To the editor:

After weeks of overheated rhetoric, we feel compelled to set the record straight about who we are, our motivations and our appeal of the Chamber Music Festival project.

Over the past many months, we have remained silent about the circumstances and timing of the appeal we submitted to the Land Court because of the pending litigation and our lawyer's advice to us. Under the laws of the commonwealth, property owners have essentially one option to pose legitimate questions that relate to the municipal approval process. The appeals process is governed by state law and must be initiated within 20 days of the issuance of zoning variance or special permit. The timing of an appeal cannot be postponed or waived — despite ongoing efforts to settle or resolve disputes. There is no other option for asking for a third-party legal review.

We exercised our right to appeal because we believe the Rockport Zoning Board failed to follow the state and local law when granting permits to RCMF. But rather than simply let the appeals process run its course, the RCMF, through its chairman, Tom Burger, has repeatedly tried to disparage our reputation and demean our motivations. Numerous inflammatory and erroneous statements have been written, spoken and surely thought by those who seem to blindly support this project as it is. The residents of Rockport need to understand the other side of this story.

In the attempt to change the focus of the debate from a suggestion of poor planning on the part of RCMF and defects in the permitting process (i.e. lack of a third party review), Mr. Burger, acting as the chairman and chief spokesman of the RCMF, has chosen to belittle and scoff at our lawful concerns and rights. Instead of recognizing that the professional analysis and review of their proposal is a fair, lawful and customary part of the process, Mr. Burger has chosen to tarnish the reputation of my wife and me with unsubstantiated negative claims.

We "outsiders" as Mr. Burger refers to us, bought our property in 1981 with the goal to increase our time in Rockport over time, hoping to eventually retire at this location. After a devastating fire in 1983, we rebuilt our house and deepened our stake in Rockport. Our family has spent every summer in Rockport since we bought our property. It is noteworthy that Mr. Burger and the vast majority of contributors to the RCMF do not live in Rockport, own no property there or pay any property taxes. Who's the outsider?

Several letters to the editor suggest we do not support the cultural concepts the RCMF represents, or the important role they play in the education of children. Nothing could be further from the truth. My wife, Marcia, has been a primary and secondary school teacher and tutor for more than 35 years. She was born into a family with professional, classical music roots; she totally supports the prime objective and mission of the RCMF. I have spoken favorably about the value RCMF plays in providing musical opportunities for the community at large. The construction of the building has caused RCMF to leave its strong suit behind to try to play real estate developers and political players.

At the very beginning of the court process, the judge required us (and RCMF) to make written settlement offers. It has often been stated by Mr. Burger that we demanded $2.25 million for our property to settle the suit. This figure is simply not true, and — we believe — a fabrication intended to make us out as money-grubbing elitists. Any and all settlement discussions between the attorneys have been constructed under traditional privacy rules with the expectation that any settlement discussions would not be "played out in the press."

In Mr. Burger's latest letter to the editor (The Times, March 27), he continues to claim we are demanding a settlement "out of court, for $2.25 million on a property assessed for $750,000." Unfortunately, Chester Clark, Sarah Kelly and other supporters of the RCMF have taken these false statements as truth and, without any first-hand knowledge of the facts, have chosen to follow Mr. Burger's lead and unfairly castigate our lawful concerns and perpetuate these myths.

No matter how the RCMF tries to spin this, RCMF is attempting to change the bylaws so they can get their way. The proposed Cultural Overlay District is a blatant and poorly conceived effort to circumvent the law — for the benefit of a single project, not of the town.

The RCMF's heavy funding by outside special interests has captured the emotions of some, causing them to believe that this will spark a renewal of the downtown. There has been no review of the Master Plan to see if this Cultural Overlay District fits in as a positive part of the future of the town — because there is no Master Plan! The simple fact remains: there has been no professional study of any kind that would support the RCMF's claims of economic benefits to the town of Rockport.

Not a single plan or study has suggested that Rockport should enact an "overlay district" that permits construction "as of right" and without oversight by the Planning Board and Zoning Board. There has been no study on how the bylaw will impact the tax base and ultimately the taxpayer. No one has done a professional economic analysis or any professional traffic or parking studies which analyze the impact of the bylaw. There is no analysis of the impact to traditional town services (water, sewer, DPW, police, fire, traffic safety, etc.), no comprehensive analysis and review by an outside planning consultant was ever requested or even suggested by the Planning Board.

The local boards failed to require RCMF to submit a traffic study, and left the issue of parking to be determined as some future, unspecified date for just a single project. We believe this mistake would have a very substantial negative impact on our property and on downtown Rockport as well.

Making a new overlay zone, without a professional master planning review, can change the fabric of the community forever. Allowing a special interest group to change the law sets a potentially dangerous precedent, sending a signal to any developer that if the law doesn't meet their desires, they can change or circumvent the law.

As taxpayers and residents you have the choice to support good planning and preserving your downtown by voting against this poorly conceived bylaw.

Please vote for Rockport — and against special-interest zoning.

GARY PURYEAR

Main Street, Rockport