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?