Category: Land Use Ordinance

Rockport Parking: A Brief History

A series of miscues leaves Rockport parking a shambles…before adding the hotel. Will the town move to correct the record?

Rockport parking is at the heart of the hotel controversy. Parking shortfalls are an everyday occurrence in the summer. It happens more frequently in the quiet times, too. The Land Use Ordinance requires developers to provide off-street parking. The developer is trying to claim that 21 parking spaces are available behind the Central Street buildings – but these spaces have already been allocated.  The developer claims that the Town previously decided that Union Hall did not require any parking spaces, but this clearly self-serving interpretation is inconsistent with the actual record. So, how does this happen?

It is quite easy to explain. Rockport’s Code Enforcement Officer is responsible for just what the title implies. Developers are also responsible for compliance with applicable ordinances. So, what went wrong? Three, readily identifiable issues have happened.

First, in 2017 the developer applied to convert the gallery at 22 Central into a coffee shop. This change of use and change of intensity of use triggers a site plan review under LUO section 1300. The Planning Board would have found section 803 required allocating 11 additional off-street parking spaces. No site plan review occured.

Then, the Planning Board misread the minutes from 2012 review of the Union Hall renovation (ZBA June 19, 2012, and PB June 20, 2012, July 11, 2012, August 8, 2012) . That developer outlined the required parking for the project, “27-31 spaces,” in their application page 5. There is clearly no intention nor request to receive a parking waiver for the project. One of many citations during the hearings is the bottom paragraph of page 1 on August 8. Here, as in the application, the developer stated “these parking needs will be almost entirely satisfied within the parking lot expansion noted above, which will provide an additional 25 spaces.” Similarly, on page 12 of the ZBA minutes, the developer stated “just think if there was some separate owner that didn’t have the opportunity for parking.” Acknowledging, yet again, the shared parking nature of the Sandy’s Way lot and the 25 new spaces for Union Hall use. Yet during the site plan review of the hotel, the current Planning Board erroneously reallocated 21 of these spaces to the hotel by calling them available!

Finally, in the late fall of 2020 the developer applied to add a deck to the Shepherd Block. This change of a previously approved site plan and change in intensity of use also triggers LUO section 1300. Here the Planning Board would have found section 803 required allocating at least 30 additional off-street parking spaces. No site plan review occurred.

So, what happened to Rockport parking? Twice the Code Enforcement Officer missed applying the code – LUO section 1300. With the Planning Board’s inadvertent reallocation of 21 off-street parking spaces, the current developer is at least 62 spaces short of code. That is without any hotel!

So, what have the Friends of Rockport been doing about this? Since the fall we have been trying to get the town to acknowledge and rectify the missing site plan reviews. Their response has been to say that the time has passed to appeal the building permit issuance. That is not the point, nor the request. Our hope here, as always, is for the town to simply apply the Land Use Ordinance as written. In these two cases, allocating the 41 spaces required for work already done because of lax oversight. Plus, acknowledging the misinterpretation of the 2012 Planning Board decision on Union Hall. We have also commissioned an independent parking study of the downtown area which clearly demonstrates these very points and the added strain which will be caused by the hotel.

What can you do? Write to the town to tell them you’re fed up with the lax enforcement on Central Street. Tell Orion Thomas, the new planner, you insist they complete these site plan reviews and acknowledge the parking requirements. Plus, have him clarify the record on the 2014 Planning Board approval of Union Hall, acknowledging that 25 Sandy’s Way spaces were allocated and just a handful waived.

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!

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.

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.

Design changes galore

The developer has dumped a ton of design changes on the Code Enforcement Officer. He has no choice but to send the project back to the Planning Board with all these substantive changes.

The developer’s building permit submission is full of design changes galore. One might expect that the extensive site plan review process undertaken by the Rockport Planning Board would result in a set exterior look and feel. Indeed, the site plan review revolves around the exterior of the property, plus the uses and related parking needs. As we have already pointed out for you, the interior uses have changed dramatically. Their event center layout in the top level lounge space and lobby level bar have dramatic impacts on parking. Today we will focus on the esthetics of the building, and changes from the approved site plan. It is easiest to show you the drawings side-by-side. We highlighted some of the areas worth considering.

Central Street view as approved (color) and as submitted (changes noted) for building permit
Harbor side view as approved (color) and as submitted (changes noted) for building permit

Design changes range from the small points like support brackets to larger things like changing the front entry. With the controversy about meeting the LUO architectural standard, one might expect zero changes to the approved plan. However, you see arches, columns, roof lines and appurtenances changing, doors appearing and disappearing, and even a retractable roof!

The surprise appearance of a retractable roof, not to mention a bevy of HVAC and other appurtenances

The exterior design changes are incredibly numerous and substantive. There is no doubt the Planning Board would not be pleased to know this. We encourage you to write to Scott Bickford, the Code Enforcement Officer, and Bill Najpauer, the Planning Director. Ask that your comments be passed along to the Planning Board.

Rockport Waives the Permit Rules

Can you build a hotel without a building permit? The developers are trying to get ahead of the curve by attacking it piecemeal and asking forgiveness.

Some of us who have been observing the pattern of stealthy incremental construction of the proposed downtown hotel have been disturbed by what appears to be a pattern –  by the developers and the Town of Rockport and its officials – of allowing a great deal of construction without obtaining required permit(s) or Planning Board review under the Town of Rockport Land Use Ordinance (LUO).

There have been several instances – documented below – where the developers have engaged in construction activities well beyond what has been authorized by their existing permits. Rather than enforcing the limits on activity, the Town has, instead, granted permits after the fact.  As a result, the developers have been allowed to do a great deal of work on the infrastructure of their hotel – and on the surrounding buildings – without officially requesting the building permit that would trigger the Town to make a decision on whether the hotel plans must be revised to meet the current LUO.

What is clear is that the developers have consistently gone ahead and done work well beyond what is allowed by their existing permits, in the hope that nobody will notice or complain. And the Town has allowed them to get away with it.  When residents call the Town on this unpermitted work, is the Town’s response to get the developers to stop?  No, it is to issue permits after the fact to “forgive” the violations. 

It is said that over 1,400 years ago St. Benedict observed “It is easier to beg forgiveness than to seek permission.” Nowhere has this been better illustrated than on Central Street in Rockport since the current owners arrived. It is a fascinating case study in business ethics, right here in our little town. Consider these recent examples:

  • The 22 Central Street sidewalk level renovation changing the easternmost space from a gallery to a restaurant was completed without required Planning Board site plan review. Under the Rockport LUO, Section 1003 – Applicability, a change of use requires a site plan review. In this case, the previous 4 allocated off-street parking spaces would have increased to 15 when the work was done in 2017.  For reasons unknown to us, the Town overlooked or ignored the Planning Board required site plan review and the CEO issued a simple building permit without referring it to the Planning Board or requiring the parking spaces to be allocated.
  • More recently, a deck was added to the third level of 18 Central Street. Under the LUO this represents a change of intensity of use, a change to a previously approved site plan, and an addition of more that 1,000 square feet (when taken with the prior bathroom conversion to seating), each of which requires a site plan review. Again, the CEO issued a simple building permit for the deck, not requiring allocation of the at least 41 incremental off-street parking spaces required by the LUO, nor requiring a site plan review as demanded by LUO Section 1003.

Both represent important omissions, as a result the Town has compounded the downtown parking problem.  Had the required site plan reviews been completed or even the permits properly conditioned, they would have allocated, in aggregate, the LUO required 52 spaces at least to these two uses – spaces that do not, at present, exist.  You may recall the developers used 21 ‘unallocated’ spaces behind the buildings as the basis for their hotel application. They simply don’t exist. Plus, the 55 or more restaurant spaces have completely overlapping usage with the hotel and top floor lounge, contrary to the developer’s assertion otherwise.

20 Central Street is the site of the proposed hotel. There have been and continue to be myriad instances of St. Benedict’s rule.

  • The developers were allowed to perform excavation work at both 18 Central and 20 Central, despite the inconvenient fact that they only had a permit for work on 20 Central issued September 23. The Town was notified by residents that the developers were doing unpermitted work on 18 Central property, and the Town subsequently issued an after-the-fact permit for 18 Central 0n December 21!
  • Framing work and pouring materials for sub-foundation into frames during the past few weeks. Town was notified by residents, no permit issued as the town consider “flowable fill” to be excavation and fill work covered by above permit.
  • The developers commenced unpermitted drilling and framing work for an elevator shaft on November 18. Concerned residents notified the Town on November 18, which the Town ignored.  Through their attorney, the Friends of Rockport filed a notice to the Town on December 16.  What happened?  Surprise!  The Town issued another after-the-fact permit to the developers on December 18.
  • As part of their “stealth construction” program, the developers tore down the four story brick wall on 22 Central in early November – again without a permit. The Town was notified by residents on November 10 when work was well along.  The residents were told that was covered by excavation and fill permit for 20 Central, despite this being neither excavation nor fill nor 20 Central … plus there is a permit class for demolition.  The weakness of the Town’s response is demonstrated by the fact that they issued another after-the-fact permit for demolition work  on November 20.
  • Similarly, after the unpermitted demolition of the wall at 22 Central, the developers proceeded to install steel bracing on the 20 Central Street side of the common wall. This was reported to the town on November 12 and 16.  The Town’s response?  Yes, to issue another after the fact building permit on November 20.

Given this trend of piecemeal construction and after the fact permitting, consider the recent brick work on the rear of 18 Central Street. While the permit only trailed the start of work by a day or two, ask yourself, why are they installing doors on the second floor? Is this the start of another, larger project? Can you envision a second large deck? Will they continue up the building? Why brick over windows on the West side of the building? You might recall that is a controversial part of the hotel project, now conveniently part of installing second story doors?

This pattern of starting work without obtaining required permits does not speak well to the business practices of the developers, nor to the oversight of the Town, especially when an appeal was underway before the ZBA. This tacit support enables the developer to begin construction without officially requesting the building permit that would trigger the Town to make a decision on whether the hotel plans must be revised to meet the current LUO. Now, with the ZBA having sanctioned the Planning Board approval, we await the Town’s verdict on the applicability of the two ordinance revisions passed in 2020. Regardless, it seems likely the next step will be Superior Court for this project.

Certainly, the notion of avoiding site plan reviews rises to a whole different level. The fact that the Planning Board approved the hotel proposal on the assertion of 21 ‘unallocated’ off-street parking spaces behind the buildings when the developer failed to submit the 18 Central and 22 Central projects for site plan review … underreporting LUO required off-street parking by 52 spaces … is unconscionable. Plus, the developer has further expanded the restaurant space since completing the deck by converting adjacent space! Now you know why Central Street is so often packed with cars while the developer says there are 21 available spaces on Sandy’s Way.

Please contact Bill Najpauer, Planning Director to express your concern about these developer behaviors, your desire to see site plan reviews done on the two big projects, your concern about LUO enforcement, and to demand acknowledgement of the 52 or more required off-site spaces missed in their process. You may also want to copy Bill Post, Town Manager, to keep him aware of this brewing concern amongst residents.

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

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?