Bethany Beach Town Council members wrangled over sidewalks at their May 19 council workshop, debating whether sidewalks should be required in planned residential developments (PRDs). With two PRDs currently in the planning stages in the town, on the Walcek property off Central Boulevard and the Addy/Cooper property on Kent Avenue, and seven properties large enough to build PRDs, deciding the issue soon is vital for the town.
That didn’t make a consensus on the issue easy to reach, however, with safety concerns battling those about how the town dictates the use of private property. Even the town’s planning commission, which had put the idea forward to the council, had been unable to reach a majority for the recommendation.
Council Member Steve Wode, who has been encouraging the council to add as many sidewalks as possible and even favors requiring individual property owners to put them in front of new and revamped residences, was a strong proponent for a sidewalk requirements on May 19. His arguments about the safety benefits to pedestrians convinced Council Member Joe Healy.
“From a safety standpoint, we should do it wherever we can,” Healy said, “especially with little kids.”
But Mayor Carol Olmstead marked herself among those opposed to any such requirements.
“I’m opposed to requirements placed on private property,” she said.
Town Manager Cliff Graviet provided some compromise language, offering that the requirement should mandate sidewalks “as needed.” Council Member Tracy Mulligan refined that idea by pulling language from the town’s existing tree-preservation ordinance, indicating that “every attempt should be made to provide sidewalks for public safety.”
Planning Chairman Lew Killmer wondered how much such language would leave open to interpretation at the planning level. Would it, for instance, work to require sidewalks in areas where sidewalks are already present and leave any requirements in other areas to be determined by the planning commission? Killmer noted that state transportation officials have stated a preference not to have “checkerboard” pattern of unconnected sidewalks created.
Council members voiced concerns about state-controlled Kent Avenue, which has become a potential safety risk for pedestrians, as well as Collins Avenue, which Healy cited as “a perfect example” of a street that needs sidewalks.
Still, Olmstead remained adamantly opposed to the idea of a requirement for sidewalks inside a PRD, saying that residents and developers should be able to determine the need on their own property. Other council members pointed out that the requirement would not affect individual property owners but rather the owners of property planned for development into a PRD, and then well before individual property owners inside the PRD would be buying a home.
Otherwise, there was general consensus to require sidewalks in PRDs, but no formal vote taken at the workshop.
Also on the subject of PRD requirements, council members indicated general support for a requirement for an “attractive landscape,” which Killmer noted had been recommended by the Planning Commission and also appears in Sussex County requirements. Vice-Mayor Tony McClenny said he favored the perceived ambiguity of the term “attractive,” since it dealt with aesthetics. Killmer said that ambiguity also gave planners room for negotiation and compromise with developers.
Other landscaping requirements again raised concern over private property rights for some council members, particularly the issue of whether to require the replacement of significant plants in the landscape (trees and shrubs) if the original plantings were to die.
While Wode recommended a requirement for inclusion of native plants be emphasized, Olmstead was opposed to the requirement in its entirety, saying, “It’s private property and it should be up to the home owners what they want to plant.”
On that count, Olmstead netted agreement from McClenny, who said, “The home owners can meet and decide.”
“I don’t want to see Bethany Beach become a home owners’ association, telling everybody what to do. We’ve passed a lot of rules lately,” he added.
Killmer said he would be comfortable with scrapping the proposed requirement, but he said he was concerned that someone be designated as being responsible for maintaining the landscape in PRDs after their construction begins. Potentially, without such a requirement, a developer could have their landscape plan approved and then allow it to die, leaving home owners and the town with an unsightly problem.
“It’s still private property and we’re telling them what kind of landscaping they can have,” argued Olmstead.
“It’s a reflection of the town,” Killmer countered, “especially at the entrances.”
Council Member Jerry Dorfman noted that the town already has taken some control over landscaping on private property, with the tree ordinance, which prevents a developer from clear-cutting a property without replacing some trees after construction. But he noted that the town currently does not prevent individual property owners from clear-cutting their lots.
“The existing ordinances control property maintenance issues,” Dorfman argued.
McClenny noted, however, that some sort of planting replacement requirement would help protect the town.
“It ensures that the town has what it asked for in the first place,” he said, referring to the approved landscaping plan for a PRD. He declared a limited requirement, such as one that would require replacement of plantings for a year after the last home is sold, to be “a good solution.”
Still, Olmstead said she did not agree, though she thought holding the developer responsible was a good idea.
“It would protect the home owner,” Wode added.
Olmstead voiced more objections to the proposed PRD rules on the subject of parking requirements, again on the grounds of private property rights. The proposed rules would ask developers to define any on-street parking planned for their PRD, using bump-outs and other such markers.
“If it’s on private property, it should be up to the community,” Olmstead said, referencing a future group of home owners.
Again, Killmer argued that the requirement would pertain only to a developer, rather than later home owners, since the parking plan would be approved as part of developing the PRD. He noted that the town already requires designated parking areas on both town roads and private ones, when a community is planned.
McClenny reminded his fellow council members on May 19 that the requirements for PRDs are something the Planning Commission has been working on for roughly four years. Still, the council remained divided on some of the issues involved as the work prepares to head to the council for a formal vote.
Route 26 traffic tie-ups tackled
The council also addressed another concern from growth on May 19, brainstorming on how it can work to improve summer traffic on Route 26, and specifically the backup of traffic that is frequently seen between West Avenue in Ocean View and Route 1 in Bethany Beach, and sometimes beyond.
“It’s not just summer back-up,” Olmstead said, “it’s regular backup.”
“Route 26 is a mess,” McClenny agreed. “I don’t see it getting any better.”
McClenny said he would like to see state transportation officials investigate, “and not put off seeing how they can make it better.”
He noted that, as an Ocean View property owner as well, he acknowledged that the real problem with the backup to and beyond Bethany Beach is the traffic light at West Avenue.
“It messes up the traffic,” he said, pointing to backups from Route 26, onto Route 1 and north on Saturday afternoons, as cars attempt to get through the West Avenue light and then through the light one short block to the west, at Central Avenue.
“Our town is doing everything they can by having an officer there when needed to speed traffic,” he said of the closest light inside Bethany Beach, at St. Ann’s Catholic Church. “There is no Ocean View officer.”
“We have a problem and I don’t see anyone sitting down as a community to do anything about it,” McClenny said. “Someone needs to do something about this traffic situation.”
Mulligan said he’d already called state transportation officials about the problem, but that they’d referred him to the Delaware State Police, since they patrol the state-controlled road.
“We need to do something by the end of June to move the traffic,” Mulligan said, stressing the urgency of a quick solution, and citing safety and energy issues as cars idle in heavy traffic backups.
“This is absurd,” he said. “We should do something and do it by this summer.”
Graviet recommended the council direct the Bethany Beach Police Department’s public safety staff to write to DelDOT and DSP officials about the problem and see what response they get.
“The question would be, could DelDOT cycle the lights differently?” he said.
Olmstead noted that she had spoken with Ocean View officials about the issue and was told they shared Bethany’s view that there is a problem being caused by the light at West Avenue. She said she was told that a past Ocean View town council might have pushed for that light out of concerns for safety in their own neighborhoods.
“But it’s not a facilitator to traffic moving along,” she said. “It’s a deterrent to traffic moving along.”
McClenny said the major issue surrounding the addition of the West Avenue traffic light had been a concern over the number of accidents at the Route 26/West Avenue intersection, particularly as drivers tried to cross Route 26 on West. In that respect, the light has reportedly been a success, no matter its impact on the rest of the area’s traffic.
Wode, also a property owner in Ocean View, said he’d recommended to DelDOT officials even before the light was added to eliminate cross traffic on West Avenue north across Route 26, which he still feels is the way to solve the safety concerns, without the light. “Woodland has the same problem,” he said. “The cross traffic has to stop.”
Council members expressed support on consensus for Graviet’s plan to have the BBPD contact DelDOT, the DSP and Ocean View police on the issue, as a next step on Bethany’s part, but they also generally agreed that the problem is unlikely to be improved by this summer. Mulligan and Olmstead said they felt it could be improved that quickly, however.
“It could by July 4,” Graviet suggested, adding that the town should question state officials as to whether the unintended consequence of the West Avenue traffic light being added was the traffic bottleneck that is now seen between that intersection and Route 1.
As for its own pedestrian and bicycle safety plan, Graviet updated the council on plans to provide “safe havens” for pedestrians on Wellington and Oceanview parkways, as well as Central Boulevard.
Temporary measures on Wellington and Oceanview have been implemented in the 100 and 200 blocks, while Central has received attention in the 200 block with work ongoing in the 100 block, as well as work to repair the existing sidewalk on the south side. Other segments of the east-west roadways are still planned for pedestrian improvements.
More extensive work is planned for the town’s next budget cycle, Graviet noted.
“I’d prefer to spend the money on this sort of thing than on Streetscape, moving poles,” McClenny noted. “There are safety issues involved.” Wode agreed.