After passing a roof pitch ordinance designed to encourage more variety in design and higher roof pitches in general in early 2006 and then having it repealed by the town council under pressure from a citizen petition, Bethany Beach planning commissioners are once again ready to tackle the issue of roof pitch.
The 2006 ordinance was designed to encourage higher pitches by providing more leeway for the extra height that higher pitches can create. And with higher roof pitches, planning officials and council members had hoped there would be less of the “big box” design of home that many had come to complain about in the town.
But controversy over whether the allowance for more roof height would allow taller homes overall led to citizen objections and, eventually, a successful petition for either the repeal of that portion of the ordinance or a referendum in which citizens could decide its fate. Council members opted to repeal it.
At the time, the council had suggested that the Planning Commission take up the issue again and, in doing so, take more care that the roof pitch issue was couched in terms that could not be interpreted as allowing greater height. The issue was set aside for more than a year, until it was taken up again at the Feb. 16, 2008, planning commission meeting.
“We’re taking this back strictly to roof pitch,” Commissioner Kathleen Mink said.
She noted that the existing requirement for a minimum 5/12 roof pitch was being shelved in her recommended draft of a new ordinance. Mink noted that even the 5/12 pitch requirement might not have been enforced at times.
Rather than requiring a 5/12 pitch, or suggesting a higher pitch with allowances for constructing such, the draft ordinance presented Saturday by Mink would flatly require a minimum 8/12 roof pitch over at least 60 percent of the roof area, with a minimum of 3/12 for the remaining portion of the roof.
The percentage requirement is again designed to ensure the required roof lines leave room for a variety of designs without allowing anyone to build a flat roof or to circumvent the requirement by building a façade with the required pitch to cover a roof with a lesser pitch.
“We wanted to avoid impacts on the home owner,” Mink emphasized. “And there will be no impact on a two-story home.” But, Mink said, the proposed ordinance could have an impact on three-story homes.
Mink also noted that previous discussion of the higher roof pitch had netted concerns that they might force builders to use non-standard materials.
Building Inspector John Eckrich said he foresee a situation where a builder might have to cut an 8-foot-long 2-by-4 down to 6 feet in length to meet the pitch requirements and not exceed the existing overall height cap.
Vice-Mayor Tony McClenny, who serves in a non-voting role on the commission, said Saturday that he was also concerned that the 8/12 pitch requirement would change design requirements in a given home, possibly leaving one floor of the home as not being viable living space due to the need to cut ceiling heights short.
“We need to see if it’s doable,” Mink agreed, suggesting the town consult with an architect as its next step on the ordinance.
“This would make homes a lot more attractive, but I think it could be unworkable,” McClenny said.
Mink said she was leaving open room for experts to determine the optimum pitch requirement, which she said could be 6/12 or 7/12 if those measurements would work better in design. Either would be better than 5/12, she said.
Eckrich also pointed to possible complications with construction plans, since designs might take extra room from between floors, where mechanical systems are often placed in standard construction. Home owners might have to choose between room for those systems between floors, having a useful ground floor or cutting wall heights short, he said.
McClenny said he wanted Eckrich to talk to experts on the subject, with an aim to return to the commission with a suggestion on a way the ordinance could achieve its goals and also have people in the town “better understand what you were trying to do.”
Commissioners move
forward on ordinances
Also on Feb. 16, commissioners voted 3-0 to pursue an ordinance change that would add options for developers to end dead-end streets in something other than a cul-de-sac, which is currently the only such street ending the town allows.
Eckrich said recommendations from the state fire marshal’s office had been to include T-shaped and other endings as ways to better accommodate emergency equipment. Existing documents from that office recommend T-shaped terminations, as well as other shapes, and Eckrich said he favored simply referencing those drawings in the town’s ordinances on the subject.
The proposed ordinance would not eliminate the cul-de-sac as an option, as Eckrich said cul-de-sacs are still suitable in some locations.
The ordinance is to go to the town solicitor next for drafting into legal language. From there, it would go to the town council and have two readings before a vote on possible adoption.
Another 3-0 vote on Feb. 16 sent on to the town council for review an update of town code regarding non-conforming uses, lots and structures. The council has already extensively discussed the proposed ordinance, and it was reviewed by the town solicitor, who recommended changes that the commissioners have since incorporated.
“It is more restrictive, but that is the way we wanted it,” Mink said.
“This is a very special community. We take a lot of pride in this community,” Chairman Lew Killmer added, saying the new ordinances would help keep the town as citizens prefer it by reducing the likelihood of non-conformities. He recommended the town not hold off on adopting the ordinance, which is a rewrite of a major section of town code. “It should be addressed relatively soon,” he said.
Once reviewed by the council, the ordinance would be sent to the town solicitor for drafting and then appear at a public hearing before the council could vote on adoption.
A 3-0 vote also moved forward changes to the rules governing the town’s design review committee for commercial architecture.
In fact, the first of the changes is to change the committee’s name and purview from just commercial architecture to all non-residential architecture. That move is designed to ensure that no projects fall through the cracks. Other changes deal with rules for filling vacancies on the committee.
Eckrich is to take the measure to the town council for their review. McClenny said he felt that in adopting the change, time was of the essence, with potential projects encompassed in the change possibly waiting in the wings. A public hearing and council vote would be scheduled for the ordinance after council review.
Information policy
scrutinized
Resident Dan Costello, who was the organizing force behind the petition drive on the roof pitch ordinance, voice his objections Saturday to draft ordinances that are being discussed by the commissioners not being made available on the Internet.
A paper copy of Saturday’s draft ordinances was provided to him at the meeting, but Costello said he felt the town’s non-resident population was being left out of the process by not being able to access draft ordinances for their input while they were at the commission review and drafting stages.
“The more they know about sooner rather than later, the better the end product,” Costello argued.
But commissioners and council members present Saturday did not agree.
Mayor Carol Olmstead said draft ordinances are made available on the Web site when they go to the town council in their briefing packets.
Killmer added that he was concerned about the impact of public review of draft documents before they are ready for action. “We have multiple drafts, and they change over time,” he said, noting that he felt waiting until a final draft was made and then asking for public input was most appropriate. “And our meetings are open to the public,” he emphasized.
McClenny also noted that the commission, with its Saturday meetings, is more available to most of the public than other town committees and even the town council meetings themselves.
But Costello was not swayed.
“Putting them up on the Web site would make them available to property owners wherever they are,” he said. “If you make only the final draft available, it doesn’t generate public input, it generates public animosity.”
“Just because you don’t have angry home owners here, doesn’t mean they won’t get angry,” Costello added.
Council Member Tracy Mulligan said this was an issue his Communications Committee had dealt with previously, discussing the appropriate timing for placing documents on the Web. He said the committee might take up the issue again.
Killmer pointed out that a draft ordinance offered at public hearing was not even itself a final document. “Usually we have one month before a vote. That’s plenty of time to get involved.
“A lot of the ideas we look at are concepts,” Killmer emphasized of the planning commission’s work. “The planning commission should get the leeway to have its (final) plan reviewed, not our ideas.”
McClenny said he also felt that citizens were already being represented in the early stages of the process. “The committee members represent the public,” he said, and bring forward their ideas, and then, he said, the public has further opportunities to comment upon them.
Olmstead said she felt the issue was also not one for the Planning Commission to decide.
“If you want to bring the issue to the town,” she told Costello, “you are welcome to do so.”