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.
As the home owner most adversely effected by the travesty occurring on Central Street, in other words the illegal building of an ugly over-sized hotel, I will continue to protest any way I can. I will do my best to get others to do so as well. The planned monstrosity will block not only my view of the ocean but that of anyone in this area; it will also obliterate the view of the opposite shore (Sea Street and environs). It is a disgrace that a beautiful town, so endowed with all kinds of assets: hills, forests, ocean, lovely old houses, gardens and so forth, can allow its own government to destroy its unique charms. Don’t these bureaucrats have eyes?!
There is nothing illegal about the building, please stop making false claims. It has been reviewed and permitted through all the proper channels. A view from your property might have been a nice thing to have but it is not illegal for a property owner to develop their property within the constraints of the land use ordinance. Homeowners have no right to a view unless it has been granted in writing by a local ordinance and those only pertain to trees, not buildings anyway. Rockport has no such ordinance. It is understandable that you may have concerns, that is why the public was allowed to comment during all the planning board meetings when the hotel was discussed. Airing grievances now, after not once commenting during the appropriate timeframe, is ineffective.
Just to be clear, Kristen, your comment addresses solely the earlier comment on this post, not the post itself. In this case the Land Use Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan each address the matter of preservation of views. You can see that in section 1003 of the Land Use Ordinance “structures shall impede as little as reasonably practical, scenic views from the main road or from existing structures and nearby undeveloped areas.” Quite clearly the proposed hotel fails all three tests, but that is for an independent judiciary to decide. The commenter to which you refer would, in fact, benefit from the application of this long-standing ordinance. Yes, as you well know, the matter of the scenic view provision was raised by multiple residents during the Planning Board process.
To Kristen,
I certainly would have attended the Planning Board meetings had I known about them and been in Rockport at the time. I would have spoken of the many reasons I’m against the hotel, not just concerning my view. I received no notice that such meetings were being held.