The following is an open letter from a resident of the 400 block of Central Avenue to members of City Council in Ocean City in advance of a Dec. 4 meeting at which $750,000 in funding for the park may get final approval:
December 4, 2014
Councilmen, Allegretto, McClellan, Wilson, Hartzell, DeVlieger, Madden and Guinosso
RE: Proposed location of Skateboard Park
Gentlemen:
Unfortunately I am unable to attend this Thursday’s Council meeting to address the proposed location of the skateboard park so I prepared this letter.
As most of you are probably aware, my neighbors and myself in the area of the 400 blocks of Asbury and Central Avenues object to the skateboard park being located on the proposed municipal parking lot. Many of us have attended the various meetings that have been held. Although I do not speak for all of them, I believe there is a consensus that they do not believe our concerns have been properly addressed.
By holding the citywide, multi-media presentations prior to having a reasonable sit-down meeting with the neighbors, it essentially chilled and intimidated many people from coming forward and raising their concerns. No one wants to look like they are anti-kid; especially when you look at the 400 block of Central Avenue. I would suggest that single block has put more children through the Ocean City School system in the last 22 years that I have lived there than any other single block in Ocean City.
Many of us have lived there since before the parking lot was built. School teachers, parents and visitors to the school had nowhere to park, except along the street. In addition, in the last 6 to 10 years more summer beachgoers drive all the way to our street to park because of the increased parking lot prices. When I first moved to the neighborhood, very few people parked on the street for a day beach trip. Now it is a continued occurrence. I know the answer always is: “There are parking issues all over Ocean City.” I challenge any of you to find any two contiguous blocks in Ocean City that have more cars parked on the street during the winter months than the 300 and 400 blocks of Central Avenue. Then add the summer parking problems.
Some of you have said the parking lot has not been fully “utilized” during the last two years that the skateboard committee has been watching it. That is correct; first we had Sandy and second Palermo’s has been closed. Palermo’s created additional parking problems because its lot was undersized. You as a council have now changed the zoning on that block to allow duplexes to be built on 30’ wide lots on the Palermo’s site. The argument being that is less of a parking impact. That is incorrect. With 220’ of frontage — with 40’ lots there would be five buildings, translating to ten 4 bedroom duplex units or 40 bedrooms. There are very few 5 bedroom duplexes on 40 lots that are the interior of the island. With 30 foot lots you get 7 lots translating to 14 units at 3 bedrooms a unit equals 42 bedrooms. I realize this is a dead issue, but the result is going to impact the neighborhood parking.
A term that has been used over and over again is that the parking lot is “underutilized.” You have to define that term. The lots adjacent to the boardwalk are only used 3 months out of the year. Are they “underutilized”? Of course not – the boardwalk parking lots serve the purpose of providing parking during the three critical summer months. Thus, they are fully “utilized” for their intended purpose.
The subject parking lot serves multiple purposes and I again challenge you to find any single parking lot in the City that serves as many purposes and has cars that use it during the entire course of a year. It provides parking for teachers and parents during the nine months of the school year. It provides parking for all school events and other events held at the school. It provides parking and staging for Ocean City’s multiple parades and block parties. It provides parking for the weekly summer farm market, over flow for the Tabernacle and overflow during busy summer periods. Where are the users of the skate board park going to park when the lot is full based on all of these events?
When the parking lot was built, one of the justifications was to provide emergency parking for residents in and around Peck’s Beach Village. Now the parking lot is being reduced by over one-half. Claiming that people can park at the Tabernacle during flooding events is also irrelevant. People could and were doing that prior to the lot being built.
The committee keeps claiming the skateboard park plan is parking neutral. That is impossible without building one new parking spot. Simply directly people to the road is not creating parking and if a private person was building such a facility and appeared in front of the Planning Board they would not be allowed to claim the use of on street parking. More importantly they would have to provide a parking study. If the park is as successful as it is portrayed to be, then the committee behind it should appear in front of the Planning Board and provide a professionally prepared parking/traffic study. Finally, there was a bond issued to pay for the building of the existing lot – has that been paid off? If not, can you build on the lot and seek a new bond?
Recognizing that most of my above issues are not going to persuade any of you change the location, I do think that the park should be operated appropriately. There were statements made that because of the open space funding you cannot charge a fee. The tennis courts were paid with Green Acres and during the summer the users pay a fee. The dog park requires members to pay a yearly membership and sign waivers with each user being issued a magnetic access card. That is how the skateboard park should be operated. A non-profit should be formed (like the dog park) to run the park. That way the parents of minors could sign waivers and the adult users could sign waivers. It would prevent, or at least limit vandals from using the park. It would also give the neighbors who are going to be impacted by the park to have a place to redress any of their issues without involving city employees.
I truly believe the proposed location is not the most appropriate location for the proposed park. If you as a council decide to locate it on the proposed parking lot site (or on any other location), I strenuously ask that a non-profit be formed to run the park consistent with the county dog park.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey H. Sutherland
