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.
Dig into the facts behind the Article 7 initiative to build a Rockport Sewer Plant in Cramer Park, dumping into the Goose River and Rockport Harbor.
Although the language of Article 7 below sounds deceptively positive, 99.8% of the funds the Town is seeking to raise with it are for a “Water Resource Recovery Facility.” This is the new name for wastewater treatment plants (sewer plants) because the public’s association with them is so negative that the wastewater industry rebranded them. Talk about greenwashing! Do we really need a Rockport Wastewater Treatment plant that releases into Rockport Harbor? That’s what Article 7 would have you believe. Do we even need or want this $16 million dollar wastewater treatment plant? It will cost millions of taxpayer dollars to build and many more to maintain and upgrade long term. The Town also does not disclose in Article 7 or 8 (the new Route 90 TIF) that the planned building site for the plant is Cramer Park. This would be a terrible location for such an industrial use, in the midst of a recreational park on a historic section of Goose River and a stone’s throw from our historic Harbor. Our harbor is beloved not only by residents from all five Rockport neighborhoods but is an important tourism destination for our visitors. In addition to the noxious odors that such plants emit, the deliveries and servicing of the plant would also result in even more commercial trucks going across Goose River bridge and onto Pascal, High and other adjacent residential streets. The ballot question itself states:
WHEREAS, the second amendment (the “Second Amendment’) to the Rockport Downtown Municipal Development Tax Increment Financing District (the “District’) and its development program (the “Development Program”) by extending the term to thirty (30) years as well as adding broadband infrastructure and environmental improvement projects to the project costs that will help provide new employment opportunities within the Town, provide opportunities for economic development in the Town and surrounding region, improve and broaden the tax base in the Town and improve the economy of the Town and the State of Maine;
The language below only addresses the activities which will be associated with building the plant, and while the $16 million dollar cost is substantial, it pales compared to the cost of maintaining it and upgrading it for decades. This plant, if approved, will almost certainly entail a bond to be paid for by all Rockport taxpayers whether their homes are currently on sewer or septic. The supporting documents speak to the plant:
Water Resource Recovery Facility: All costs associated with environmental improvement projects related to commercial activity within the Downtown District/ Town. This includes but is not limited to the construction, engineering, site work, and planning for stormwater and wastewater improvements which are made necessary by violations of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) regulations by the Town of Camden, where Rockport’s water resource recovery process is currently undertaken. The current system cannot handle the volume of flows that are generated by both Rockport and Camden. A large portion of the additional need for treatment results from activity in the Downtown District.
Is a Rockport Wastewater Treatment plant necessary because of violations by the Town of Camden facility? A quick search for municipal wastewater treatment violations will show you many examples across the country. What makes Rockport think it won’t have violations? Do you want that in Rockport Harbor? Is it necessary because the volume of flows exceed capacity? That is hard to say, clearly a couple of the cited violations had to do with stormwater overflow which also seems common from other citations across the country. However, if you believe a response from the Rockport Select Board to the Town of Camden we are simply a drop in the bucket.
…a town that sends an average of 70,000 gallons of waste to Camden’s wastewater plant, which is permitted to process 1,000,000 gallons…..
March 23, 2022, response from Rockport Select Board
That March 23, 2022, response goes on to speak of “the 12.7% of capacity Rockport is allocated in their system.” This means we can almost double our current average daily flows before reaching our allocation. So, even if “A large portion of the additional need for treatment results from activity in the Downtown District” it should not come near to the allocated capacity.
The supporting documents on the town website state “The Town is proposing to construct a Water Resource Recovery Facility…”, meaning a sewer plant. The stated budget for this is $16,014,000 (see page 5). The entire projected funds coming from the yes vote on article 7, however, are just $4,493,446 (see page 96). So, they say on page 3, section II.A “The Town is applying to a variety of sources for funding of this project, including financing through the Maine Municipal Bond Bank’s revolving loan fund and a Congressional earmark application.” That means you, the taxpayer, will pay the lionshare of the $16 million cost plus interest. The Select Board will take your yes vote on Article 7 to mean approval to go finance and fund construction for a sewer plant adjacent to and dumping into Rockport Harbor.
With all this doubt in the initiative, do you really want to authorize the construction of a Rockport Wastewater Treatment plant? Would you if you knew it was going to displace Cramer Park? Discharge directly into Rockport Harbor? Are there too many open questions to deserve your vote? Vote No on Article 7, let’s learn more before we go down this road.
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.
When the Superior Court agreed with concerns about the town processes, the developer made it personal. We will stick to the facts.
The developers and the developers’ surrogates went on a public relations campaign in advance of the Planning Board hearing on January 27, 2022, and much of it smeared Friends of Rockport and individual plaintiffs. This Planning Board hearing was necessitated by the fact that we prevailed in most of our concerns over the approval process for the proposed hotel – no malice toward the Smiths, the Town, nor any town volunteers, simply concern for upholding our ordinances and the integrity of the town processes. Indeed, Justice Mallonee ruled in our favor on almost every claim: parking shortfalls, architectural harmony, and application of the two ordinance changes residents approved requiring a parking study for off-site parking and no more than 20 rooms per downtown hotel. In response to Justice Mallonee’s well considered and objective rulings, “Stu/Marianne/Tyler&Kristen” chose to attack us in writing on January 18, 2022 “…all this legal action against the town has been very expensive for the town taxpayers and is the direct result of negative and misleading efforts….”
The developers’ surrogates thought it prudent to suggest that we created the ‘much-vilified Smith family,’ when we focus our communications on the process, not people, and don’t name names aside from direct quotations. Of course, it is nothing new for the developer and their surrogates to impugn the integrity of the Friends and residents. Back in September 2021 in court filings they asserted “this statement is blatantly false” regarding exterior lighting claims which remain demonstrably true. The surrogates in a January 18 letter published as an advertisement in the local paper say that we “…formed with the avowed sole cause of fighting the hotel.” Sorry, in fact we’re not even fighting the hotel, rather, our clear and stated mission is “promoting smart growth of Rockport while preserving its iconic historical architecture, beautiful quiet Harbor and Scenic Views.” It just happens the process broke down in the case of the hotel, but it need not have. The surrogates end with an assertion that we “…will never countenance this hotel…” Not only has that never been said, or thought, we have indicated a desire to settle this matter directly with the developers throughout, including overtures in advance of the latest Planning Board meeting – to save the town money. As far back as April 25, 2021, in our post we said, “We have repeatedly sought and remain open to a reasonable compromise with the Town and the developer.” So, don’t believe the developers and their surrogates when they say we have “obsession with blocking this new business.” It is simply not true.
All this before the Justice hears post-judgment motions, one of which was by the Plaintiffs, including Friends, seeking reconsideration of the application of the Land Use Ordinance scenic view provisions. We continue to feel strongly about this matter, indeed, with the historical precedent jumping off the page in the configuration of the 18 Central lot. You will recall that the Planning Board allowed for annexation of some land from 18 Central to 20 Central as part of their site plan approval. That piece of vacant land had been vacant since at least 1875, prior to the construction of the Shepherd Block in 1892. Yet somehow, without saying so or reviewing any evidence, the Planning Board concluded that it was impossible to build a hotel on the 20 Central lot and preserve the view.
Still, the town went ahead with a Planning Board meeting to address the remanded matters on January 27, 2022, before the Justice could hear the pleadings on post-judgment motions from all parties which may influence the topics before the Planning Board and/or the Code Enforcement Office. Not only that, but the Planning Board reviewed parking without the benefit of the independent parking study now required by town ordinance. Keep in mind the Justice’s language in his ruling: the Planning Board has “…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.”
With so many open items remaining, including adequacy of parking, preservation of scenic views, architectural harmony, the parking study, and reduction of rooms, the Friends remain open to resolution, but without the other parties, this could continue for some time. We just hope the town has sense enough to stop spending our taxpayer dollars and let the developers make their own case.
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.
Maine Superior Court applies citizen initiatives to hotel, remands on parking and architectural harmony shortfalls.
Maine Superior Court ruling in favor of Friends of Rockport on most substantive issues. The Honorable Bruce C. Mallonee on December 2, 2021, issued his ruling in the two concurrent cases relating to the construction at 20 Central Street in Rockport. The Justice remanded the site plan back to the Planning Board for more thoughtful consideration of the adequacy of parking in downtown Rockport as well as for compliance with standards for architectural harmony with neighboring properties. The Maine Superior Court further ruled on January 3, 2022, that the citizens’ petitions requiring no more than 20 rooms per hotel downtown and a parking study paid by the applicant prior to allowing any off-site parking apply to the project. As a result, Maine Superior 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.
One of those post-judgment motions was by the Plaintiffs, including the Friends, seeking reconsideration of the application of the Land Use Ordinance scenic view provisions. We continue to feel strongly about this matter, indeed, with the historical precedent jumping off the page in the configuration of the 18 Central lot. You will recall that the Planning Board allowed for annexation of some land from 18 Central to 20 Central as part of their site plan approval. That piece of vacant land had been vacant since at least 1875, prior to the construction of the Shepherd Block in 1892. Yet somehow, without saying so or reviewing any evidence, the Planning Board concluded that it was impossible to build a hotel on the 20 Central lot and preserve the view.
Now, the town has scheduled a Planning Board meeting to address the remanded matters on January 27, 2022, before the Justice can hear the pleadings on post-judgment motions from both parties which may influence the topics before the Planning Board and/or the Code Enforcement Office. While it may make no sense, we and you are mobilizing to put our best foot forward in this hearing. What can you do? Attend the meeting and speak your mind about the parking situation downtown (even without the hotel) and the architectural harmony of the hotel. The Justice, for instance, questioned whether the balconies on Central Street “relate harmoniously to the terrain and surrounding environment, including existing buildings in the vicinity that have a visual relationship with the proposal being entered.” So, you may consider whether 18 Central, 22 Central, or 24 Central have balconies on Central Street. For that matter, whether any commercial building on Central Street has a balcony facing the street – they don’t. Collect your thoughts on these important matters – parking impact and architectural harmony – and share them during the meeting through Livestream at 5:30PM on January 27, 2022.
The Comprehensive Plan is the foundation of Rockport town policy and ordinances. Now is your chance to participate in building that foundation. Seize the moment when the hotel mess is squarely upon us.
Now is your opportunity to influence the new Rockport Comprehensive Plan. It has been 17 years since the document was last refreshed, and the Comprehensive Plan Committee is seeking input from residents and property owners. This is the perfect opportunity to be heard, and we encourage you to engage in whatever way you feel most comfortable.
There is a public hearing on November 9 at 5:30PM in the Rockport Opera House. You can voice your opinion publicly. You can also participate in the online survey and “idea wall” at your convenience.
The Comprehensive Plan is how the Town of Rockport sets long term goals and the document is meant to influence both policy and ordinances. As we know well from the Rockport Harbor Hotel debacle, the best intentions are not always met. Despite architectural standards and scenic view provisions, for instance, the hotel still met with approval from the Planning Board and Code Enforcement Officer. Ideally, the ordinances will become more definitive and our enforcement processes tighter. Given the misses in this case, it seems likely that qualifications will become a key factor in filling these vital roles going forward.
Update on Appeal Status: We all drive by the ever larger 20 Central Street project often and wonder ‘what ever happened to the appeal?’ Since our last update Justice Mallonee has been hard at work reviewing the briefs from counsel and doing his own research on applicable law and precedent. In other words, we are still awaiting a ruling. We remain hopeful that the Justice will stand up for the Land Use Ordinance and the citizens’ petitions, and we will let you know as soon as we receive that ruling.
Desperate times as developers rush construction and contradict themselves in Court papers to ensure they can capitalize on the legally protected scenic views of Rockport Harbor.
Desperate times call for desperate measures and 20 Central Street LLC has resorted to fantastical claims in their final filing to the Superior Court. It is easiest to simply list for you some of the whoppers embedded in their most recent filing.
They start by trying to impugn the character of the Plaintiffs, as well as lying about what they themselves said on the record. They have literally said “this statement is blatantly false” regarding the exterior lighting on the building being on at any time. Yet in the November 21, 2019 Planning Board meeting, Tyler Smith said “they would generally come on at dusk and go off at 11 O’clock. And that’s, we give the ability for customers to override that as well.” In other words, the lights can be on whenever a guest wants them to be on. Mr. Smith, how is that statement “blatantly false”? The only thing blatantly false is your attorney’s filing before the court.
Ironically, their filing also states “the accent lights are low wattage and primarily for accents.” Yet during the November 21, 2019 Planning Board meeting Tyler Smith also said “The intent of most of the lighting is for navigation purposes…. The goal for the decks is really to allow for someone to go out there to sit and read a magazine, have enough illumination for that.” That’s not accent lighting.
20 Central appears to believe that if they say something, that makes it so. During the Planning Board hearings, they showed a diagram of the proposed parking at 310 Commercial Street with lined spaces marked ‘existing parking lot.’ In their latest brief they use this to demonstrate the fact that it really is a parking lot. Saying “One of the exhibits to the lease is a plan depicting the parking space on the satellite lot, which also demonstrates the Hoboken’s lot’s existing use as a parking lot.” Well, we all know that simply drawing up a plan and labelling something (that does not currently exist) as a parking lot, or a hotel, or an ocean liner, does not make it so, whatever they may think.
Similarly, during the December 19, 2019 Planning Board hearing Will Gartley, engineer for the project, said: “Table 803.1 of the Rockport Land Use Ordinance clearly allows for planning board discretion with regard to parking. A perfect example of this is the unanimous approval of the planning board to waive the parking regulations for the Union Hall project in August of 2012. I have those minutes if anybody would like to see them.” Just 10 minutes later he said “When the Union Hall project was approved the planning board unanimously waived any requirements for parking.” Then, in the latest filing they say “a review of the Rockport Planning Board Minutes from August 8, 2012 provides that the Planning Board did in fact grant a waiver of all parking requirements. A waiver of the parking space regulations for the project was passed by a 5-0 vote. Union Hall was approved with zero allocated parking spaces and parking regulations were waived.” Of course, you know from Rockport Parking: A Brief History – Friends of Rockport that this is demonstrably false. The developer at that time asked for a waiver from the 27-31 spaces needed by ordinance to the 25 spaces they were adding to the Sandy’s Way lot at the time. That is what the Planning Board approved. The Planning Board NEVER said that it was OK to provide NO parking for Union Hall, despite 20 Central’s repeated attempts to get us (and you) to believe that they did. Apparently they believe that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes a fact.
They also would have the Court overlook the fact that Will Gartley said in the December 19, 2019 Planning Board meeting “They 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….”
They would like the Court (and you) to believe that since the zoning allows for complete lot coverage in downtown Rockport, that supersedes the scenic view provision. Indeed, they have addressed this issue before. In the December 19, 2019 Planning Board meeting Will Gartley said “…by constructing a boutique hotel including a lounge and restaurant. This proposal will allow locals and visitors to enjoy the view of our beautiful harbor….” Of course, Mr. Gartley glibly glossed over the fact that visitors and locals ALREADY enjoyed the view of the beautiful harbor. The developers are not creating a view of the harbor for all to enjoy where none existed before. Rather, they are seeking to monetize, for their private benefit, a public resource that was previously free to anyone walking on Central Street or sitting in Goodridge Park, a view which is protected by our Land Use Ordinance. Instead of stunning views of our Harbor, Rockport residents and visitors will now see a sea of brick, balconies and lights.
Desperate times indeed to call for desperate measures, and now you can see the lengths to which the developer will go in their efforts to keep their construction on track. In fact, their recent mad rush to add brickwork and stone facades are another sign of this effect. Surely the Court would not dare order destruction of work already done? Of course, the Court was clear on this matter as you have already seen Court Ruling on Procedural Issues, Issues Stern Warning to Developer – Friends of Rockport. Still, despite numerous gaffes in the process, ordinance changes you approved, and conflicting statements the developer and their representatives made, they want their hotel the way they designed it.
Superior Court Update after plaintiffs submit comprehensive brief covering all aspects of the various appeals in process. Read more here:
A Superior Court Update for the week of August 12, 2021, a follow-up to the recent Court ruling. As ordered by the Court, the plaintiffs in the various actions regarding approvals for construction of a hotel at 20 Central Street filed a new, comprehensive brief. On August 12 attorney for the plaintiffs, Kristin Collins, filed a brief outlining the key claims citing legal precedent, legislative records, State Attorney General opinions, and more.
The key elements of the case remain that the Planning Board erred in various ways in their role enforcing the Land Use Ordinance. Key among these are enforcement of the parking requirements, architectural standards, and preservation of scenic views. The brief also outlines the failure of the town to enforce the ordinance changes approved by the voters in August 2020 citing both a Constitutional argument and the fact that the building permit was not issued until six months after the changes. Finally, the brief addresses the Code Enforcement Officer’s error in application of various provisions of the Land Use Ordinance, many repeating Planning Board errors. These errors include architectural standards, consistency with plans approved by the Planning Board, and others.
Simply driving, walking or biking past the construction site on Central Street one can now clearly see the incongruity of the new building vis-a-vis the historic neighboring properties. The town and 20 Central Street LLC have until August 26 to submit their brief to the Court. We will continue to keep you apprised with a new Superior Court Update at that time.
