Tag: Building Permit Appeal

Court Ruling on Procedural Issues, Issues Stern Warning to Developer

The stage is set for a fall ruling on multiple aspects of the 20 Central St. hotel development. Developer rolls the dice with construction.

A court ruling on procedural issues and scheduling was released on Wednesday, July 14. Justice Mallonee enumerated the following points in the court ruling:

  • Granted the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, including appeal of the recent Zoning Board of Appeals decision on the building permit issuance.
  • Denied the Town of Rockport’s motion to dismiss the case(s)
  • Outlined a schedule of briefings leading up to final submissions on September 7. Oral arguments are to be scheduled “as soon as possible after completion of briefing.”
  • Declined to issue either a preliminary injunction or stay.

The Court went on to say “Although the court has declined to enter either a preliminary injunction or stay, and declines to do so today, it has signaled to 20 Central with what it hopes is unmistakable clarity that in the event either set of plaintiffs prevails, and the court is required to assess remedies, it will not be constrained by the risk 20 Central assumed by continuing construction as these cases were pending.”

Penobscot Bay Pilot addressed the Court’s order on Friday, though misinterpreting the decision on inclusion of appeal to the Court of the most recent ZBA action on the building permit.

Zoning Board of Appeals review of building permit

The Zoning Board of Appeals must answer a simple question: Is the building under construction the same as what the Planning Board approved?

The Zoning Board of Appeals review of the building permit appeal is June 30 at 5:30PM in the Rockport Opera House and via livestream. This review is all about the difference between what the Planning Board approved and what the town Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) approved by issuing a building permit. You have seen many of the elements in the appeal relating to changes in use and changes in design. It is important to recap the biggest ones ahead of the hearing to seek your involvement in the process.

Changes in Use – The most troublesome change from the planning board’s site plan approval to the CEO’s approved building permit relates to the use changes in the public spaces. During the Planning Board hearings, the top floor public space was characterized as a “top level restaurant (+/- 60 seats) [which] will be busiest in the afternoon and evening.” Yet, the plan submitted to the CEO is a 132-seat event space. Similarly, during the hearings the developer said of the street level space “the main function of the lower level restaurant (+/- 24 seats) will be breakfast for the guests.” This space was submitted as 34 seats with a bar (no seating shown there) and piano. Taken together, this is a 98% increase in seating – 84 to 166. Most telling is what the developer said to The Camden Herald on November 13, 2020. The article said “In the summer of 2022 or 2023, a wedding reception may be held on the top floor of a new hotel in downtown Rockport, giving the revelers an unparalleled view of the scenic harbor. Downstairs in the bar and lounge area, a visiting musician may take a turn at the baby grand piano, entertaining other guests.” How does the town CEO unilaterally allow for such a significant change in use from the Planning Board approved site plan? What is the point of the site plan review process if agreed upon parameters are not honored by the town?

Changes in Design – Aside from the uses and related parking requirements, the site plan review looks primarily at the exterior of the proposed building. As you can see here, there were myriad design changes from the planning board approval. The developer will likely argue these are immaterial. The sheer number of changes, though, runs roughshod over already debatable Land Use Ordinance (LUO) compliance. Recall that section 1003.2 of the LUO requires “The architectural design of structures and their materials and colors shall be visually harmonious with the overall appearance of neighboring structures.” The most egregious change is the appearance of a retractable roof over the top floor public space. Despite all the talk about light and noise concerns from the property, the developer decided to dramatically worsen both … so far getting away with it. Here, again, the CEO has unilaterally approved something wildly different from the Planning Board approved site plan. How is that possible? Particularly galling is the fact that unlike the site plan approval process, the building permit review is done without public oversight. All we can do is appeal to our fellow citizens on the ZBA to rein in the CEO.

These big issues demand the ZBA invalidate the building permit and remand the new design to the Planning Board for review. With the hearing coming on June 30, now is your time to be heard on this matter. Please send your thoughts by email to Town Planner Orion Thomas, and request that he pass along to the ZBA for consideration.

Where Things Stand

It seems like a good time to share where things stand. Still plenty of balls in the air, and hopeful the court will issue an injunction. Learn more here:

You may be wondering where things stand. Particularly since this week, Tyler Smith’s “erector set” is going up in town. The appeals are slowly working through the courts. Plus we still await town action on several shortcomings members have identified for them.

Our focus remains on ensuring a compliant building. Thankfully, the courts, like the state, will look objectively at facts, which should work in our favor. Let’s recap what is still in play.

Superior Court Activity

Where things stand at the Superior Court. The Superior Court is currently reviewing two cases and two related requests for temporary injunctions. Our legal team submitted a brief on Tuesday summarizing another good reason why we are likely to prevail. This may be enough to secure a temporary injunction barring further work pending resolution of the underlying cases. One case is the appeal of the Planning Board site plan approval. At issue here are myriad misses in application of the Land Use Ordinance. The most notable miss is failure to consider alternative designs to comply with scenic view provisions. You can learn more here. The second case is seeking application of the 2020 citizens’ initiatives. The argument here is whether a state statute limiting retroactivity to 45 days should apply during a pandemic. The fact is the building permit was issued on March 10, 2021, long after your vote approving the ordinance changes. Since the building permit is the final approval, the 45 day limit is moot. You can learn more here.

Activity with Town of Rockport

Where things stand with the Town of Rockport. The Friends also have ongoing efforts at the town office around: the building permit issuance, parking implications of two missing site plan reviews, and the Planning Board’s misreading of the 2012 parking allocation for Union Hall. You can learn more about the permit appeal here and the unaddressed parking issues here. Regrettably, with respect to the parking issues, the town has been singularly non-responsive. In the absence of a town manager, for the moment, we suggest you send your thoughts on these matters directly to Debra Hall, Select Board Chair. It is unconscionable that the town, when presented evidence of process failures, should do nothing.

Radio Silence…Not Really

As the Superior Court considers a temporary injunction to stop construction, developer races to eliminate scenic views and fill the space to intimidate any future town review of the project.

Radio silence, no doubt it feels that way as you watch frantic construction on the disputed hotel site. The truth is entirely different. As you know the Friends of Rockport and its members have a number of initiatives relating to the hotel. You know our effort to have the town enforce the Land Use Ordinance changes approved in the last town meeting. Plus, the appeal of the planning board approval in Knox County Superior Court. We are only there because the zoning board of appeals ruled against us. These two initiatives include a request for a temporary injunction to halt construction pending a ruling on the each case. The radio silence stems from waiting on that temporary injunction. That is why the frantic construction work because they want to be ‘too far along’ to apply the LUO now.

The latest, effort to rein in the misapplication of the Land Use Ordinance is an appeal of the building permit. This appeal is predicated on the myriad changes from the approved site plan to the building permit application. This, too, will go first to the zoning board of appeals. This time, though, the rules are somewhat different, and they are not bound by the planning board record.

We will continue to keep you apprised of all these efforts, and thank you for your continued support of FOR. We expect a lot more action now, and promise no more radio silence!