Highlands Landing seeks variances for C Street ferry terminal and seasonal "Sandbox"; board carries application after community concerns

Highlands Landing Corp. asked the Highlands Planning Board to approve a revised site plan for the C Street ferry terminal and the seasonal "Sandbox" beach bar at 326 Shore Drive, seeking variances for dual uses, parking setbacks and reduced parking counts while proposing stacked car lifts to increase on‑site capacity.

Attorney Salvator Alfieri, representing the applicant, opened the presentation and said the applicant will call an engineer, traffic consultant and planner and that they recently received a CAPRA (Coastal Area Facilities Review Act) approval from the state. Brad Thompson, a civil engineer with Najjar and Associates, testified that the project would reconfigure the existing parking field, add sidewalks and ADA access to the pier, repave portions of the lot and install two rows of stacked car lifts (70 lifts total) to make up capacity lost to defined drive aisles and safety improvements.

The application seeks a use variance because the property combines two principal uses—public beach and a parking lot—that the Waterfront Commercial (W C‑2) zoning does not permit together. Thompson said the lot is about 7.666 acres and that the submission requests relief from several standards: 1,863 parking spaces required by the ordinance versus approximately 804 spaces proposed on Lot 27 (the plan counts additional off‑site overflow parking separately); front and side setback relief (10 feet provided where 20 and 10 are required, respectively); reduced stall dimensions and 113 compact spaces; and lighting intensity that exceeds the 0.3 foot‑candles allowance at some property lines. He also said the Sandbox operates seasonally (April 1–Oct. 31), typically fields 5–20 staff on peak days and has a stated venue capacity of up to 1,500 people.

Residents and board members pressed the applicant on operational details and potential impacts. On parking, Thompson explained the proposed double‑stack valet arrangement and said the lifts are intended to recover roughly 140 effective spaces through vertical stacking; he described those valet stalls as "premium" spaces and said the plan still relies on an off‑site overflow lot to meet demand. "Because we define the drive aisles and add safety features, the number of marked spaces on the site declines, so the lifts are a way to get closer to the practical capacity that exists today," he said.

On stormwater and flooding, several speakers asked for the full hydrologic and hydraulic analyses and questioned whether the existing municipal pipes—described in public comment as clogged or back‑pitched—would accept additional peak flows. Thompson said the applicant prepared the required 2‑, 10‑ and 100‑year analyses for DEP review, that the design reduces impervious cover slightly and adds inlets to improve drainage, and that large storm events would still inundate the lot because it is in the floodplain. He agreed to provide the board and municipal clerk with the full stormwater tables and the April 2025 report so the professionals can review the calculations.

Noise and operational controls for the proposed lifts were a frequent concern. A resident asked about decibel levels and whether multiple lifts operating together would create a nuisance. Thompson estimated individual lift operation noise in a range "between 50 and 75 decibels" and said the lifts and motors would be selected or sound‑proofed to meet the local noise ordinance limits (65 dB daytime at the property line, 55 dB nighttime). Board members and residents recommended that the applicant bring a noise expert and more specific lift‑operation protocols (hours, staffing, number of lifts operating simultaneously) to the next hearing.

Other questions included refuse/dumpster location (applicant: northeast corner of the site), the need for a fire lane and fire hydrant access, whether the lifts would be within setback areas (the applicant requested a design waiver), how compact‑space enforcement would work in a first‑come, first‑served lot, and whether the applicant would own and operate the valet/lift system or contract it to a third party.

Because of the number and technical nature of outstanding questions—including requests for the CAPRA permit copy, the full, untruncated stormwater tables, ridership/maritime logs to model trip counts, and a traffic/parking analysis—the board agreed to continue the hearing. The Highlands Landing Corp. application was carried to the board's January 13 meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the same community center; members asked the applicant to return with the additional reports and experts who can answer operational, noise and traffic questions.

The hearing resumes Jan. 13; until then the board's professionals will review the full stormwater and parking analyses and the applicant indicated it will submit the requested materials to the municipal clerk and the board's professionals.