Tag: Rockport Parking

Traffic Infrastructure Study Meeting

Learn about an important public meeting and plan to attend, if possible to be heard on this new initiative.

Monday evening the town office announced a Traffic Infrastructure Meeting to be held on Thursday, May 18 at 5:30PM in the library basement. This is your first and best opportunity to learn about and be heard on this critical next phase in the ‘development’ of Rockport Village. The text of the email announcement follows:

This email is to inform you of a public meeting regarding the Village Partnership Initiative Program that the Town has entered into with the Maine Department of Transportation. As a reminder, the Town was recently awarded this grant by the MDOT to explore creating a Business Enhancement and Traffic Plan which would improve our existing infrastructure in the Village and encourage multi- modal transportation approaches to achieve these improvements. One goal is to study how best to accommodate  pedestrian walkways, bicyclists and motorists throughout the entire village area, but especially giving consideration to the new bridge as it is designed. Others issues that will be considered include traffic calming techniques on roads leading into the village, parking, and a multimodal pathway from the Village to the schools.  This meeting will be the first public meeting to begin the engagement process with the community to capture as much information as possible. Through your participation, we are sure to encompass the entire picture for considerations of how the Town should handle this multi-modal approach.  

This meeting will take place at the Rockport Library, in the Lower level, starting at 5:30pm and will go until approximately 7:30pm. There will be a survey for this as well, which we will post on the Town Website.

If you have questions, feel free to reach out to the Planning and Development Office.

Orion Thomas, Planning & Development Director

Planning Board Tentatively Rules as Expected

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 PB submission
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.

Rockport Parking: An Independent Assessment

Independent Rockport parking study shows 182 space deficit without the hotel. That rises to 256 if the hotel is built.

Rockport parking remains at the heart of the hotel controversy. While there was much discussion of parking in the various venues leading up to the Planning Board approval of the hotel at 20 Central Street, there was never a full, open, and accurate review of the facts. One fact is that the Land Use Ordinance (LUO) requires developers to provide off-street parking. Another is that the developer is trying to claim that 21 parking spaces are available behind the Central Street buildings for the hotel. As we have already demonstrated, all the spaces, and more, have been previously allocated to the Shepherd Block and Union Hall.  Since neither the developer, nor the town, took any initiative to have an independent assessment of the parking situation, we did.

This Rockport parking study was conducted by SLR Consulting, a global engineering firm with over 1,600 employees. Their findings are what you likely expect. They found public parking within a reasonable walking distance of the hotel site to be 138 spaces. Their analysis, averaging the LUO requirements with Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking demand, shows a 256 space deficit in the hotel area. Even without the hotel, a 182 space deficit already existed. It is important to understand that this is the LUO and ITE standard for required parking. Further analysis by SLR indicates that peak demand average is 271 spaces, or a 133 space deficit.

The developer’s properties, from 18 Central (Shepherd Block) to 24 Central (Union Hall), including the new hotel demand, represent 59 of these deficit spaces. Those properties peak demand averages 108 spaces vs. a developer provided capacity of 49 spaces on Sandy’s Way. Keep in mind what the report notes: The Town of Rockport Land Use Ordinance Section 803 places the burden for providing off-street parking on developers. “The purpose of this Section is to provide for adequate off-street parking spaces to meet the needs of the use or structure.” Do you want to see the report? Send an email to info@friendsofrockport.org with the subject line Independent Parking Study.

You know from our prior post (Rockport Parking: A Brief History) that outlined how these properties owned by the hotel developer have gotten misaligned with the LUO. To recap, they changed the street level use of 22 Central Street in 2017. Failure by the town to perform a site plan review resulted in an understatement of 11 spaces. Then, during the hotel review, the Planning Board reallocated 21 spaces by misinterpreting the 2012 approval of Union Hall renovations. Finally, last fall the town failed to perform a site plan review for the expansion of the Shepherd Block restaurant space resulting in an understatement of at least 30 spaces. The LUO requires 62 spaces, and the town is not enforcing your ordinance. This is definitely reason for you to contact Orion Thomas, the new Town of Rockport planner. Tell him the town must rectify these errors which have been raised by the Friends of Rockport and individuals over the course of the past six months.

What do you think is the town’s reaction to the Rockport parking study? Mr. Thomas wrote of it “the Town cannot nor will use it because the Town did not seek it out. The appropriate channels were not utilized.” You may recall multiple citizens, on several occasions during Planning Board meetings addressing the hotel directly requesting a parking and traffic study be done prior any approval. It is unclear to us what “appropriate channels” may be beyond asking the Planning Board in the context of such a major change downtown. Keep in mind, the town planner sits in on these meetings (all of which occurred prior to Mr. Thomas taking the post).

Are you unhappy about the prospect of a worsening Rockport parking situation? About the town simply ignoring these errors? About the town transferring the burden to taxpayers rather than the developer who is causing the problem? Then this is the time for you to make your feelings known.

Rockport Parking: A Brief History

A series of miscues leaves Rockport parking a shambles…before adding the hotel. Will the town move to correct the record?

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.

Bait and Switch in Rockport

With their application for a building permit the developers of the proposed Rockport Harbor Hotel have again employed their standard bait and switch model. This time they have taken the approved 60 seat top floor lounge, added a retractable roof and shown an event configuration with 124 seats.

The developers of the proposed Rockport Harbor Hotel have filed their building permit application. It has some surprises you might not like, not surprisingly it is another bait and switch with parking. The Land Use Ordinance requires one off-street parking space for each 3 restaurant seats. Remember the ongoing saga of the ‘rooftop bar’ spoken of by the developer and their representatives during the approval process? Then their attorneys were quick to correct the appellants during the ZBA hearings. ‘There is no rooftop bar, there is a top floor lounge.’ This drawing submitted with the building permit application shows an entirely different thing. This is an event facility configured for 132 seated attendees with a retractable roof (no roof = rooftop). That is a rooftop event facility and often times lounge.

Bet you thought parking was an issue already. That concern goes up a couple of notches because they requested and received approval for “2 restaurants, total 84 seats.” They said: “The main function of the lower level restaurant (+/- 24 seats) will be breakfast for the guests. The top level restaurant (+/- 60 seats) will be busiest in the afternoon and evening with many of the customers being hotel guests.”

  • Bait and Switch in Rockport
    Bait and switch in Rockport as lobby breakfast restaurant grows by 10 seats, adds piano and bar.
  • Bait and Switch in Rockport
    Top floor lounge becomes conference facility with over twice the seating capacity reported.

The piano and bar in the breakfast restaurant might seem out of place, too. It shows 34 widely spaced seats (10 more than reported) without showing any bar seating. The rooftop event space shows 132 seats (62 more than reported), plus can easily accommodate 24 seats on the deck. Just imagine a weekend wedding event, with attendant off-site dinners, sightseeing excursions, bachelor(ette) parties, a whole weekend of mayhem on the harbor.

Just using their own numbers, 166 seats in the two venues and they admit to basically doubling what they requested and have approved … a little rational thought would add the 24 top level deck seats and let’s say six and six at the two bars … that’s 202 ‘restaurant’ seats vs. 84 approved! Using the LUO rules at the time of the Planning Board review (one space per three seats) that is 82 extra seats/3, meaning 28 unaccounted for spaces. Being realistic (without crowding seats in the lobby bar) it is 118 extra seats/3, 40 unreported spaces needed.

What can you do about this? Write to the town, Bill Najpauer, Planning Director; Scott Bickford, Code Enforcement Officer, and Bill Post, Town Manager. Tell them this building permit must be declined as it is not reflective of what the Planning Board approved.

Too Much of a Good Thing?

Concerns about traffic, safety, parking, noise, lights, and all the things glossed over during the Planning Board process for approval of the proposed “boutique hotel” in Rockport village are mirrored everywhere. You may see it in Camden, whenever you like. Is it too much of a good thing?

Our biggest problem with parking is that all the uses are concurrent: Nina June, 18 Central, Rockport Opera House, Bay Chamber Concerts, and a 26 room hotel with another restaurant and top floor lounge. This in the face of already universally agreed parking shortfalls, without the hotel, restaurant and lounge. The developer’s solution? Run a valet parking service to the old Hoboken Gardens, just like they have in Camden. Well, not really just like it because here the lot is more than twice as distant as in Camden, and the shuttles will be passing through the residential area on Pascal Avenue with small children living along the road.

Do you want this congestion? The shuttles and more cars competing for available on street parking?

This piece Tourists Can be Too Much of a Good Thing for This Maine Town from All Things Considered on National Public Radio shares perspectives from our neighbor Down East, Bar Harbor. Hopefully we can all internalize this message, especially hopeful developers in the audience.

Select Board’s New Parking Lot

Do you want the Select Board to use your money to fund a new parking lot, looming above Rockport harbor, just steps away from the proposed hotel?

You may not have noticed, but the Town and Select Board are now considering constructing a new parking lot adjacent to the sewer pump station along Main Street in Rockport village. Conveniently located for the new hotel, the proposed new parking lot will contain 17 or 28 spaces and loom over our scenic harbor with new retaining walls akin to those behind the opera house. The preliminary design was created by the town retained Gartley & Dorsey Engineering & Surveying (that’s right, the hotel developer’s engineering firm).

You should exercise your right to comment on this new initiative now. The Select Board is discussing the proposed designs on Monday, September 28, at 5:30PM. You can participate via the livestream here http://livestream.com/Rockportmaine and comment during the discussion of the proposed parking. We encourage all to share your thoughts in advance of the meeting, too. Address your comments for the meeting to the Rockport Select Board and email to town manager Bill Post before 3PM on Monday, September 28.

Do you think it is incumbent upon the taxpayers to deliver parking for the new hotel? Do you think a new retaining wall and parking lot hanging above the Goose River will enhance the beauty of Rockport’s harbor? If not, log on to the meeting and share your thoughts.

Learn more in the PenBay Pilot article and send your comments now.