Old Marco Restaurant Approved with Conditions

Council chambers were packed with residents from Old Marco concerned about another jump in intensity within their sleepy area of the island and the potential continued assault on the quaint nature of their neighborhood. The Planning Board’s approval of another restaurant at the dead end of Bald Eagle Drive would be front and center on their minds, as would the added traffic, congestion and safety concerns they had concerning a new restaurant.

The development of this proposed new three-story elevated restaurant/bar at 1202 Bald Eagle Drive would be placed on the site of a previously small “time-share” facility. The new owners demolished that shortly after the $4,250,000 purchase in September of 2020.

Residents from Old Marco came forward to plead with councilors in regard to protecting their neighborhood for the second time. It’s been a year long debate over a project that runs contrary to the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan for the island which calls out the unique nature and special character of the Old Marco community.

The owner of the property, along with their legal representatives, were fighting to protect their investment in the property they purchased in September of 2020.

The debate regarding this issue began in February of 2022 when the Planning Board first approved the plans for a 268 restaurant on that site despite their concerns relative to safety and congestion in the area. When that action eventually came before council for approval it was turned down.

The property owner then took councils’ action to a Mediation Hearing which went to a stalemate until the owner reappeared before the Planning Board once again with a scaled down seating plan reflecting a 168-seat layout that would not require the need to come back before city council and only the Planning Board. That plan passed the Planning Board by a 5-2 vote.

The Carvelli Group who owns the Snook Inn took issue with the Planning Board findings. They appealed that vote based upon safety issue which they cited as a detriment to their operations at the Snook Inn and the safety of their customers, hence it was back again before council.

Both sides made their case before council and then Chairman Folley opened the floor to public comment. Supporters for both sides came forward to make their case before council. However two speakers during the public testimony would best frame their opposite views.

Mark Melvin spoke to the message that would be sent to potential future developers by not following the rules regarding how an investor must proceed. Melvin was speaking in favor of the developer. He pointed out that they met all the dictates as provided to them by the city but were now faced with potential rejection after a considerable financial investment. “What would you think, after having met all the guidelines and city codes? Should there not be a reasonable expectation that it should be approved and it was a good investment? What message are we sending to potential investors on our island?” said Melvin.

Howard Reed rose to support the council and their right to reject the project, if in their opinion it is not in the best interest of the city and its citizens. He pointed out the difficulty in understanding the difference between objective and subjective evaluation criteria. He agreed that the plan did in fact meet the goals of “objective criteria,” or things you could measure. However he said that the “subjective criteria” is as important; items such as safety, traffic flow, and emergency vehicle access. “If you believe that this project is not in the best interest of the city, you have been told by the city attorney you may reject this project. If you believe it will have a negative impact on traffic flow, pedestrian safety, emergency vehicle access and the character of Old Marco, you should vote no on this project,” said Reed.

After hours of testimony and considerable debate and one vote to overturn the Planning Board’s approval of the project, council voted 4-2 to approve with conditions regarding the parking layout presented. Only Councilor Rola and Blonna rejected the compromise motion which would require the developer to maintain the 12 parking spots across Lee Way for personnel parking only and the inclusion of dredging requirements to maintain the dockage facilities, otherwise a reduction in seating would be required.