ROCKPORT — A group of Rockport citizens are appealing the town’s approval of a plan to convert former medical offices on Route 1 to multi-family housing and offices, saying Rockport’s Planning Board acted without regard for clear record facts.

The citizens, primarily who are neighbors of the 6 Madelyn Lane housing project, are asking the Zoning Board of Appeals to reverse the Rockport Planning Board’s July 28 site plan approval. In the appeal, they cite several points on which the appeal is based.

Hope for the Future LLC had received town approval to convert former physician offices on the east side of Route 1 to 18 housing units, with a total of 28 bedrooms. The site lies between Route 1 and a private waterfront subdivision. The project entails changing the use of the property from commercial to residential, and converting two large office buildings to housing.

“The buildings are to be used by Knox County Homeless Coalition and includes living, meeting, and office space,” according to plan documents filed at the Rockport Town Office and available online here.

The proposed conversion incorporates living units for individuals and families in need of housing, and space for health, wellness, and services that provide them support.

Some neighbors, however, had contested the plans at the July meeting, and subsequently filed their appeal of the project approval in late August.

They include Virginia Carboys, Elizabeth Hanley, Michael Hanley, Katherine Killoran, Patrick Killoran, Timothy Killoran, Steven E. Levine, Hannah Lewis, Ryan Lewis, Marianne Linder, Anthony Muri, Janet Muri, Judith Rose, Lorraine Streat and Philip Streat.

The ZBA meeting begins at 6 p.m., in person, at the Rockport Opera House downstairs meeting room. It will be streamed at https://vimeo.com/rockportmaine

In the appeal, which can be read in entirety here, neighbors dispute the Planning Board’s regard for the application, saying it, “chose to accept the owner’s characterizations of the proposed use without accounting for those material differences.”

The appeal maintains that the Planning Board failed to make its own considered determinations in reviewing the application, and was, “highly prejudicial to the interests of those Rockport property owners who opposed the owner’s application based on the controlling law.”

At issue are the professional offices included in the plan. The Planning Board had been told that the onsite services would only be available to residents of the facility, but the appellants maintain that the given assurance contradicts the town’s Land Use Ordinance, which defines professional offices as a space that provides service to the public.

“There, to the extent that the board approved any portion of the facility based on the characterization that it would be used for professional offices, the decision is plainly wrong and contrary to the owner’s own representation  to the board,” the appeal said. “As such, the board’s decision cannot be affirmed.”

Appellants are also arguing that the housing project would be congregate housing, not multi-family housing and professional offices, and thus not permitted in the zoning District 907.

And, they said that their concerns about safety and security in association with drugs, alcohol, crime and violence were not noted in the board’s final approval of the application. Those concerns, they said, “went entirely unaddressed.”

“One does not need to be an expert in homelessness to know that it is a problem frequently associated with drug and alcohol dependency, crime, and, in some cases, violence, among other problems.”

Reach Editorial Director Lynda Clancy at lyndaclancy@penbaypilot.com; 207-706-6657