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.
There is a contract with the lawyer and no new money was paid. It’s a get that this is happening and will bring in more revenue to Rockport. I think maybe we can do a downtown tax for you guys who complain so much abt making Rockport better
So you believe a retainer covers research time, court appearances, and the like? In this case, not sure how failure to implement an ordinance change makes Rockport better, but interested in how your new, downtown tax would work? Presumably that is to pay for the parking that the 18, 20, 22, and 24 Central require.
The town overrules voters by applying the Maine statute? Have you officially run out of things to fight and are now making up ridiculous arguments? If Friends of Rockport wants to make the COVID timing argument, why shouldn’t the developers? The findings of fact should have been completed with seven days of the February approval and yet the meeting was delayed to May. It works both ways. I think the ones wasting the town’s money are the one who keep appealing the project.
Steve, the operative question here is whether the State of Maine will treat Covid related actions under statute as many other jurisdictions have. That is a reasonable basis for seeking judicial review. You are right, the statute does not have a ‘global pandemic’ exception, but then neither did any of the myriad other test cases which have been ruled upon in the past 12 months. The Planning Board could easily have done as you suggest, inasmuch as they were already doing remote meetings. So, it is not analogous to the matter of the public safety considerations around how you hold an election during a pandemic.
If the town vote was held in June instead of August, who knows how it would have turned out. There is no way of knowing if the results would have been the same and it can’t be argued that they would be. The town was not doing remote meetings already and the February approval meeting was mask-less and in person. The first remote meeting of the planning board was in May 2020 and this is plain to see on the Town’s website.
“The worst part is they are spending your tax dollars to fight this in court!”. Only because their correct decisions keep getting appealed. Who is wasting the taxpayers money? The few citizens who for some reason are against the hotel, that’s who. If Friends of Rockport truly are friends of Rockport, they need to stop with the needless challenges that are wasting so many town resources and start involving themselves on actual issues.
Leonard, “correct decisions” are a matter of opinion, and one reason why we have an independent judiciary. As noted in our earlier response to Steve, whether or not to take a hard line on 45 days, in this case, despite an ongoing global pandemic is a reasonable use of the process. Particularly in light of the newest case law surrounding Covid-19. Similarly, the matter of preserving scenic views and providing adequate parking and safety measures, for instance, are also reasonable and protected rights. We are interested in your thoughts on what actual issues might be good places to dedicate resources.
Affordable housing, development of the RES site, promoting business within Rockport, upgrading facilities like the fire department, finding ways to keep Rockport a working local community instead of a summer residence for the wealthy – these are issues I think are worth spending taxpayer money on. Rockport is working on village parking already and has protected scenic harbor views from lots of areas. Does it not concern the Friends of Rockport that traditional houses on the harbor are being torn down and modern monstrosities are being built in their place? If you’re trying to preserve historic character, why is the fight against a hotel that will use brick and granite and that is being built on a lot with a history of a building on it? A historic house on Mechanic St. was just demolished and is slated to become another modern eyesore and yet there has been no argument about that destroying scenic views or causing construction nuisances. The Town of Rockport consists of more than the harbor village and most residents are excited for new business and development.
Some good thoughts, Leonard. Unclear that affordable housing is a pressing issue, but some of the RES proposals lean in that direction. Also not sure the fire department is in immediate need of capital investment – beyond the already approved West Rockport facility. It seems that Rockport has done a better than average balancing act between year-round and summer residents. One need only look at the inner harbor mooring field to see the preponderance of fishing craft and a robust Rockport Marine anchoring the harbor. Certainly the Comprehensive Plan is intended to speak to all these issues, and, regrettably, we came onto the scene as an organization after the Comprehensive Plan committee was already set in stone. That is one area, though, were we feel an ability to get ahead of these issues.
As for what individual landowners can and will do with their property, just like with the proposed hotel, we seek only for people to be held to the standards delineated in the Land Use Ordinance. If a home is found to be unsound, as in the case you mention, would you require the property owner to renovate? It is a really simple premise: live to the ordinance as written or work to change it where you feel it is not achieving the desired outcome.
Isn’t it nice the Land Use Ordinance is so clear and specific for these select eight pieces of property then? The town must have really put some thought into the their development for the voters to approve these identified lots with distinct conditions.
913.3 Special District Standards
To encourage patterns of development that are consistent with the historical
development on the harbor side of Central Street, the following additional Uses
and alternative Standards shall apply to parcels with Map-Lot numbers 29-303,
29-297, 29-295, 29-293, 29-291, 29-291-001, 29-289 and 29-287 and on parcels subsequently divided within these bounds. In all other respects,
the normal Uses and Standards of the 913 Downtown District as found in
the tables at Sections 917-918 shall apply within these bounds.
(E) The following alternative Standards shall apply to parcels with street
frontage on Central Street within these bounds.
(1) There shall be no minimum setbacks.
(2) There shall be no maximum lot coverage.
(3) There shall be no minimum lot area per dwelling unit.
(4) The maximum building height shall be fifty (50) feet measured from the
highest point on the Central Street sidewalk adjacent to the
foundation.
(5) The maximum height at the eave shall be forty (40) feet measured from
the highest point on the Central Street sidewalk adjacent to the
foundation.
(6) Within buildings facing Central Street, the minimum depth of
Commercial Uses at street level shall be the first twenty (20) feet.
(7) The minimum frontage shall be twenty (20) feet.
That’s nice work, Leonard, and no one disputes those provisions. You will notice in the appeal, however, citation of section 1003.Architectural Review Standards, General.1 which states in part “Structures shall impede as little as reasonably practical, scenic views from the mainroad or from existing structures and nearby undeveloped areas.” That is rather specific, too, and you well know that the proposed hotel wholly blocks the view from Central Street, the Shepherd Block, and Goodridge Park. Of course there are many other areas under review, but this one speaks directly to what will most impact residents and visitors alike.