ROCKPORT — Despite not yet making their final ruling on an appeal brought against a proposed downtown hotel, in a series of votes Jan. 6 members of Rockport’s Zoning Board of Appeals found that the town’s Planning Board did not err in its approval of the project. The proposed four-story hotel would be built at 20 Central Street, with off-site located at the former Hoboken Garden site on Commercial Street.

The appeal, submitted by 13 appellants represented by Attorney Kristin Collins, contends that  the Planning Board abused its discretion and made findings not supported by substantial evidence last spring when approving the project’s site plan that would allow Stuart, Maryann and Tyler Smith to pursue a building permit for the new hotel.

The Jan. 6 meeting was the fourth time the Zoning Board of Appeal convened to review formal objections to the project. At the meeting, held via Zoom, members of the board voted on each of the specific complaints made by the appellants. In each instance, the ZBA approved motions that stated the following:

• The Planning Board did not err when it decided not to consider potential use options, including landscaping, for the Hoboken Garden lot where off-site parking would be located.

Board members Terri Mackenzie, David Cockey, Thomas Kennedy and Max MacCoole approved the motion; Chairman Geoff Parker and board member Kevin Olehnick opposed the motion.

“The thing that I have a problem with is that two members of the Planning Board brought up the issues of landscaping and that was ignored pretty much by the Chairperson [Joe Sternowski] by saying ‘hey, it’s an existing lot.’ If this is brought up by two members on the committee, it should be explored in consideration of applying the Land Use Ordinance to that property,” said Olehnick.

“I think that the Planning Board took our decision and used that as part of a basis as an acceptance of [the Hoboken lot] as an existing parking lot and an existing use,” said Mackenzie.

• The Planning Board did not err in its decision that the proposed hotel would be visually harmonious with the surrounding area; the board approved this motion unanimously. 

In a presentation made by Collins last month, she argued that the proposed building, which would feature wrought iron balconies on both the Central Street and harbor facing sides, did not meet the town’s architectural standards for new structures, which focus on a style in keeping with existing buildings while giving a priority to the preservation of existing views.

• The Planning Board did not err in its findings related to the preservation of scenic views. This motion was passed unanimously.

The hotel proposed by Stuart and Maryann Smith and their son, Tyler, acting as “20 Central Str.eet LLC,” would fill a now empty parcel between Union Hall and the Shepherd Block, existing buildings that currently house the restaurants 18 Central, Seafolk Coffee and Nina June, as well as the Bay Chamber Concerts and Music School and other smaller businesses and nonprofits.

Plans call for the new hotel to be built flush against the sides of both existing structures, which are also owned by the Smiths. The block of buildings sit directly across from Goodridge Park.

“I saw the Planning Board taking into consideration sufficient discussion in regards to this that there was plenty of other water view in that area and that that lot is zoned for commercial development,” said Mackenzie.

“Given that the [Land Use Ordinance] clearly states that they can have 100 percent lot coverage, was the Planning Board under any obligation to talk about, consider or force the applicant to consider something that wasn’t 100 percent lot coverage or have a visual break,” said Parker.

• The Planning Board did not err in its consideration of the application as it relates to Section 1003 of the town’s architectural review standards. This motion passed unanimously. 

• The Planning Board appropriately found that lighting from the facade of the hotel and its rooftop bar did not constitute a nuisance as defined by the Land Use Ordinance. This motion passed unanimously.

“There appeared to be extensive discussion around various aspects lighting, I know there was some discussion of that the ordinance actually meant...and the conclusions [the Planning Board] made were appropriate after everything they took in,” said Cockey. 

• The Planning Board did not err in not requesting a traffic study for the proposed hotel. This motion passed unanimously. 

On behalf of the appellants, Collins previously asserted that parking had been a continual concern throughout the planning process of the proposed hotel, adding that even Police Chief Randy Gagne said that the traffic added by guests to the hotel could prove problematic.

She said that the latest parking study conducted by the town was from 2009, and questioned how the parking requirement of 56 spaces for the hotel and its two contained restaurants would be adequately satisfied though on-site and remote parking.

One location, Sandy’s Way, a lot at the rear of 20 Central Street, could provide up to 51 spaces, but is considered a different lot from the hotel site and there is no parking lease in effect.

“The concerns are valid but I don’t think the Planning Board has the authority...I see nothing in the ordinances that requires or even gives the Planning Board authority to request a traffic study,” said Mackenzie.

Collins pointed the ZBA to a portion of the Land Use Ordinance which states the following:

“The Planning Board, after reviewing and finding specific technical deficiencies may hire its own civil engineer, geologist, soil scientist or other expert to review the plans submitted by the applicant; the applicant shall pay for this expense.”

Although votes were taken which supported each of the Planning Board’s actions as related to the approval of the hotel, the ZBA’s attorney, Leah Rachin, of the Portland-based firm Drummond Woodsum, advised the ZBA to wait to make their final determination or “global ruling” on the appeal until a further date.

Immediately after such a ruling is made, the ZBA has seven days in which to provide their decision in writing to all parties in the appeal as well as make their decision available to the public.

Rachin said that in the interim leading up to the ZBA’s next scheduled meeting on Jan. 21, she would provide the board with draft findings of the decisions they made on each of the complaints outlined in the appeal to this point.

On Jan. 21 the ZBA is expected to take a final vote on the appeal and issue their final determination.

The next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals will be held Thursday, Jan. 21, at 6 p.m.