Category: Rockport History

Desperate Times

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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….”
  6. 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.

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.

Too Much of a Good Thing?

Concerns about traffic, safety, parking, noise, lights, and all the things glossed over during the Planning Board process for approval of the proposed “boutique hotel” in Rockport village are mirrored everywhere. You may see it in Camden, whenever you like. Is it too much of a good thing?

Our biggest problem with parking is that all the uses are concurrent: Nina June, 18 Central, Rockport Opera House, Bay Chamber Concerts, and a 26 room hotel with another restaurant and top floor lounge. This in the face of already universally agreed parking shortfalls, without the hotel, restaurant and lounge. The developer’s solution? Run a valet parking service to the old Hoboken Gardens, just like they have in Camden. Well, not really just like it because here the lot is more than twice as distant as in Camden, and the shuttles will be passing through the residential area on Pascal Avenue with small children living along the road.

Do you want this congestion? The shuttles and more cars competing for available on street parking?

This piece Tourists Can be Too Much of a Good Thing for This Maine Town from All Things Considered on National Public Radio shares perspectives from our neighbor Down East, Bar Harbor. Hopefully we can all internalize this message, especially hopeful developers in the audience.

Rockport Hotel in the News

The Smith family kicked off their PR campaign ahead of the scheduled appeal of the Planning Board approval for their Rockport hotel project on Central Street. This article in the online edition of the Village Soup provides some fresh insight into the thinking of the Smiths.

Their take on the Rockport hotel elimination of the view from Central Street, Goodridge Park and most of the West wall in the Shepherd Block is most telling. “We’re not building it here because we need to make any more money,” Stuart said. “They have two points to make in response. One is that people will still be able to enjoy the view. They can come to the hotel to see it. The public will have some access to the top floor lounge area, they said.” Plus, “They have also constructed a patio on the back of 18 Central to allow customers to enjoy the harbor from there.”

You know the deck they are talking about, this one that was built without proper review by the Planning Board.

As for the Rockport hotel itself, the one that disregards multiple provisions of the Town of Rockport Land Use Ordinance, “the vast number of people in Rockport are very much in favor of it,” Stuart said. He went on to say “They can enjoy the harbor. Great views, great parks. This is an ideal place to be.” As you now know, you need only patronize their buildings to enjoy the view, and Goodridge Park will be a whole lot less great when the view is gone.

A couple of other things you should look for in the article:

“Stuart said this was the location of the Rockport Ice Company building until about the 1970s.” The thing is we all know the Rockport Ice Company building did not adjoin the Shepherd Block. Funny, though, how they provided a photo which might make you think it did because it was taken up the hill. The photo provided by Clare Tully, on the other hand, clearly shows the large view window that was there since the Shepherd Block was built.

With respect to the Land Use Ordinance requirement that the project must be “visually harmonious with the overall appearance of neighboring structures” Tyler Smith said “Traditionally in architecture, if you’re building a new building out of brick, you try and source your brick and your clay (which the brick is made from) as close as you can. This helps it match.” So, having bricks that are pretty similar satisfies the Ordinance requirement? Never mind all those lights and balconies and wrought iron railings … just look at the bricks.

What about the windows?

Some wonder why 18 Central has so many windows on the West wall. It’s quite simple, there has never been an adjoining property. This explains the history.

Have you ever wondered why there are 19 windows and two doors on the West wall of the Shepherd Block?


It’s because there has never been a property directly against that wall. Tenants have always enjoyed harbor views from those windows.
At first there was a street running down alongside the building to the harbor.


Since then the always unoccupied space has been part of the 18 Central lot.

So why would the Planning Board and developer have you believe it is fine to block the view now? Especially in light of the Land Use Ordinance saying “…Structures shall impede as little as reasonably practical, scenic views from the main road or from existing structures or nearby undeveloped areas.”