Friends of Rockport make progress in Superior Court. Justice Mallonee’s second decision represents an impressive victory for the residents of Rockport! We won outright on three of the four criteria for getting the hotel construction enjoined for the second time. And while we have not yet won on the final point, Justice Mallonee has invited our attorneys to submit an additional brief on this issue.
Thanks for keeping the faith even as you witnessed the developer’s relentless and expedited construction, day after day, after the first injunction was lifted. We know it has been painful and maddening to watch as the developer blocks a century old view of the Harbor and defaces the historic Shepherd Block. While our repeated protestations to our Town officials have fallen on deaf ears, Justice Mallonee mercifully has heard us loud and clear. It truly is progress.
When Justice Mallonee enjoined construction the first time, he expressed the concern that “20 Central, by continuing its construction even as litigation was pending, was manufacturing reality that would change to its (unfair) advantage, any future calculation of remedies by any body charged with enforcing municipal building ordinances.” As the Justice considers our request for a second injunction, he noted, “That concern has been, if anything, amplified by 20 Central’s unhindered construction in the last two and a half months”.
Unlike our Town officials, Justice Mallonee also recognizes and respects our efforts to enforce our scenic view ordinance. “Plaintiffs have made a persuasive preliminary showing that construction of the hotel in accordance with 20 Central’s building permit will close off sight-lines for townspeople that have existed for decades. In a scenic harbor side village in which both civic enjoyment and commercial success are predicated on scenic values, this could constitute a substantial loss. The potential loss is amplified by potential congestion or other complications resulting from traffic and parking that exceeds municipal capacity.”
Justice Mallonee has also eloquently and strongly advocated for our petitions which our Town officials have not only refused to uphold, but have actually used our taxpayer dollars to try to defeat! “Further injury relates to the process of citizen petition and civic government. Plaintiffs did exactly what they were supposed to do when aggrieved; they employed a statutory process to secure the relief they sought. They did the hard work of gathering signatures, generating a vote, and persuading their neighbors to support their cause.”
“They ‘failed’ only because their efforts ran afoul of a disease that overwhelmed the entire country. For the statutory relief, Plaintiffs sought to be frustrated by a pandemic that ejected their neighbors from their jobs, schools, entertainment, churches and synagogues; the homes of their aged parents and infant grandchildren; and the hospital rooms of their dying loved ones, at a time when specific and substantial legal relief was otherwise offered by every body of State government, appears to contravene foundational ideas of participatory government. The court deems this to be irreparable harm of considerable magnitude.”
Although we are grateful for Justice Mallonee’s decision, we must correct his understandably mistaken belief that the developer’s second design “lower[ed] the building profile.” Although the developer reduced the number of rooms to 26 and eliminated one floor, this redesign did not reduce the height of the building nor its volume and footprint at all. Therefore, it is not a “substantial accommodation.” The design is substantially similar, retaining the offensive wall-to-wall approach and replacing a historic scenic view of the Harbor with a sea of brick. In fact, the developer has vowed that it will continue to block the scenic view if required to comply with the 20 room restriction in the ordinance. That redesign is hardly progress or sensitivity to the feedback of townspeople.
As to the Justice’s inquiry about the economic impact of “further trimming,” our choice of a 20 room limit in the ordinance was responsive to this concern. The developer is on record saying that a 20 room hotel is what he intended to build because it is a good size for weddings or business conferences. (34:53 https://livestream.com/Rockportmaine/events/7198735/videos/154495579). Indeed, the developer’s 16 Bay View Hotel, on which the Rockport Harbor Hotel is based, has 21 rooms.
We have repeatedly sought and remain open to a reasonable compromise with the Town and the developer. Your steadfast support will enable us to continue to fight the good fight until we finally get one. If you have not yet made a financial contribution, please consider doing so to help cover our legal costs. Thank you for supporting our mission to promote the smart growth of Rockport, while preserving its iconic historical architecture, beautiful harbor, and scenic views. Strangely, progress comes with a price.
This judge certainly displays a wise evaluation of the whole picture.