ROCKLAND — A proposed ice cream snack shack in Rockland aims to trial a new way of doing business – drawing a crowd where vehicles can’t go. 

From an old garden shed situated next to a pedestrian walkway at the edge of a small beach in Rockland, owners hope to fill the hunger needs of folks visiting the public greenspace and shoreline next to them. Yet, few options are available for vehicles due to narrow streets and limited beach parking that is always, even in winter, filled. 

Owner Sally Levi is optimistic that her envisioned business of selling ice cream, coffee, prepackaged foods, and eventually, homegrown vegetables would still succeed, and hopes that other future businesses will also become “more pedestrian,” according to her. Most businesses, she said, want big parking lots near them in hopes of drawing more customers. 

“We’re in the opposite,” she said. “We want to show that if you have a good product, people will walk there.”

Entwined in the parking problem are Rockland’s ordinances on food establishments. Food trucks are considered transient, and therefore don’t need to define parking spaces. All other eateries, from the largest brick and mortar down to this 325 square foot shed, are defined as restaurants. Technically, Newty’s Ice Cream Stand needs to have 10 parking spaces. But, City Planner Rhett Lamb knows of other instances in the City where businesses were allowed a “reduction” from 10 to 1, and will try to help create the same reduction for Levi.

The first project proposed for 84 Crescent Street, in Rockland, is also the first non-residential use for the property following a recent amendment to the Working Waterfront zoning ordinance now allowing Mixed Use Development-Marine (in a 60% - 40% ratio) in the WF-1 Zone(Tax Map # 7-C-2).

It all started as Levi and her partner, Eric Turgeon, were sitting in that yard, 84 Crescent, when a young boy playing in the adjacent public greenspace asked them if they had any snacks. Levi told the Planning Board, Tuesday evening, March 19, 2024, that she had always wanted to do a project with the property, but expected the yet-to-be imagined project to arise after many more years. The simple question from the boy jumpstarted everything.

The Board meeting, however, slowed the project down again, slightly, as Levi went home with a list of Board questions that need to be answered before the application can be deemed complete.

Assuming that the upcoming April 2 site visit and public hearing go well, Newty’s Ice Cream Stand will soon be accessible via the Harbor Trail, a pedestrian path that meanders past the property. An employee parking space will be designated, but otherwise, Levi is hoping to discourage patrons from bringing their vehicles. Since the entrance would be from the Crescent Street and Atlantic Street curve, Levi had hoped for “No stopping” signs. However, neighbors she spoke with are against adding no parking and no lingering signage to their streets. She told the Planning Board that she has no intention of entering the address into Google Maps or Yelp, nor will she produce any signage other than the illuminated Newty’s name on the shack.

The ice cream will be sold from an already existing 325 square foot structure (239 square foot enclosed, 86 square foot covered porch) once used as a gardening shed by Newty Chambers, the long-time owner who, with her husband, purchased the adjacent house as a home in 1960. The shed will have some remodeling done in order to add an open vending window. A second, 40-foot structure will be used as a bathroom for employees. In her application, Levi vowed to make sure that employees monitored the property for trash after they closed each shift – Six days per week (though Levi hasn’t decided whether the closed day will be Tuesday or Wednesday). Hours of operation will be 12 p.m. - 9 p.m., and Levi does not yet intend to provide seating, other than maybe places for patrons to wait for their orders.

Prior to the start of Levi’s time answering questions, the Chair disclosed to the audience that she knows Levi as being fellow residents of the same town, and has visited Levi’s art gallery. However, the Chair felt no obligation to recuse herself from commenting and voting on the proposal. A second Board member, though, announced that he lived in the same neighborhood, and recused himself from commenting and voting. 

In the coming weeks, Levi and her architect, Chuck Campbell, will address a list of concerns that arose during the Planning Board meeting, March 19. Errors in the site drawings, such as the employee bathroom structure appearing to be in the non-compliant setback zone. The Board also wants confirmation on who owns the white picket fence. According to Lamb, a lot of liability rides on that fence, should people get hurt on either side of it. The Board also wants a summary of landscape ideas and needs the employee parking space specified as such in the blueprints. Levi also needs to work with the Public Works Dept regarding coordinating pathway material that flows easily from the Harbor Trail onto the private property. 

Levi also owns property at 25 Oak Street, which she plans to renovate into affordable housing. In Dec. 2023, to keep the mixed occupancy concept in motion, she proposed a seasonal ice cream stand on the rooftop of the Oak Street building. In a similar gesture to Newty’s, Levi plans to call the Oak Street ice cream business “Edward’s” in recognition of Edward Thurston, who owned an ice cream shop at the same location.

For some neighbors and residents of Rockland, Levi’s proposals regarding 84 Crescent Street hit nerves. 

For decades, the Working Waterfront zoning came with a conditional use clause that allowed the Chambers to live in the structure. LeRoy Chambers died in 1990, and when Newty died in May 2018, the house was put on the market. Several potential owners wanted to purchase the property as a place to live. Neighbors, as well, wanted the house to be rezoned residential. But, City Councilors held tight to the Working Waterfront zoning, citing dwindling access for future waterfront projects. Mixed in with the potential home buyers, other ideas were floated regarding non-residential and very loosely related maritime endeavors for the property.

“Would changing the zoning of WF-1 open the door to development, either by this property owner or future property owners, that would conflict with this vision of the waterfront, interfere with our enjoyment of the Harbor Trail, or alter the special character of our South End neighborhood?” an opponent of the zoning amendment asked during a Jan. 2024 City Council meeting.

The speaker said that 84 Crescent Street is unique due to its residential use, and whatever is decided for that property wouldn’t affect any other WF-1 properties.

“But, can you guarantee that?” she said. “What if the Dragon Cement fell into the hands of a well-funded developer? Could changing the zoning of WF-1 enable that developer or owners of other waterfront properties to make a legal claim that the zoning of their property should also be changed so they can develop, perhaps in ways that are detrimental to our waterfront. Whatever business ideas are being discussed, or promised at this time, we’ve heard talk about an AirBNB, a Mexican food takeout, a convenience store, even a sauna rental, would it be better to table this complex issue and take time to understand the potential longterm impacts of changing the zoning.”

Reach Sarah Thompson at news@penbaypilot.com