Concerns about the parking arrangements for the proposed Newcastle Harbor House building dominated the Newcastle Planning Board meeting Aug. 19 as planning board members joined the proposed project’s abutters to question the viability of the plan’s parking arrangements.
The debate came after Mattson Development’s official application to build the three-story commercial and residential building was reviewed and accepted as complete by the Planning Board.
The proposed building will be located at 75 Main Street. The new building will be built around the locally infamous “elevator to nowhere” that now stands in the vacant lot.
“Our firm has weathered the worst commercial real estate market in decades,” said Bob Martin, COO of Matson Development, who gave a slideshow presentation explaining Mattson’s past work and plans for the Harbor House, “We’re in a position to move forward.”
The Harbor House will be the new home of the Newcastle Publick House, currently located at 52 Main St. According to Martin, Mattson plans on building the new restaurant with enough space for 150 seats, including bar stools. He emphasized, however, that the plans were not yet finalized.
“We haven’t completed the interior plan,” Martin cautioned.
The second and third floors of the Harbor House will be reserved for offices and condos.
The major issue of the meeting, however, ended up being the proposed parking plan for the project.
Mattson’s blueprint calls for the use of both valet and fixed parking spots to accommodate the building’s guests. A two level parking lot will be built behind the Harbor House, abutting the marina. Guests will be required to park their cars in the lot and walk to the front of the building.
The only parking on Main Street will be two handicap spaces. Valet parking will be sent to a lot behind the current Newcastle Publick House.
“We’ve accommodated as many spaces as possible,” said project architect Tor Glendinning.
The planning board expressed its concern about the safety of requiring patrons to walk to the front of the restaurant while traffic is moving in the opposite direction toward the lot.
According to Martin, the 15-foot wide driveway will have a specially lighted walkway for pedestrians.
The valet parking option as a parking alternative also brought questions and concerns from the planning board. While some questioned whether people would actually want to wait for valet parking, others were concerned that the property’s space and location precluded the service.
“I’m not convinced that valet parking is truly viable,” said Richard Burt, who was re-elected as the planning board’s chairmen at the board’s Aug. 19 meeting.
Planning board member Sharon White agreed. “It’s a logistical nightmare,” she said.
Burt asked for more detail and a clear scheme for handling the valet parking.
Members of the community also expressed their reservations about the valet parking plan.
“I’m skeptical about the valet parking,” said George Shaw, the treasurer of St. Andrew’s Church, an abutter of the proposed project.
He signaled his concern that people would use the valet as a last resort and would either take up spots at the church or gum up the already tenuous public parking situation in the Twin Villages.
Sarah Jenkins, the innkeeper at The Tipsy Butler Bed and Breakfast, worried the valet lot would cause noise and lighting pollution that would harm her business.
“I’m worried it’s going to change,” said Jenkins.
Other members of the community, however, declared their support for the plan.
“I’m delighted to hear about valet parking,” said Laura Sproul, of Sproul’s Furniture. She said that more parking in Newcastle was crucial.
Mattson’s plan for the Newcastle Harbor House will be put before the town at a public hearing Sept. 16 at 7 p.m. Mattson will make a formal presentation to the town about the company’s intentions and will notify all those abutting the property.
“It’s for the public to have a say,” said Burt.
According to Burt, the soonest the planning board can approve the application for the Newcastle Harbor House is after the September public hearing. If further questions remain after the hearing, the planning board will continue to review the project into October.
“It’s all dependent on what the public asks in the way of questions,” said Burt.