Study: Freeport’s shared downtown parking could support 400–510 housing units without adding spaces

A Walker Consultants parking analysis presented to the town council concluded the municipality’s formally designated shared parking system could accommodate between about 400 and 510 new housing units in the VC1 downtown area on typical busy days without adding new parking.

Greg Strangers, a Walker Consultants representative from the firm’s Boston office, told the council the study used town-collected counts, drone photography and the Urban Land Institute shared-parking model (benchmarked to ITE ratios) to design for a “typical busy day” rather than rare peak events. Strangers said the study team found the formally pooled off‑street system was roughly 39% occupied on the busy-day benchmark the consultants used and that only a handful of counted days approached higher occupancy (the busiest counted day, Black Friday in one year, reached about 72% occupancy and was treated as an outlier).

“Using the data the town has and conservative assumptions about unit mix and vehicle ownership, the shared system could support several hundred new units without new parking, while recognizing special-event days will still require temporary measures,” Strangers said.

Brett Richardson, the town’s development director, framed the trade-offs for the council: converting surface parking can enable downtown housing and increase the tax base, but removing too much parking risks making downtown less convenient for visitors and local businesses.

The consultants described the principal modeling assumptions: they treated an acre of surface parking as roughly 125 spaces, estimated that about 75% of potential new housing would be sited on parcels now counted in the shared system, and used an assumption that each developed acre would take about 94 spaces out of the shared pool. The study also assumed a market-rate apartment unit mix (not specifically modeling lower-demand senior or deeply subsidized units) and presented three demand scenarios—high (status quo), mid (some TDM measures) and low (stronger TDM and lower vehicle ownership).

The presentation noted ways to influence demand, from modest transportation-demand-management (TDM) steps—carpool matching programs and preferred carpool spaces—to microtransit shuttles and greater pedestrian/bike connectivity that could lower peak parking needs. The consultant said the team supplied an interactive spreadsheet so town staff can rerun scenarios as new projects are built or as the town adjusts the occupancy target above the baseline 39%.

Councilors and members of the public welcomed the data but pressed for details on ownership and access. Multiple speakers emphasized that most shared lots are privately owned and that allowing housing to rely on pooled spaces would require leases, voluntary agreements or ordinance changes rather than unilateral town reallocation. A council-level participant summarized the concern as a potential “unintended consequence” in which surplus free parking becomes scarce and monetized if the town relaxes parking requirements without addressing who controls the supply.

“Property owners put those lots in the pool to meet storefront requirements; they own those spaces,” one councilor said, urging the planning board to assess who owns the surplus, what the restrictions are and how leasing or compensation might work.

Brett Richardson and the consultant pointed to a recent Depot Street development as an example: a project that combined a modest on-site parking component with leased pool spaces to meet demand. Mary Davis, president of the Freeport Economic Development Corp., said developers typically still plan for some on-site parking and that leasing or garage-sharing arrangements have precedent for busy festival days; she also noted the town’s past use of seasonal trolley/shuttle services as a mitigation strategy.

Property owner Jay Yas and others pressed the study’s data vintage and sampling: Strangers said the counts used were mainly from 2021–2023, with drone photography from 2024, and that the team intentionally included busy‑season and weekend observations in its dataset. The consultant acknowledged that certain land uses—grocery stores and supermarkets—have distinct peak demands that require separate modeling and that individual tenants may require additional parking above the model recommendation.

Next steps identified during the meeting included staff follow-up with a major parking-owner stakeholder (a meeting was scheduled in June), applying the provided spreadsheet tool to rerun scenarios as projects come online, and any policy or ordinance changes proceeding through the planning board and public‑hearing process.

The council did not vote on any ordinance changes at the meeting; the immediate outcome was agreement to pursue additional stakeholder outreach, targeted counts if needed, and planning-board review of minimum-parking requirements and potential options for facilitating leases or voluntary agreements between property owners and developers.