Rox Diner in Newtonville and Max and Leo’s in Newton Corner are the two latest Newton restaurants to get more seats, courtesy of the Board of Alderman. By ordinance, the number of seats have to correlate with the number of parking spaces the restaurant has, an antiquated analysis that has little to do with the actual parking supply and demand in the area. Both restaurants got waivers from the parking requirement, as have Panera, the Station Diner, b Street, and other restaurants.
More seats means room for more diners, less waiting. The restaurants make more money. Good for all!
The number of waivers granted is an implicit recognition that the ordinance makes little sense. Unfortunately, the process for getting a waiver is expensive. One attorney told me (while we were eating at Rox Diner) that it costs between $10,000 and 15,000. That means other restaurants that might benefit from more seats aren’t getting waivers. The city ought to have a one-time program where restaurant owners who have the space for more seats can participate in a cheaper, streamlined waiver process. Or, better yet, scrap parking minimums altogether.
On a personal note, the family loves both Rox Diner and Max and Leo’s.
Very well said, Sean. The existing parking ordinance does not effectively deal with concepts such as shared parking, the presence of municipal lots, or non-auto transportation.
Also, the figures of $10-15,000 in legal fees may actually be a little lower than those incurred in earlier waiver discussions. Such a price tag and process (coupled with other barriers we’ve discussed before) can tremendously impact a restaurant’s decision to locate somewhere other than Newton.
The Land Use Committee of the Board of Aldermen has been incredibly quick and fair in awarding waivers, while still being thorough and diligent. Still, it really does beg the question of how broken the policy is if waivers become the standard.
You seem to be asking for changes. From an outsiders perspective, setting a conservative parking standard makes sense in protecting residential neighborhoods from the hassles of business parking on their street. Many if not most businesses are outside residential streets thus waivers are logical under a conservative approach. In terms of cost, seems pretty basic to look up the procedures of similar hearings and to apply a similar approach as the successful ones. Is this not how things are working?
Also, the words antiquated in terms of parking standards reminds me of the days when there was basically one car in the family. Mom and the kids would ride the bus to shop and have lunch. After this came malls. In which era did we have more cars in business districts?
@Chris, I appreciate your comment that the Land Use Committee has been expeditious in granting special permits to waive parking requirements for restaurants. While I agree that the parking ordinance requires a major overhaul, however, I also believe that one of the other reasons that we almost always end up granting the relief requested has everything to do with the fact that the planning department thoroughly vets every project before the application is even filed with the clerk and docketed with the Board of Aldermen. I want to publicly acknowledge and applaud the fact that, as a result of the planning department’s diligence and careful and thoughtful review of every project, there are very few that are filed that do not generally satisfy the special permit criteria provided that the petitioner’s follow the planning department’s recommendations. This is not only true of parking waivers but also virtually every other application for a special permit that comes before us.
Hoss,
There are two distinct issues: 1. whether or not we want to protect some or all of the surrounding neighborhood from commercial parking and 2. how we do it.
Without commenting on the first issue (where we almost certainly disagree), managing the second issue through parking minimums is what’s antiquated, for the reasons Chris listed. If I get some time later, I’ll get into more detail.
I should also add that the parking ordinance does not deal well with institutional parking requirements for the City’s colleges, universities and other private educational institutions. Cambridge, which has a number of educational institutions as well, has a parking ordinance which is more precisely tailored to the actual parking requirements of its institutions, and takes into account shared parking arrangements and parking management policies used by each. Medford and Somerville, similarly, have worked with Tufts University to come up with ways to monitor and manage its parking needs so that it can reasonably expand without having to pave over the quad to do so. Recently, the planning department, aldermen, and representatives of Newton’s educational institutions met to discuss these same issues. Based on these meetings, which I attended, it is clear that we have a long way to go to come up with an ordinance that meets the needs of the city and its residents and the educational institutions and their students, faculty and staff.
Not sure if anyone wants to comment on the costs Sean in mentioning. Is $10k real or fiction? Why is a simple petition (in which lots of successful petitions are available as a model) so seemingly costly? Are their repeated delays?