sea of glass on the rear façade is equally glaring and many other aspects of the design, including the elimination of the scenic view (not only on the 20 Central lot, but also a portion of the 18 Central lot), diverge from section 1003. We have not ever limited the scope of our complaint. The Court further ruled on January 2, 2022, “The court declares as a matter of law that amendments to the Town Charter designated as Petition A and Petition B apply to 20 Central’s hotel project.” This means that the hotel may have no more than 20 rooms and a parking study paid by the applicant must be reviewed prior to approval of any off-site parking. As a result, the Court reversed approval of the building permit and remanded the project to the Code Enforcement Office after further review by the Planning Board. Finally, the Court has scheduled post-judgment motions with submissions running through February 7, 2022.
With that backdrop, the Rockport Planning Board met on January 27, 2022, to take up the remand ordered by Honorable Bruce C. Mallonee on December 1, 2021, with further refinement on January 2, 2022. “The matter shall be remanded to the Planning Board for reconsideration of 20 Central’s site plan application with respect to adequacy of parking and compliance with standards for architectural harmony.” Of course, the Planning Board upheld all their prior rulings during the meeting, without having received the required parking study or even referencing the independent parking study provided by Friends of Rockport. For instance, the Planning Board ruled that the parking behind the Central Street buildings known as Sandy’s Way is not “shared parking.” In so doing, they ignored all prior Planning Board allocations of parking in the lot, including parking for 18 Central Street (Shepherd Block) and 22 Central Street (Martin Block). Mind you, Will Gartley (spokesman for the developer) said in the December 19, 2019, Planning Board meeting “They (the developers) plan to manage the parking in Rockport in a similar manner which includes the following: by continuing to employ the shared use of 49 existing parking spaces.” He later added “clearly there’s a lot of different uses going on, a lot of different timings, a lot of overlaps, and so that’s the way they plan to continue having that happen….” Yes, they ignored that, testimony on behalf of the developers, too.
The Planning Board also concluded that parking requirements were totally waived for 24 Central Street (Union Hall). This disregards the developer’s intentions with respect to the available off-street parking (what is now Sandy’s Way). The developer’s submission speaks to the parking requirements in these words “additional parking for Union Hall and the applicant’s other properties along Central Street has been provided in a previously approved Site Plan Amendment for the Shepherd Block.” They outline the requirements of 27-31 spaces and go on to say, “These parking needs will almost entirely be satisfied within the parking lot expansion mentioned above, which will provide an additional 25 spaces.” Their application goes on to say, “The second-floor space, “Union Hall” is a grandfathered use and parking will be taken care of on a “per event” basis, similar to the Opera House. Based on above and especially due to the creation of badly needed pedestrian-friendly access to the building, we believe this standard is easily met or exceeded by the plan.” Not surprisingly, representatives for Leucadia when proposing the 2012 renovations to Union Hall also stated, “This restaurant (now Nina June) will have shared access to the rear parking lot which is planned for expansion.” In that August 8, 2012 meeting, Planning Board chair Kerry Leichtman wrapped up the parking discussion saying, “He did not feel grand-fathering would be applicable, due to the change of use, and suggested that waiving the parking regulations would be the smartest thing to do. He said the developers would have to work on the fact that there was parking, but not parking awareness.” The board then voted “to waive the parking space regulations for this project.” That sentence and none of the context is what the current Planning Board chose to read and adopt as the agreement from 2012.
2012 Union Hall Planning Board submission clearly shows intent to use expansion to support Union Hall
We are left to determine how the town intends to handle the application of the two ordinance revisions now applicable to the project. Nor do we know yet the outcome of the post-judgment motions to be heard sometime after February 7, 2022.
Maine Superior Court applies citizen initiatives to hotel, remands on parking and architectural harmony shortfalls.
Maine Superior Court ruling in favor of Friends of Rockport on most substantive issues. The Honorable Bruce C. Mallonee on December 2, 2021, issued his ruling in the two concurrent cases relating to the construction at 20 Central Street in Rockport. The Justice remanded the site plan back to the Planning Board for more thoughtful consideration of the adequacy of parking in downtown Rockport as well as for compliance with standards for architectural harmony with neighboring properties. The Maine Superior Court further ruled on January 3, 2022, that the citizens’ petitions requiring no more than 20 rooms per hotel downtown and a parking study paid by the applicant prior to allowing any off-site parking apply to the project. As a result, Maine Superior Court reversed approval of the building permit and remanded the project to the Code Enforcement Office after further review by the Planning Board. Finally, the Court has scheduled post-judgment motions with submissions running through February 7, 2022.
One of those post-judgment motions was by the Plaintiffs, including the 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.
Now, the town has scheduled a Planning Board meeting to address the remanded matters on January 27, 2022, before the Justice can hear the pleadings on post-judgment motions from both parties which may influence the topics before the Planning Board and/or the Code Enforcement Office. While it may make no sense, we and you are mobilizing to put our best foot forward in this hearing. What can you do? Attend the meeting and speak your mind about the parking situation downtown (even without the hotel) and the architectural harmony of the hotel. The Justice, for instance, questioned whether the balconies on Central Street “relate harmoniously to the terrain and surrounding environment, including existing buildings in the vicinity that have a visual relationship with the proposal being entered.” So, you may consider whether 18 Central, 22 Central, or 24 Central have balconies on Central Street. For that matter, whether any commercial building on Central Street has a balcony facing the street – they don’t. Collect your thoughts on these important matters – parking impact and architectural harmony – and share them during the meeting through Livestream at 5:30PM on January 27, 2022.
The Comprehensive Plan is the foundation of Rockport town policy and ordinances. Now is your chance to participate in building that foundation. Seize the moment when the hotel mess is squarely upon us.
Now is your opportunity to influence the new Rockport Comprehensive Plan. It has been 17 years since the document was last refreshed, and the Comprehensive Plan Committee is seeking input from residents and property owners. This is the perfect opportunity to be heard, and we encourage you to engage in whatever way you feel most comfortable.
There is a public hearing on November 9 at 5:30PM in the Rockport Opera House. You can voice your opinion publicly. You can also participate in the online survey and “idea wall” at your convenience.
The Comprehensive Plan is how the Town of Rockport sets long term goals and the document is meant to influence both policy and ordinances. As we know well from the Rockport Harbor Hotel debacle, the best intentions are not always met. Despite architectural standards and scenic view provisions, for instance, the hotel still met with approval from the Planning Board and Code Enforcement Officer. Ideally, the ordinances will become more definitive and our enforcement processes tighter. Given the misses in this case, it seems likely that qualifications will become a key factor in filling these vital roles going forward.
Update on Appeal Status: We all drive by the ever larger 20 Central Street project often and wonder ‘what ever happened to the appeal?’ Since our last update Justice Mallonee has been hard at work reviewing the briefs from counsel and doing his own research on applicable law and precedent. In other words, we are still awaiting a ruling. We remain hopeful that the Justice will stand up for the Land Use Ordinance and the citizens’ petitions, and we will let you know as soon as we receive that ruling.
Desperate times as developers rush construction and contradict themselves in Court papers to ensure they can capitalize on the legally protected scenic views of Rockport Harbor.
Desperate times call for desperate measures and 20 Central Street LLC has resorted to fantastical claims in their final filing to the Superior Court. It is easiest to simply list for you some of the whoppers embedded in their most recent filing.
They start by trying to impugn the character of the Plaintiffs, as well as lying about what they themselves said on the record. They have literally said “this statement is blatantly false” regarding the exterior lighting on the building being on at any time. Yet in the November 21, 2019 Planning Board meeting, Tyler Smith said “they would generally come on at dusk and go off at 11 O’clock. And that’s, we give the ability for customers to override that as well.” In other words, the lights can be on whenever a guest wants them to be on. Mr. Smith, how is that statement “blatantly false”? The only thing blatantly false is your attorney’s filing before the court.
Ironically, their filing also states “the accent lights are low wattage and primarily for accents.” Yet during the November 21, 2019 Planning Board meeting Tyler Smith also said “The intent of most of the lighting is for navigation purposes…. The goal for the decks is really to allow for someone to go out there to sit and read a magazine, have enough illumination for that.” That’s not accent lighting.
20 Central appears to believe that if they say something, that makes it so. During the Planning Board hearings, they showed a diagram of the proposed parking at 310 Commercial Street with lined spaces marked ‘existing parking lot.’ In their latest brief they use this to demonstrate the fact that it really is a parking lot. Saying “One of the exhibits to the lease is a plan depicting the parking space on the satellite lot, which also demonstrates the Hoboken’s lot’s existing use as a parking lot.” Well, we all know that simply drawing up a plan and labelling something (that does not currently exist) as a parking lot, or a hotel, or an ocean liner, does not make it so, whatever they may think.
Similarly, during the December 19, 2019 Planning Board hearing Will Gartley, engineer for the project, said: “Table 803.1 of the Rockport Land Use Ordinance clearly allows for planning board discretion with regard to parking. A perfect example of this is the unanimous approval of the planning board to waive the parking regulations for the Union Hall project in August of 2012. I have those minutes if anybody would like to see them.” Just 10 minutes later he said “When the Union Hall project was approved the planning board unanimously waived any requirements for parking.” Then, in the latest filing they say “a review of the Rockport Planning Board Minutes from August 8, 2012 provides that the Planning Board did in fact grant a waiver of all parking requirements. A waiver of the parking space regulations for the project was passed by a 5-0 vote. Union Hall was approved with zero allocated parking spaces and parking regulations were waived.” Of course, you know from Rockport Parking: A Brief History – Friends of Rockport that this is demonstrably false. The developer at that time asked for a waiver from the 27-31 spaces needed by ordinance to the 25 spaces they were adding to the Sandy’s Way lot at the time. That is what the Planning Board approved. The Planning Board NEVER said that it was OK to provide NO parking for Union Hall, despite 20 Central’s repeated attempts to get us (and you) to believe that they did. Apparently they believe that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes a fact.
They also would have the Court overlook the fact that Will Gartley said in the December 19, 2019 Planning Board meeting “They plan to manage the parking in Rockport in a similar manner which includes the following: by continuing to employ the shared use of 49 existing parking spaces.” He later added “clearly there’s a lot of different uses going on, a lot of different timings, a lot of overlaps, and so that’s the way they plan to continue having that happen….”
They would like the Court (and you) to believe that since the zoning allows for complete lot coverage in downtown Rockport, that supersedes the scenic view provision. Indeed, they have addressed this issue before. In the December 19, 2019 Planning Board meeting Will Gartley said “…by constructing a boutique hotel including a lounge and restaurant. This proposal will allow locals and visitors to enjoy the view of our beautiful harbor….” Of course, Mr. Gartley glibly glossed over the fact that visitors and locals ALREADY enjoyed the view of the beautiful harbor. The developers are not creating a view of the harbor for all to enjoy where none existed before. Rather, they are seeking to monetize, for their private benefit, a public resource that was previously free to anyone walking on Central Street or sitting in Goodridge Park, a view which is protected by our Land Use Ordinance. Instead of stunning views of our Harbor, Rockport residents and visitors will now see a sea of brick, balconies and lights.
Desperate times indeed to call for desperate measures, and now you can see the lengths to which the developer will go in their efforts to keep their construction on track. In fact, their recent mad rush to add brickwork and stone facades are another sign of this effect. Surely the Court would not dare order destruction of work already done? Of course, the Court was clear on this matter as you have already seen Court Ruling on Procedural Issues, Issues Stern Warning to Developer – Friends of Rockport. Still, despite numerous gaffes in the process, ordinance changes you approved, and conflicting statements the developer and their representatives made, they want their hotel the way they designed it.
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.
The integrity of the process is what concerns us the most. Are the town processes working correctly? You decide.
Integrity of the process is what is truly under scrutiny in the June 30 Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) hearing on the building permit issuance for 20 Central Street LLC. While the hotel is the current example, the larger concern is about the integrity of the approval process. In fact, that has been true throughout the Planning Board hearings, appeal to the ZBA of the site plan approval, and the appeal to Superior Court of the ZBA ruling. This is your opportunity to make a difference and be heard. Send an email to Kerry Leichtman, acting town manager, for inclusion in the ZBA materials. Tell them you care about the integrity of the process and will not stand for the disconnect between the site plan approved by the Planning Board and the building permit plans subsequently approved by the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO). You can learn more particulars in these earlier posts: ZBA summary, changes in use and changes in design.
Rockport, like any small town, relies heavily on citizen volunteers to run much of the machinery of the town’s business. Fifteen committees, from the budget committee to the recreation committee, are listed on the town website. The Select Board, too, is comprised of volunteer citizens. By their very nature, these arms of government have fluid staffing and are heavily reliant upon clear processes to deliver you reliable outcomes consistent with town ordinances and policies. The ZBA hearing on June 30 reaches into another process area: the application of town ordinances by municipal employees. This adds another layer of complexity because this work is done without public hearings or real-time oversight. Consequently, the integrity of the process is paramount when a municipal employee is charged with, in this case, ensuring compliance with both town ordinances and the prior approval from the Planning Board. Once that building permit is issued, the only public recourse is to appeal.
As outlined already, the process broke down this time because the structure covered by the building permit differs in very significant ways from that approved by the Planning Board. Now we test the integrity of the next process step, the ZBA appeal process. Regardless of your feelings about the hotel, you most certainly want the town’s processes to be clear, compliant, and repeatable. That should be your message to the ZBA in advance of this hearing. The Code Enforcement Officer must both ensure compliance with the town’s ordinances and with the Planning Board-approved site plan. It simply did not happen this time. Let your voice be heard as one for clear, consistent, compliant processes. Send that email to Kerry Leichtmanand attend the meeting onWednesday at 5:30PM in the Opera House basement meeting room. We’ll see you there!
The Zoning Board of Appeals must answer a simple question: Is the building under construction the same as what the Planning Board approved?
The Zoning Board of Appeals review of the building permit appeal is June 30 at 5:30PM in the Rockport Opera House and via livestream. This review is all about the difference between what the Planning Board approved and what the town Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) approved by issuing a building permit. You have seen many of the elements in the appeal relating to changes in use and changes in design. It is important to recap the biggest ones ahead of the hearing to seek your involvement in the process.
Changes in Use – The most troublesome change from the planning board’s site plan approval to the CEO’s approved building permit relates to the use changes in the public spaces. During the Planning Board hearings, the top floor public space was characterized as a “top level restaurant (+/- 60 seats) [which] will be busiest in the afternoon and evening.” Yet, the plan submitted to the CEO is a 132-seat event space. Similarly, during the hearings the developer said of the street level space “the main function of the lower level restaurant (+/- 24 seats) will be breakfast for the guests.” This space was submitted as 34 seats with a bar (no seating shown there) and piano. Taken together, this is a 98% increase in seating – 84 to 166. Most telling is what the developer said to The Camden Herald on November 13, 2020. The article said “In the summer of 2022 or 2023, a wedding reception may be held on the top floor of a new hotel in downtown Rockport, giving the revelers an unparalleled view of the scenic harbor. Downstairs in the bar and lounge area, a visiting musician may take a turn at the baby grand piano, entertaining other guests.” How does the town CEO unilaterally allow for such a significant change in use from the Planning Board approved site plan? What is the point of the site plan review process if agreed upon parameters are not honored by the town?
Changes in Design – Aside from the uses and related parking requirements, the site plan review looks primarily at the exterior of the proposed building. As you can see here, there were myriad design changes from the planning board approval. The developer will likely argue these are immaterial. The sheer number of changes, though, runs roughshod over already debatable Land Use Ordinance (LUO) compliance. Recall that section 1003.2 of the LUO requires “The architectural design of structures and their materials and colors shall be visually harmonious with the overall appearance of neighboring structures.” The most egregious change is the appearance of a retractable roof over the top floor public space. Despite all the talk about light and noise concerns from the property, the developer decided to dramatically worsen both … so far getting away with it. Here, again, the CEO has unilaterally approved something wildly different from the Planning Board approved site plan. How is that possible? Particularly galling is the fact that unlike the site plan approval process, the building permit review is done without public oversight. All we can do is appeal to our fellow citizens on the ZBA to rein in the CEO.
These big issues demand the ZBA invalidate the building permit and remand the new design to the Planning Board for review. With the hearing coming on June 30, now is your time to be heard on this matter. Please send your thoughts by email to Town Planner Orion Thomas, and request that he pass along to the ZBA for consideration.
Anyone driving through downtown Rockport in the past few weeks will have no doubt noticed the distinct absence of downtown parking spaces, even during “off peak” hours. Why is this? Well, the developers and their entourage have effectively usurped virtually every available parking space within blocks of the hotel.
For example, the developers have dedicated the entire parking lot on Sandy’s Way (behind the nascent hotel) to construction. That is despite all of those spaces being pledged to tenants in the existing buildings…18 Central Oyster Bar and Grill, Bay Chamber Concerts & Music School, Nina June, and so on. Too bad for you, tenants! To paraphrase a line from “Seinfeld”….No Parking for YOU!
In addition, since the hotel construction site encroaches on the street between 18 and 22 Central, the sidewalk and the parking that went with it are gone – and the developers regularly block off most of the downtown parking extending up the street for various staging activities. To make matters worse, the developers and their workmen have taken over all of the parking spaces overlooking the harbor, most of the parking between 18 Central and the Opera House, and a good chunk of the parking on the north side of the street.
The photo shows Central Street in Rockport on a recent Saturday evening (yes, construction continues on Saturdays and Sundays). This is without anything happening at Bay Chamber, by the way. Note the cars lined up all the way up to the Opera House.
Did you, a resident or visitor, have an urge to come to downtown Rockport to patronize a restaurant, or the music school? Well, too bad for you, buddy. Unless you’re a developer or work for one, don’t plan on parking anywhere downtown.
It hardly needs saying that this is going on BEFORE the hotel opens. Which highlights the fallacy perpetrated by the town that there is plenty of parking and the developer need not provide any more. Well, perhaps there is enough parking for the hotel…if nobody else wants to park in Rockport! Which is, apparently, how the town wants it.
To be fair, the town has now proposed an expensive new parking lot overlooking the harbor…naturally taxpayers foot the bill. Largely because the Planning Board misinterpreted the historic record on Union Hall parking and the Code Enforcement Officer failed to require site plan reviews (and parking) for the 18 Central Street and 22 Central Street renovations. That is at least 62 required spaces never addressed by the town.
So, the town is not requiring developers to provide sufficient parking for their enterprises (as required by the LUO). Then allowing them to monopolize all of the public downtown parking for their own purposes. Then suggesting the rest of us pony up to build a lot that will only partially replace the parking the developer has appropriated. And, they want to meter the new lot … so you can pay to use it, too! If it seems a bit off to you that a private developer should take over all the downtown parking, leaving nothing for anybody else, then we encourage you to contact your Select Board and let them know how you feel.
Independent Rockport parking study shows 182 space deficit without the hotel. That rises to 256 if the hotel is built.
Rockport parking remains at the heart of the hotel controversy. While there was much discussion of parking in the various venues leading up to the Planning Board approval of the hotel at 20 Central Street, there was never a full, open, and accurate review of the facts. One fact is that the Land Use Ordinance (LUO) requires developers to provide off-street parking. Another is that the developer is trying to claim that 21 parking spaces are available behind the Central Street buildings for the hotel. As we have already demonstrated, all the spaces, and more, have been previously allocated to the Shepherd Block and Union Hall. Since neither the developer, nor the town, took any initiative to have an independent assessment of the parking situation, we did.
This Rockport parking study was conducted by SLR Consulting, a global engineering firm with over 1,600 employees. Their findings are what you likely expect. They found public parking within a reasonable walking distance of the hotel site to be 138 spaces. Their analysis, averaging the LUO requirements with Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking demand, shows a 256 space deficit in the hotel area. Even without the hotel, a 182 space deficit already existed. It is important to understand that this is the LUO and ITE standard for required parking. Further analysis by SLR indicates that peak demand average is 271 spaces, or a 133 space deficit.
The developer’s properties, from 18 Central (Shepherd Block) to 24 Central (Union Hall), including the new hotel demand, represent 59 of these deficit spaces. Those properties peak demand averages 108 spaces vs. a developer provided capacity of 49 spaces on Sandy’s Way. Keep in mind what the report notes: The Town of Rockport Land Use Ordinance Section 803 places the burden for providing off-street parking on developers. “The purpose of this Section is to provide for adequate off-street parking spaces to meet theneeds of the use or structure.” Do you want to see the report? Send an email to info@friendsofrockport.org with the subject line Independent Parking Study.
You know from our prior post (Rockport Parking: A Brief History) that outlined how these properties owned by the hotel developer have gotten misaligned with the LUO. To recap, they changed the street level use of 22 Central Street in 2017. Failure by the town to perform a site plan review resulted in an understatement of 11 spaces. Then, during the hotel review, the Planning Board reallocated 21 spaces by misinterpreting the 2012 approval of Union Hall renovations. Finally, last fall the town failed to perform a site plan review for the expansion of the Shepherd Block restaurant space resulting in an understatement of at least 30 spaces. The LUO requires 62 spaces, and the town is not enforcing your ordinance. This is definitely reason for you to contact Orion Thomas, the new Town of Rockport planner. Tell him the town must rectify these errors which have been raised by the Friends of Rockport and individuals over the course of the past six months.
What do you think is the town’s reaction to the Rockport parking study? Mr. Thomas wrote of it “the Town cannot nor will use it because the Town did not seek it out. The appropriate channels were not utilized.” You may recall multiple citizens, on several occasions during Planning Board meetings addressing the hotel directly requesting a parking and traffic study be done prior any approval. It is unclear to us what “appropriate channels” may be beyond asking the Planning Board in the context of such a major change downtown. Keep in mind, the town planner sits in on these meetings (all of which occurred prior to Mr. Thomas taking the post).
Are you unhappy about the prospect of a worsening Rockport parking situation? About the town simply ignoring these errors? About the town transferring the burden to taxpayers rather than the developer who is causing the problem? Then this is the time for you to make your feelings known.
