Rockport parking is at the heart of the hotel controversy. Parking shortfalls are an everyday occurrence in the summer. It happens more frequently in the quiet times, too. The Land Use Ordinance requires developers to provide off-street parking. The developer is trying to claim that 21 parking spaces are available behind the Central Street buildings – but these spaces have already been allocated. The developer claims that the Town previously decided that Union Hall did not require any parking spaces, but this clearly self-serving interpretation is inconsistent with the actual record. So, how does this happen?
It is quite easy to explain. Rockport’s Code Enforcement Officer is responsible for just what the title implies. Developers are also responsible for compliance with applicable ordinances. So, what went wrong? Three, readily identifiable issues have happened.
First, in 2017 the developer applied to convert the gallery at 22 Central into a coffee shop. This change of use and change of intensity of use triggers a site plan review under LUO section 1300. The Planning Board would have found section 803 required allocating 11 additional off-street parking spaces. No site plan review occured.
Then, the Planning Board misread the minutes from 2012 review of the Union Hall renovation (ZBA June 19, 2012, and PB June 20, 2012, July 11, 2012, August 8, 2012) . That developer outlined the required parking for the project, “27-31 spaces,” in their application page 5. There is clearly no intention nor request to receive a parking waiver for the project. One of many citations during the hearings is the bottom paragraph of page 1 on August 8. Here, as in the application, the developer stated “these parking needs will be almost entirely satisfied within the parking lot expansion noted above, which will provide an additional 25 spaces.” Similarly, on page 12 of the ZBA minutes, the developer stated “just think if there was some separate owner that didn’t have the opportunity for parking.” Acknowledging, yet again, the shared parking nature of the Sandy’s Way lot and the 25 new spaces for Union Hall use. Yet during the site plan review of the hotel, the current Planning Board erroneously reallocated 21 of these spaces to the hotel by calling them available!
Finally, in the late fall of 2020 the developer applied to add a deck to the Shepherd Block. This change of a previously approved site plan and change in intensity of use also triggers LUO section 1300. Here the Planning Board would have found section 803 required allocating at least 30 additional off-street parking spaces. No site plan review occurred.
So, what happened to Rockport parking? Twice the Code Enforcement Officer missed applying the code – LUO section 1300. With the Planning Board’s inadvertent reallocation of 21 off-street parking spaces, the current developer is at least 62 spaces short of code. That is without any hotel!
So, what have the Friends of Rockport been doing about this? Since the fall we have been trying to get the town to acknowledge and rectify the missing site plan reviews. Their response has been to say that the time has passed to appeal the building permit issuance. That is not the point, nor the request. Our hope here, as always, is for the town to simply apply the Land Use Ordinance as written. In these two cases, allocating the 41 spaces required for work already done because of lax oversight. Plus, acknowledging the misinterpretation of the 2012 Planning Board decision on Union Hall. We have also commissioned an independent parking study of the downtown area which clearly demonstrates these very points and the added strain which will be caused by the hotel.
What can you do? Write to the town to tell them you’re fed up with the lax enforcement on Central Street. Tell Orion Thomas, the new planner, you insist they complete these site plan reviews and acknowledge the parking requirements. Plus, have him clarify the record on the 2014 Planning Board approval of Union Hall, acknowledging that 25 Sandy’s Way spaces were allocated and just a handful waived.
I have followed the whole planning board review and read a lot of the previous planning board minutes and what you say here is incorrect. It very clearly states in the minutes for the Union Hall renovation that the planning board voted unanimously to waive all of the parking requirements. I agree that there may be a parking issues in downtown Rockport but it is not OK to just make up information and pretend they are facts! – Ron
Thank you, Ron, for your commitment to the truth and diligent reading of the minutes. Like the Planning Board in 2020 you have made an understandable mistake, taking a word in the findings of fact and disregarding the context provided by the three sets of Planning Board meeting minutes, the application itself, and the related ZBA minutes from June 19, 2012 (new links added to the text above). All of the context demonstrates the developer’s intention that the 25 space expansion of the Sandy’s Way lot was meant to support the new and expanded uses in Union Hall, resulting in the 27-31 space requirement under the LUO. The ‘waiver’ really covers that shortfall from 27-31 down to 25 actually provided. That’s a reasonable ask by the developer, and a reasonable give by the 2012 Planning Board. The retroactive ‘give’ by the 2020 Planning Board is something all together different, and we like to believe simply a mistake. We provide all the reference material for everyone to draw their own conclusions, though. So, like us, you should not impose your conclusion as to “facts” on anyone.