Know before you vote, don’t be fooled into reneging on your own decisions from 2020 and don’t give a blank check before you know where the proposed sewer plant will be built.
Know before you vote, it seems like a given, but so many of us are busy and simply don’t have the time or patience to read a whole lot of materials. Why not just follow the Select Board lead on local initiatives? The Select Board has proven themselves to be biased on any number of occasions and this year’s ballot is no exception. Let’s look at a few, specific ballot articles in this cycle for your consideration.
Know before you vote, Article 3 is the perfect example. Even if you just read the ballot the language which they ask us to strike may seem familiar. Indeed, Article 3 on the 2020 ballot is when you voted to insert this language to protect the town from ill conceived, not fact-based decisions by the Planning Board and CEO (Code Enforcement Officer). Now, they come back at you asking you to strike the very language you just inserted into the Land Use Ordinance … with good reason. Not surprisingly the Select Board votes 5-0 for you to overturn yourself and the Planning Board votes 7-0 … who needs facts? Vote No.
Know before you vote, Article 4 is a mirror image of Article 4 in 2020. Again, the town has recycled the article number exactly to ask you to reverse yourself on the reasonable language you voted to insert which limits a single hotel property to twenty rooms in the downtown district (District 913, by the harbor). Yes, that was in response to the 36-room hotel being proposed at the time – who builds a four-room hotel to take up the balance? Now, with a 20-room hotel nearing completion what’s the point of asking you to change it back? Again, the Select Board votes 5-0 in support of you reneging on your vote and the Planning Board 7-0. Remember, they thought thirty-six rooms sounded great. Vote No.
Know before you vote, Article 7 asks you to authorize an extension of the Tax Increment Financing Development Program for the Downtown District. The logic here is that the town has been fighting with Camden over the combined sewer treatment facility located in Camden. If you go to the town website and look at the documents for this extension you will find that it is for “…broadband expansion and a significant environmental improvement project/infrastructure project that relates to business activity.” You may recall that the developer of the hotel stated that the current sewer facilities were capable of handling the new strain associated with the then 36 room hotel. That should mean that the current 20-room hotel plus even another 20-room hotel authorized by the current Land Use Ordinance would be fine with the current infrastructure … unless…. Plus, there is no mention of where the new, $16 million sewage plant will go in Rockport, but town officials have said that Cramer Park is the ‘only place it could work.’ Not surprisingly the Select Board votes 5-0 to recommend a yes vote. Vote No.
The Citizen Petitions you voted to adopt are under fire again by the Rockport Select Board in their October 11 meeting. After spending your tax dollars to fight applicability of the revised Land Use Ordinance the Select Board has chosen to simply remove the language you approved.
The Citizen Petitions you voted to include in the Land Use Ordinance are in the cross hairs of the Select Board again. Today’s PenBay Pilot reports that tonight’s Select Board meeting at 6PM in the Geoffrey C. Parker Meeting Room (basement of Opera House) will begin the process to remove the language you approved during the height of Covid-19. We encourage you to participate online through the town’s video feed or in person at the Opera House.
They give no reason for the proposal to eliminate a parking, traffic and safety study for proposed off-site or shared parking or waiver of parking requirements by the Planning Board or Planning Department. Remember, the Superior Court upheld these Citizen Petitions. Nor is any reason given for striking the language limiting the size of hotels in the harbor area. One might think that the Rockport Harbor Hotel has plans to regain their monopoly lost through the successful citizen petitions process. Whether that means reverting to their original plan at 20 Central Street, using the copious vacant space in the Shepherd Block or more construction at 14 and 16 Central Street remains to be seen.
It is absolutely worth the time to ask the Select Board why they are continuing to fight the will of the voters. After spending your tax dollars to fight against the Citizen Petitions in court, they now want you to again eliminate third party oversight of the planning process by eliminating the reasonable traffic, parking and safety study requirement. Speak up tonight.
Planning Board moves swiftly to confirm all their original errors in the face of clear guidance from Superior Court.
The Court’s rulings were clear. With respect to parking, “in this court’s view, for the Planning Board to make a factual decision on 20 Central’s application, it had to consider all the overlapping burdens on the limited parking downtown. It could not simply and out of context attribute a minimum number of spaces to the project.” Further stating “specifically, with respect to off-site parking, remand is necessary for the Board to consider and enter findings of fact regarding the parking requirements that were actually waived for Union Hall and the extent to which the Sandy’s Way lot is shared with other establishments and with the general public.” As for architectural harmony the Court erroneously concluded, “Plaintiffs now confine their challenge to the balconies that extend from every guest room on the front facade of the hotel.” Yes, the balconies are among the most obvious variations from the neighboring historic properties, but the sea of glass on the rear façade is equally glaring and many other aspects of the design, including the elimination of the scenic view (not only on the 20 Central lot, but also a portion of the 18 Central lot), diverge from section 1003. We have not ever limited the scope of our complaint. The Court further ruled on January 2, 2022, “The court declares as a matter of law that amendments to the Town Charter designated as Petition A and Petition B apply to 20 Central’s hotel project.” This means that the hotel may have no more than 20 rooms and a parking study paid by the applicant must be reviewed prior to approval of any off-site parking. As a result, the Court reversed approval of the building permit and remanded the project to the Code Enforcement Office after further review by the Planning Board. Finally, the Court has scheduled post-judgment motions with submissions running through February 7, 2022.
With that backdrop, the Rockport Planning Board met on January 27, 2022, to take up the remand ordered by Honorable Bruce C. Mallonee on December 1, 2021, with further refinement on January 2, 2022. “The matter shall be remanded to the Planning Board for reconsideration of 20 Central’s site plan application with respect to adequacy of parking and compliance with standards for architectural harmony.” Of course, the Planning Board upheld all their prior rulings during the meeting, without having received the required parking study or even referencing the independent parking study provided by Friends of Rockport. For instance, the Planning Board ruled that the parking behind the Central Street buildings known as Sandy’s Way is not “shared parking.” In so doing, they ignored all prior Planning Board allocations of parking in the lot, including parking for 18 Central Street (Shepherd Block) and 22 Central Street (Martin Block). Mind you, Will Gartley (spokesman for the developer) said in the December 19, 2019, Planning Board meeting “They (the developers) plan to manage the parking in Rockport in a similar manner which includes the following: by continuing to employ the shared use of 49 existing parking spaces.” He later added “clearly there’s a lot of different uses going on, a lot of different timings, a lot of overlaps, and so that’s the way they plan to continue having that happen….” Yes, they ignored that, testimony on behalf of the developers, too.
The Planning Board also concluded that parking requirements were totally waived for 24 Central Street (Union Hall). This disregards the developer’s intentions with respect to the available off-street parking (what is now Sandy’s Way). The developer’s submission speaks to the parking requirements in these words “additional parking for Union Hall and the applicant’s other properties along Central Street has been provided in a previously approved Site Plan Amendment for the Shepherd Block.” They outline the requirements of 27-31 spaces and go on to say, “These parking needs will almost entirely be satisfied within the parking lot expansion mentioned above, which will provide an additional 25 spaces.” Their application goes on to say, “The second-floor space, “Union Hall” is a grandfathered use and parking will be taken care of on a “per event” basis, similar to the Opera House. Based on above and especially due to the creation of badly needed pedestrian-friendly access to the building, we believe this standard is easily met or exceeded by the plan.” Not surprisingly, representatives for Leucadia when proposing the 2012 renovations to Union Hall also stated, “This restaurant (now Nina June) will have shared access to the rear parking lot which is planned for expansion.” In that August 8, 2012 meeting, Planning Board chair Kerry Leichtman wrapped up the parking discussion saying, “He did not feel grand-fathering would be applicable, due to the change of use, and suggested that waiving the parking regulations would be the smartest thing to do. He said the developers would have to work on the fact that there was parking, but not parking awareness.” The board then voted “to waive the parking space regulations for this project.” That sentence and none of the context is what the current Planning Board chose to read and adopt as the agreement from 2012.
2012 Union Hall Planning Board submission clearly shows intent to use expansion to support Union Hall
We are left to determine how the town intends to handle the application of the two ordinance revisions now applicable to the project. Nor do we know yet the outcome of the post-judgment motions to be heard sometime after February 7, 2022.
The Town of Rockport has chosen to use your tax dollars to fight implementation of Article 3 and Article 4 from the 2020 Town Meeting. This overrules your votes to limit hotels to 20 rooms in the village and require the developer to provide a traffic, safety and parking study before approval.
The Town of Rockport overrules voters and their successful citizen initiatives by strictly applying the Maine statute limiting applicability of ordinance changes to 45 days. Despite voter intentions and a growing national wave of court rulings supporting voter rights in the unusual pandemic year, the Town decides to issue building permit to 20 Central Street LLC. You recall Article 3 (requiring developers to provide a parking/traffic/safety study before any new development). Article 4 limits each hotel property to 20 rooms to ensure the opportunity for competition and keep development appropriately scaled for the village.
What, you may ask, is at issue here and what overrules voters? The two voter initiatives apply retroactively under Maine 30-A M.R.S. §3007(6) allowing such provisions to look back 45 days. The Select Board chose to move the Town Meeting from June 9 to August 18. Thus allowing time to hold the vote safely in light of a global pandemic. The application before the planning board for 20 Central Street LLC was approved on May 21, 2020. This just days before the planned Town Meeting on June 9, 2020. The Town’s position is that pandemic, or not, they are applying the 45 day rule from August 18.
That decision overrules voters on these citizen initiatives and sets a dangerous precedent. Both the Maine Constitution and US Constitution guarantee voter’s rights to petition the government. A multitude of cases across the country have ruled that pandemic driven changes in dates cannot adversely impact voter rights. Yet, the Town of Rockport persists in their mission to move forward. Hypothetically, anytime the Select Board does not like your citizens’ initiative they can push the Town Meeting to avoid it.
The worst part is they are spending your tax dollars to fight this in court! So, you voted to implement changes in the Land Use Ordinance, and the town is spending your money to ensure they do not get applied as you intended. Does this bother you? Share your thoughts with Bill Post, Town Manager. He can push the Select Board to stop spending your money on this.
The citizens’ initiatives were passed in the 2020 town meeting, but the town will not comment on applying them to the hotel. Learn more here.
It appears that the Zoning Board of Appeals is now set to reject in all respects the appeal, sponsored by Friends of Rockport and some of our members, of the Planning Board approval for the 20 Central Street Hotel project. We are deeply disappointed by the ZBA’s decision and believe that the ZBA erred in some of the same ways that the Planning Board did in its initial review. We should say that we all very much appreciate the contributions of time and effort on the part of the ZBA members, who are lay members of the community and not real estate professionals. We also understand that some members of the ZBA may have been reluctant to publicly state their disagreements with the findings of the Planning Board, irrespective of their private views on the merits of the Friends of Rockport’s appeal.
We have now turned our attention to the citizens’ initiatives which were certified by the Town Clerk and placed on the 2020 town meeting ballot as Article 3 and Article 4. As a reminder, these Articles limited any hotel in downtown Rockport to 20 rooms and required a traffic study before any approval could be given. While you, the voters, voted to enact both of these Articles, the town has steadfastly refused to give any indication about whether it intends to enforce these ordinance changes in the case of the hotel project. The town is not even willing to participate in a court action seeking clarification on whether these ordinances apply. We can only speculate on why the town does not appear to want to have the applicability of these ordinances definitively determined by the court.
In order to provide more clarity on this matter, which we believe would benefit everyone involved in this project, the Friends of Rockport has filed an action in Superior Court asking for adjudication of the matter as well as an injunction to block issuance of the building permit until the developer has complied with the petitioned amendments. At issue is the fact that despite everyone’s best efforts Covid-19 caused a delay in the town meeting from the scheduled June 9 date to August 18. The developer is arguing that since August 18 is more than 45 days from the Planning Board approval on June 16, state law precludes enforcement of the ordinance changes in their case. The Friends of Rockport contend that had the Town Meeting not been postponed due to Covid, the Articles would have been in force even before the Planning Board’s Notice of Decision, and that the Covid related delay should not enable the developer to avoid the will of the people.
As of this afternoon, the Knox County Superior Court has granted the temporary restraining order and directed the town not to issue a building permit and the developer to cease any activity at the site until a hearing can be held. In the order, the Court noted that “the Plaintiffs [Friends of Rockport] have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the case”. To be clear, the Friends are not seeking to derail the hotel project. Most of us would welcome an attractive, appropriately sized hotel in our downtown. We just want it to conform to the restrictions that were approved last year by a substantial majority of the voting residents of Rockport – which it currently does not. It appears that the Court is likely to agree with this view.
A review of two postcards received by Rockport residents regarding the Citizen’s Initiatives, one from the Friends of Rockport and the other anonymously.
You likely received two postcards recently about the upcoming Rockport Town Meeting and the Citizen’s Initiatives. The first mailing focused entirely on the Citizen’s Initiatives, Article 3 and Article 4 (Learn more here: Article 3 and Article 4). You may have noticed that it was not claimed by any organization or person, it was anonymous. Then you received one from the Friends of Rockport, your local, citizen based, non-profit seeking to preserve our community. Let’s consider them separately:
The Friends of Rockport postcard:
The postcard (and the links above) helps you better understand the issues and implications of the Citizen’s Initiatives. They share with you drawings of the proposed hotel and a 20-room alternative which preserves the view, still adds to the tax base, and continues revitalization of the harbor area.
The Citizen’s Initiatives have over 300 certified Rockport resident signatures.
The remaining Articles are put forth by the five member Select Board, and not seen or reviewed by citizens beyond a Select Board meeting discussion. We particularly suggest you consider this Article 6 and Article 9.
The anonymous postcard:
Suggests that the Citizen’s Initiatives are an attempt “to stop a downtown Rockport boutique hotel.” They are not, they are meant to help the town stay true to its character, including the developer living up to their word on a 20-22 room hotel and following the Land Use Ordinance, Architectural Review Standards. Those standards state “…Structures shall impede as little as reasonably practical, scenic views from the main road or from existing structures or nearby undeveloped areas.” and “The architectural design of structures and their materials and colors shall be visually harmonious with the overall appearance of neighboring structures.”
Suggests “out of state VRBO owners” are behind the Citizen’s Initiatives. You now know that to be untrue, over 300 residents signed those petitions.
States that the five person Select Board opinions and recommendations are somehow better for the town than the 300 plus residents and your opinion.
Debra Hall at 7:07 in the meeting states “… The idea … that an ordinance can be passed allowing for a hotel, that someone can purchase property with those ordinances in mind, … and then to have another bite at the apple, …. That is offensive to me, it continues to be offensive to me, it will always be offensive to me.” Of course we know from the timeline that the land was purchased when hotels were not allowed in the downtown district, and the developer pushed for the ordinance change by proposing a 20-22 room hotel.
Denise Munger at 8:26 in the meeting states “... This petition adjusts the number of hotel rooms, it does not reduce the size of the hotel. The Hotel will still be allowed, even if Article 4 were passed, to stay end-t0-end between the two buildings. It would just result in larger hotel rooms, um. So, I think it’s important for people to understand. ….” Of course we know from the Land Use Ordinance section 1003.Architectural Review Standards that a hotel compliant with the ordinance would “…impede as little as reasonably practical, scenic views from the main road or from existing structures and nearby undeveloped areas.” The current proposal does none of these, eliminating the windows on the Shepherd Block Westerly wall and entirely blocking the view from the main street and Goodridge Park.
Article 4 provides a means to responsibly limit downtown hotel construction, enabling more than one developer to benefit from Rockport’s historic harbor.
Article 4 to Limit Downtown Hotels to 20 Rooms
Citizen’s Petition, Article 4 – signed by 300 Rockport Residents; and 200 more on Change.org
Yes on Article 4 would reduce residents tax burden without necessitating an oversized, non-compliant (you decide here) building that overwhelms our historic downtown.
Article 4 would not require blocking the century old scenic harbor view or defacing the western wall of historic Shepherd Block.
Article 4 will preserve public parking for residents and other visitors to existing restaurants, galleries, concert series and the library.
Article 4 will allow for more than one true boutique hotel to prosper in our historic harbor.
Alternative future views from Central Street and Goodridge Park.
Proposed 26 two-room suite hotel … vote NO, definitely get this.
The Ordinance Review Committee, one member is the engineer for the developer, approved it’s 2017 work plan on October 11, 2016 including the number one priority, hotel use in the downtown district. The Planner’s Notes indicate “This maximum number of rooms recommended by the ORC to be allowed in the 913*zoning district is 40 (forty), to be permitted on a first-come, first-served basis.”
The PenBay Pilot noted in their January 2, 2017 article about proposed changes to the ordinance “The proposal to amend the town’s ordinance followed a request by Stuart and Marianne Smith, who purchased several Village lots and a building on Central Street in July 2016, to find a way that would allow them to construct a new hotel there.”
The ordinance was changed to allow up to 4o hotel rooms in the district on June 13, 2017. Developer then submitted a plan up from “twenty rooms, twenty-two rooms” to 36 two-room suites and a ‘rooftop bar,’ eliminating potential for competitive hotels within the 40 room maximum.
At the June 11, 2020 Planning Board meeting Stuart Smith denies his comments from April 18, 2017 (above) “…We never talked about building a 20 room hotel. Our very first plan had 36 rooms….” You can watch and listen here at 1:58:10 in the recording: https://livestream.com/rockportmaine/events/9158089/videos/207330803
