ROCKPORT — Members of Rockport’s Zoning Board of Appeals voted Dec. 9 to continue in two weeks its review of an appeal brought against municipal approval of a new downtown hotel, rather than proceeding with the appeal as originally scheduled.

The board agreed that it would use the interim to review four letters submitted by attorneys for the applicants, the appellants and the Chair of the Rockport Planning board; those letters were received within days of the scheduled Dec. 9 hearing.

By the end of the their last meeting on Dec. 1, the ZBA made no decision to uphold or dismiss the appeal of the Rockport Planning Board approval granted last spring that would allow Stuart and Tyler Smith to pursue a building permit for a new four-story hotel at 20 Central Street, in Rockport Village.

The ZBA completed its review of portions of the appeal concerning parking requirements and landscaping requirements pertaining to the off-site parking lot at Hoboken Gardens where guest cars would be parked by valets. The appeal claimed that a landscape review of the property should have been requested by the Planning Board. 

The Dec. 9 meeting was expected to be a straight-forward continuation of the review of the appeal, as submitted by 13 appellants represented by Attorney Kristin Collins.

The appeal contends that  the Planning Board abused its discretion and made findings not supported by substantial evidence when approving the project’s site plan.

However, in light of a series of letters received by the ZBA and their attorney, Leah Rachin, of the Portland-based firm Drummond Woodsum, up to the very day of the meeting, the board decided that additional time was necessary to properly review the new material.

The documents in question are a Dec. 2 letter from Planning Board Chair Joe Sternowski, an undated letter from attorney Sara Gilbert of Camden Law on behalf of the  the Smiths, and letters dated Dec. 8 and Dec. 9 from Collins on behalf of the appellants.

After a discussion with Rachin of whether or not the letters should be considered as supplemental materials in their decision-making process, ZBA board members voted unanimously to accept the letters for further review.

In his letter, addressed to attorney Phil Saucier, legal counsel for the Planning Board, Sternowski outlines a series of arguments against claims made by the appellants from his vantage point as a sitting member on the Planning Board, which heard and gave initial approval to the hotel application brought by the Smiths.

Most of the letter is related to approval of the satellite parking facility proposed by the applicant at 310 Commercial Street, at the former Hoboken Gardens site, where cars would be valeted to and from the hotel via Pascal Avenue.

“....an examination of the evidence, facts and the video related to this matter show that the Planning Board never approved an application for a site plan or change of use related to 310 Commercial Street, the PB only approved the proposed plan and lease presented by 20 Central LLC,” he wrote. “The ZBA needs to widen its discussion to consider this very important piece of evidence, has the site plan for 310 Commercial been approved. This concern was surfaced by several ZBA members during the meeting last night. The ZBA cannot weigh in on an approval that was never granted. Counsel seems to have focused the ZBA on other details, before considering
this fundamental piece of evidence.”

He continued: “This parking site was covered under a lease to the 20 Central site plan, which was approved. The owner of the property was responsible for any modifications resulting from a change of use, not the hotel property. If this was a change of use, determined by review by the Code Enforcement Officer [Scott Bickford] and/or Community Planning Director [Bill Najpaeur], a site plan would be brought before the Planning Board. None has been brought before the Planning Board to date.”

Gilbert, on behalf of the Smiths and 20 Central LLC, began her letter to the ZBA thanking them, “for providing the parties, including the Applicant, an opportunity to respond to the recent written submission by Joe Stemowski, Chair of the Planning Board.”

She also outlined a series of arguments against the claims made in the appeal that Hoboken Lot may only be used for off-site parking if the Planning Board found that certain performance standards related to landscaping were met that it was not proper for the Planning Board to find that the lot constituted designated parking as rather than “shared parking.”

“The most recent iteration of the appellants’ argument — arguing now that the existing use of the Hoboken Lot as a parking lot somehow is negated by it being associated with the new construction downtown — is an argument without merit and is not supported by any plain reading of the land use ordinances. We respectfully request that Attorney Rachin continue to focus the ZBA’s attention on the relevant inquiries,” said Gilbert.

In her letters on behalf of the appellants, Collins formally objected to the submission of the Gilbert and Sternowski aforementioned letters to the board.

Collins cited specific bylaws which govern the Zoning Board of Appeals, and which state that new material may only be considered if it is submitted to the ZBA at least 15 days before their next scheduled meeting, it is a written or verbal testimony given during a meeting or it is requested by a majority of the board present.

“The appellants must now object, again, to another inappropriate submission from the other parties in this matter,” Collins wrote. “The ZBA is well into the deliberations phase on this appeal and as such it is inappropriate and prejudicial for any party to be submitting testimony or argument, especially outside of a Board meeting.... 

“Chair Sternowski’s submission violated this rule, and the Chair’s remedy was to allow the other parties to respond. Now the applicant has capitalized on this free-for-all and submitted arguments on all remaining issues as well as proposed findings of fact. None of these submissions were requested or permitted by the Board.”

The ZBA will continue the review of the appeal with the inclusion of the four letters on Tuesday, Dec. 22, at 6 p.m.