The developers and the developers’ surrogates went on a public relations campaign in advance of the Planning Board hearing on January 27, 2022, and much of it smeared Friends of Rockport and individual plaintiffs. This Planning Board hearing was necessitated by the fact that we prevailed in most of our concerns over the approval process for the proposed hotel – no malice toward the Smiths, the Town, nor any town volunteers, simply concern for upholding our ordinances and the integrity of the town processes. Indeed, Justice Mallonee ruled in our favor on almost every claim: parking shortfalls, architectural harmony, and application of the two ordinance changes residents approved requiring a parking study for off-site parking and no more than 20 rooms per downtown hotel. In response to Justice Mallonee’s well considered and objective rulings, “Stu/Marianne/Tyler&Kristen” chose to attack us in writing on January 18, 2022 “…all this legal action against the town has been very expensive for the town taxpayers and is the direct result of negative and misleading efforts….”
The developers’ surrogates thought it prudent to suggest that we created the ‘much-vilified Smith family,’ when we focus our communications on the process, not people, and don’t name names aside from direct quotations. Of course, it is nothing new for the developer and their surrogates to impugn the integrity of the Friends and residents. Back in September 2021 in court filings they asserted “this statement is blatantly false” regarding exterior lighting claims which remain demonstrably true. The surrogates in a January 18 letter published as an advertisement in the local paper say that we “…formed with the avowed sole cause of fighting the hotel.” Sorry, in fact we’re not even fighting the hotel, rather, our clear and stated mission is “promoting smart growth of Rockport while preserving its iconic historical architecture, beautiful quiet Harbor and Scenic Views.” It just happens the process broke down in the case of the hotel, but it need not have. The surrogates end with an assertion that we “…will never countenance this hotel…” Not only has that never been said, or thought, we have indicated a desire to settle this matter directly with the developers throughout, including overtures in advance of the latest Planning Board meeting – to save the town money. As far back as April 25, 2021, in our post we said, “We have repeatedly sought and remain open to a reasonable compromise with the Town and the developer.” So, don’t believe the developers and their surrogates when they say we have “obsession with blocking this new business.” It is simply not true.
All this before the Justice hears post-judgment motions, one of which was by the Plaintiffs, including 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.
Still, the town went ahead with a Planning Board meeting to address the remanded matters on January 27, 2022, before the Justice could hear the pleadings on post-judgment motions from all parties which may influence the topics before the Planning Board and/or the Code Enforcement Office. Not only that, but the Planning Board reviewed parking without the benefit of the independent parking study now required by town ordinance. Keep in mind the Justice’s language in his ruling: the Planning Board has “…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.”
With so many open items remaining, including adequacy of parking, preservation of scenic views, architectural harmony, the parking study, and reduction of rooms, the Friends remain open to resolution, but without the other parties, this could continue for some time. We just hope the town has sense enough to stop spending our taxpayer dollars and let the developers make their own case.
This is such bullshit!
1. You promoted a letter written by one of your own members that personally attacked the smiths and called them oligarchs.
2. All of your lawsuits are against the town not the smiths.
3. Your FOR group has done nothing for the town other than try to fight the hotel.
4. Your lawyer told the judge that all you want is to tear down the hotel.
Amazing how your tone changes when all of the townspeople see through your bullshit and start to call you on it. You won’t publish this anyway because you can’t handle the truth.
-Peter
Thank you, Peter, you’re right, we did post a letter written by a supporter which called the Smiths oligarchs. That’s the supporter’s opinion. You did not cite one instance in the publications of the Friends which ‘made it personal.’
You’re also right that the litigation is against the town because appeals have to be brought against the town, and because the town processes are what have broken down in this situation. We don’t begrudge developers, jobs, or hotels, for that matter.
You’re wrong that FOR has done nothing for the town, many supporters serve in volunteer roles on town committees and in volunteer roles throughout the town. The Friends have also encouraged engagement with the current effort to revisit the town’s Comprehensive Plan, and demonstrated the determination to draft, promote and, ultimately, pass ordinance revisions to close existing and proposed loopholes which would have exacerbated parking problems downtown. No, we don’t have unlimited resources to solve everything concurrently, but we do take the initiative to improve things as we see them.
Yes, the attorney did suggest removing the construction given the number of rulings in our favor. The primary contention of the Friends of Rockport is that the Town of Rockport, including the Planning Board, did not follow its own rules in approving the hotel. Justice Mallonee agreed with us, which is why he sent the matter back to the Planning Board for reconsideration. Human nature dictates that the decisions that might be made by the Planning Board, even on an unbiased good faith basis, are going to be materially different when they are considering a building that is already in place compared to one that only exists on paper. It is much easier politically, emotionally, and financially to require changes to an unbuilt building. We will not accept a conclusion that states, in essence “Well, we wouldn’t have approved this initially but now that it’s built, I guess we can’t do anything about it.” That’s what the developer is counting on here. We feel the only fair method for the Planning Board is to start from scratch and evaluate the building as though it did not currently exist. Consider the now 20-room allowable hotel has 45% fewer rooms than the original 36-room design submission – the ‘wall-to-wall’ design from 18 Central to 22 Central. Any rational observer would have to imagine a smaller footprint for a hotel with 45% fewer rooms.
You’re also wrong about our willingness to engage because here we are exchanging views, getting to the truth. As we have stated many times, and will say again, we’re not opposed to the hotel. We just want a better, smaller hotel that fits its site, the surroundings, and the Land Use Ordinance in a better way than this one does.
Given all that, not sure what “bull****” you mean.
bravo for you..keep fighting the good fight..I have seen this for years..u have money ..u get your way…and u dont have to play by the rules..its a shame..good on you! deb burchell brady Sea St Rockport