Open letter to the Rockport Planning Board regarding hotel request


The following addresses concern chapter 1000 of LUO – General performance standards:

Across the Applicant’s existing property stretching from Union Hall to Mary Lea Park, including Sandy’s Way, the current businesses, restaurants, meeting rooms and residence require 170 off-street parking spaces per town of Rockport Ordinance (joint account). The previous owner built as many parking spaces as the land could accommodate, 50 regular plus 2 HCAPs for a total of 52 parking spaces. Thus, the current property already lacks 118 spaces to meet the off-street parking requirements of the ordinance. The hotel proposed by the applicant requires 65 additional places per prescription. Despite this, the Applicant proposes to reduce the number of off-street spaces by 3, for a total of 49 spaces.

The applicant has proposed a land transfer to show that 49 spaces are available for a new development. However, this maneuver ignores the fact that the current parking lot is already allocated. The applicant’s proposal is based on the fact that the City ignores its own ordinance which stipulates the maintenance of all existing spaces. The legality of this proposed cession should be of concern to the City.

In short, the applicant is proposing a condition which would substantially increase the lack of off-street parking to a deficit of 186 spaces.

The applicant proposes that the 65 spaces required by the ordinance for the proposed hotel / restaurant plan be reduced to 48, based on the allegations that:

  1. The two restaurants do not have overlapping opening hours.
  2. Restaurant and hotel clientele are likely to overlap and
  3. This off-site parking will be provided to employees and special events.

With respect to claim 1, there is no binding and perpetual provision in the application to prevent the simultaneous use of the restaurants in the future. And as a minimum, the area of ​​the largest restaurant must be applied, which corresponds to a minimum of 20 spaces. (therefore, 37 hotel plus 20 restaurant = 57 minimum).

# 2 – While it is likely that some customers will dine in the restaurants, which represents an overlap and therefore a possible reduction in the total combined number, the applicant states that “the restaurants will be open to the public and locals will be familiar with the many options. parking available in the village ”, which is an admission that their strategy depends on the use of parking on the street.

# 3 – The ordinance requires all remote parking, if authorized by PB; will be held under the same property. The Applicant does not present such parking. In addition, the Ordinance only allows remote parking at the discretion of the CP, and with the stipulation that it must be “… a reasonable distance from the building or main use, measured along of the public access line. »Such a parking lot does not exist.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.