ROCKLAND — It was a highly anticipated Zoom session this afternoon, Dec. 15, with Justice Bruce Mallonee and his call for a court hearing on  how he would proceed with the specifics of his Dec. 1 order remanding the Rockport Village hotel issue back to the town’s planning board. But, he had it wrapped up in 21 minutes, with a reassurance to the six attending attorneys that he would get his final articulation of the judgment issued, “as quickly as I can.”

“I’m hoping to streamline this as much as possible,” said Justice Mallonee, at the end of the hearing. “I’ve got to get you a final judgment so that you can respond with any motions that you think might be necessary, and to have some kind of combined deliberative process with both completing the judgment and addressing the post-judgment type arguments that have been presented, I think it is going to make it unwieldy and unclear. I want to make sure that when we get to the point when I am actually drawing a double line, there’s no ambiguity about what has been ruled on and what sequence.”

Then, he added, he would invite from the attorneys — “not this instance, give it some thought — but we’ve got holidays coming up, you’ve got an ongoing project, there’s some urgency about getting this done, and to the extent that you were able to agree among yourselves about expedited deadlines for filing motions and filing responses, then I will try to honor those with an expedited decision afterwards. If you are able to reach an agreement about that, let me know. Otherwise, we will just follow the rules.”

The Dec. 15 hearing had followed his Dec. 1 order remanding the town’s approval of a new hotel in Rockport Village back to the Rockport Planning Board to address parking issues and the architectural harmony of the building. In that decision, he had cited this court hearing to discuss further action concerning how town ordinance amendments passed at the 2020 Town Meeting affects the hotel’s building permit.

At today’s hearing there was limited discussion, other than oral presentations from the various attorneys representing parties involved in the case known as Friends of Rockport versus the Town of Rockport, with 20 Central Street LLC as a Party-in-Interest. The case concerns court action against the Town of Rockport for issuing site plan approval and building permit for the construction of a $5 million, 26-room hotel on Central Street in Rockport Village. 

The parties have indicated that they will appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court if they are not satisfied with the Superior Court outcome.

The parties include:

• Plaintiffs Friends of Rockport and several citizens — John Priestley, Mark Schwarzmann, Clare Tully, David Barry, David Kantor, and Winston Whitney — all represented by attorneys Kristin Collins and Stephen Langsdorf, who are with the firm Preti Flaherty.

• Defendant Town of Rockport, represented by Daniel Murphy, of Bernstein Schur.

• Parties of Interest, Stuart, Maryanne and Tyler Smith, represented by André G. Duchette, who is with Taylor, McCormack & Frame, and Mark Corsey, of Camden Law.

“I’m certainly cognizant that this case has been pending for a long time and the parties need some finalities so that you can make all the post-judgment decisions that you need to make,” said Justice Mallonee, Dec. 15.

Both attorneys Duchette and Collins have already submitted a post judgment motion and letter, respectively, said Justice Mallonee.

He said that the Dec. 15 hearing would include hearing from the attorneys and clarifying a schedule for post-judgment filings.

The attorneys did meet over the course of the last several days, putting definition to their arguments and, “about where we agree and disagree about what needs to happen from here, pursuant to your order,” said Collins. “The one point we seem to agree on is that because of the order of the finding the 20-room applies then that would require this to go back to the Planning Board to start with.”

To Attorney Collins, the hotel’s building permit needs to be vacated, construction halted, and the building torn down.

“The plaintiffs have been arguing from the very start of this that any work done by 20 Central related to this building permit, because it was under challenge is subject to an inductive order requiring that the building be taken down,” she said. “I would submit again, as your Honor has very clearly warned 20 Central that they may be continuing construction at their peril, and in fact it has turned out that way.”

The Planning Board, she continued: “is truly prejudiced to have that entire constructed building sitting there and I don’t think can consider this in a vacuum like they could have back in 2019. And so, our request remains that the building be torn down. It was not constructed pursuant to a lawfully issued building permit.”

Attorney Murphy, representing the town, thanked Justice Mallonee, saying it has been: “a challenging matter. We appreciate your hard work on it.”

He said: “I don’t believe the building needs to be torn down. I think it’s your opinion to find a middle ground where you find the site plan approval was fine, subject to additional findings by the Planning Board, but that the building permit required application of Petition A and B [That was the town vote amending the land use ordinance requiring parking studies and limiting of hotel rooms to 20].

“But what the plaintiffs are arguing for is essentially the nullification of site plan approval, ‘tear that thing down,’ and I think the statute does prevent that.”

Beyond procedural issues, he said, said there were no violations of Constitutional rights.

Attorney Duchette seconded the arguments of Attorney Murphy.

He said the plaintiffs’ position to have the consideration of the hotel room limit reduction (20-room from 26-room) go back to the planning board and repeat a code enforcement approval process, without amending the building permit, is something his clients — the Smiths – are hoping to avoid because of all the various resulting complications.

“And how does that impact the Planning Board’s decisions in regards to everything else not related to traffic study and number of rooms,” he asked. “Does that essentially allow the plaintiffs a second bite of the apple to reopen arguments relative to items ordinance relative to site plan — facade, assembly usage, things of that nature, all of those things that have been previously decided. that for us would create a puzzling situation as to what that means if we are to go back and amend the application as it relates to room count.”

Reach Editorial Director Lynda Clancy at lyndaclancy2penbaypilot.com; 207-706-6657