The battle for and against Article 4 on the Rockport Town Meeting agenda has become quite pitched in the run up to the August 18 vote. Yet nowhere has there been a compendium of misstatements and falsehoods, rebutted with actual facts … until now.
The Developer and the Rockport Select Board have been exceedingly vocal, both credited and uncredited, in decrying the wishes of over 300 residents. We will look at some of their favorite tropes to let you decide, all the relevant code and meeting citations are available here Vote YES on Article 4:
The ‘anonymous’ postcard told you that Article 4 is an attempt “to stop a downtown Rockport boutique hotel.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Article 4 merely reinforces the stated purpose of the prior ordinance revision by retaining the 40 room aggregate number and putting a per property cap of 20 rooms. In the April 18, 2017 Select Board meeting drafters of the ordinance change said: ‘the 40 room aggregate number was chosen because it would be too big for one hotel, the goal is to test the waters and there will be no deciding between winners and losers.’
Select Board Chair Debra Hall has stated on multiple occasions and most recently in print on behalf of the entire Select Board that “…This ordinance was relied upon by the developer to purchase the property….” The 40 aggregate rooms ordinance was passed on June 13, 2017. The developer purchased the property on July 22, 2016.
In the same Select Board letter, and in multiple public comments by Select Board Vice Chair Denise Munger they assert that “…the citizen petitioned ordinances would not change the overall size of the hotel….” Munger has also said it can and will ‘remain end-to-end between those buildings.’ It’s true, Article 4 changes only the number of rooms in a single hotel. Economics should cause the developer to revisit the scale of the property (originally a 36 room hotel). Plus, the Land Use Ordinance is there to ensure protection of scenic views from adjacent properties, the main street and nearby undeveloped land. Courts will handle compliance with existing ordinances.
Kristen Smith, spouse of Tyler Smith – spokesperson for the developer, has gone so far as to deface the facts on this website and assert that Article 4 does not impede “…land owners ability to chose any design they would like on their land whether it enclosed the space completely, or not.” That is patently untrue, the Land Use Ordinance not only requires minimum disruption of scenic views, it also requires visually harmonious design with adjacent properties.