Category: Rockport Parking

Traffic Infrastructure Study Meeting

Learn about an important public meeting and plan to attend, if possible to be heard on this new initiative.

Monday evening the town office announced a Traffic Infrastructure Meeting to be held on Thursday, May 18 at 5:30PM in the library basement. This is your first and best opportunity to learn about and be heard on this critical next phase in the ‘development’ of Rockport Village. The text of the email announcement follows:

This email is to inform you of a public meeting regarding the Village Partnership Initiative Program that the Town has entered into with the Maine Department of Transportation. As a reminder, the Town was recently awarded this grant by the MDOT to explore creating a Business Enhancement and Traffic Plan which would improve our existing infrastructure in the Village and encourage multi- modal transportation approaches to achieve these improvements. One goal is to study how best to accommodate  pedestrian walkways, bicyclists and motorists throughout the entire village area, but especially giving consideration to the new bridge as it is designed. Others issues that will be considered include traffic calming techniques on roads leading into the village, parking, and a multimodal pathway from the Village to the schools.  This meeting will be the first public meeting to begin the engagement process with the community to capture as much information as possible. Through your participation, we are sure to encompass the entire picture for considerations of how the Town should handle this multi-modal approach.  

This meeting will take place at the Rockport Library, in the Lower level, starting at 5:30pm and will go until approximately 7:30pm. There will be a survey for this as well, which we will post on the Town Website.

If you have questions, feel free to reach out to the Planning and Development Office.

Orion Thomas, Planning & Development Director

Planning Board Tentatively Rules as Expected

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 PB submission
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 ruling largely in favor of Friends of Rockport; Town schedules Planning Board hearing for January 27, 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.

Downtown parking…and so it begins

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.

Where Things Stand

It seems like a good time to share where things stand. Still plenty of balls in the air, and hopeful the court will issue an injunction. Learn more here:

You may be wondering where things stand. Particularly since this week, Tyler Smith’s “erector set” is going up in town. The appeals are slowly working through the courts. Plus we still await town action on several shortcomings members have identified for them.

Our focus remains on ensuring a compliant building. Thankfully, the courts, like the state, will look objectively at facts, which should work in our favor. Let’s recap what is still in play.

Superior Court Activity

Where things stand at the Superior Court. The Superior Court is currently reviewing two cases and two related requests for temporary injunctions. Our legal team submitted a brief on Tuesday summarizing another good reason why we are likely to prevail. This may be enough to secure a temporary injunction barring further work pending resolution of the underlying cases. One case is the appeal of the Planning Board site plan approval. At issue here are myriad misses in application of the Land Use Ordinance. The most notable miss is failure to consider alternative designs to comply with scenic view provisions. You can learn more here. The second case is seeking application of the 2020 citizens’ initiatives. The argument here is whether a state statute limiting retroactivity to 45 days should apply during a pandemic. The fact is the building permit was issued on March 10, 2021, long after your vote approving the ordinance changes. Since the building permit is the final approval, the 45 day limit is moot. You can learn more here.

Activity with Town of Rockport

Where things stand with the Town of Rockport. The Friends also have ongoing efforts at the town office around: the building permit issuance, parking implications of two missing site plan reviews, and the Planning Board’s misreading of the 2012 parking allocation for Union Hall. You can learn more about the permit appeal here and the unaddressed parking issues here. Regrettably, with respect to the parking issues, the town has been singularly non-responsive. In the absence of a town manager, for the moment, we suggest you send your thoughts on these matters directly to Debra Hall, Select Board Chair. It is unconscionable that the town, when presented evidence of process failures, should do nothing.

Rockport Parking: An Independent Assessment

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 the needs 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.

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.

Bait and Switch in Rockport

With their application for a building permit the developers of the proposed Rockport Harbor Hotel have again employed their standard bait and switch model. This time they have taken the approved 60 seat top floor lounge, added a retractable roof and shown an event configuration with 124 seats.

The developers of the proposed Rockport Harbor Hotel have filed their building permit application. It has some surprises you might not like, not surprisingly it is another bait and switch with parking. The Land Use Ordinance requires one off-street parking space for each 3 restaurant seats. Remember the ongoing saga of the ‘rooftop bar’ spoken of by the developer and their representatives during the approval process? Then their attorneys were quick to correct the appellants during the ZBA hearings. ‘There is no rooftop bar, there is a top floor lounge.’ This drawing submitted with the building permit application shows an entirely different thing. This is an event facility configured for 132 seated attendees with a retractable roof (no roof = rooftop). That is a rooftop event facility and often times lounge.

Bet you thought parking was an issue already. That concern goes up a couple of notches because they requested and received approval for “2 restaurants, total 84 seats.” They said: “The main function of the lower level restaurant (+/- 24 seats) will be breakfast for the guests. The top level restaurant (+/- 60 seats) will be busiest in the afternoon and evening with many of the customers being hotel guests.”

  • Bait and Switch in Rockport
    Bait and switch in Rockport as lobby breakfast restaurant grows by 10 seats, adds piano and bar.
  • Bait and Switch in Rockport
    Top floor lounge becomes conference facility with over twice the seating capacity reported.

The piano and bar in the breakfast restaurant might seem out of place, too. It shows 34 widely spaced seats (10 more than reported) without showing any bar seating. The rooftop event space shows 132 seats (62 more than reported), plus can easily accommodate 24 seats on the deck. Just imagine a weekend wedding event, with attendant off-site dinners, sightseeing excursions, bachelor(ette) parties, a whole weekend of mayhem on the harbor.

Just using their own numbers, 166 seats in the two venues and they admit to basically doubling what they requested and have approved … a little rational thought would add the 24 top level deck seats and let’s say six and six at the two bars … that’s 202 ‘restaurant’ seats vs. 84 approved! Using the LUO rules at the time of the Planning Board review (one space per three seats) that is 82 extra seats/3, meaning 28 unaccounted for spaces. Being realistic (without crowding seats in the lobby bar) it is 118 extra seats/3, 40 unreported spaces needed.

What can you do about this? Write to the town, Bill Najpauer, Planning Director; Scott Bickford, Code Enforcement Officer, and Bill Post, Town Manager. Tell them this building permit must be declined as it is not reflective of what the Planning Board approved.

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