The Sussex County Board of Adjustments on Feb. 5 unanimously denied the application by Anthony Crivella for a special-use exception to allow a billboard on his property adjacent to Route 54 and the Little Assawoman Bay.
Faced with more than three dozen opponents of the proposal, 13 letters of opposition and petitions carrying the signatures of nearly 100 opponents, board members said they felt Crivella had failed to make a strong enough case that the mono-pole billboard would not substantially adversely affect neighboring properties – the criteria for a special-use exception.
At the opening of the hearing Monday, Crivella withdrew his request for an additional 5 feet of height above the standard 25-foot height maximum for a billboard in unincorporated Sussex County, and he downsized the proposed billboard from a standard 30 feet in width to 25 feet. But his argument that the surrounding area was a commercial zone fell flat with both board members and opponents.
“This is a very serene part of Sussex County,” said attorney Norman Barnett, who represented homeowners in the neighboring East of the Sun condominium and came with a petition filled with about three dozen signatures in opposition. “This is our Grand Canyon,” he continued. “This is a place where people don’t want to see billboards.”
Despite Crivella’s listing of commercial businesses near the property – Harpoon Hanna’s, Action Marine, Fenwick Hardware, Happy Harry’s – and his reminder that Route 54 already has a number of billboards adjacent to it, opponents’ emphasis was on the fact that the small, pie-shaped parcel possesses one of the few unencumbered views of the Little Assawoman Bay from the road.
“This would be very noticeable,” Barnett said. “There’s nothing like this on Route 54 in this area. … It will have an impact on the public, on neighboring users, on renters and owners – and all of Sussex County who come down here would be adversely affected.”
Barnett also noted concerns about the potential impact on traffic on Route 54 itself, referencing its narrow nature and tendency to get congested during the summer. He said the billboard was likely to have adverse effects on traffic conditions. “Another distraction is what we don’t need,” he said.
Fenwick Island Society of Homeowners (FISH) President Mary Pat Kyle led many of those in opposition to the billboard on Monday night, presenting the board with her own petition containing more than 50 signatures in opposition and reminding them that the previous September 2005 hearing on the application had netted more than 200 signatures of opposition during a time when far more residents and property owners are in the area.
Crivella had signed in for that 2005 hearing but left prior to the hearing of his case – something the billboard’s opponents attributed to their vocal and obvious opposition at that time. “He saw how many were in opposition and walked out,” one East of the Sun resident told the board on Monday. “He wasted your time and our time.”
Three dozen turn out to oppose billboard
Despite the change from summer to winter for the new hearing, many still came out in person to oppose the application this week, sitting through two and a half hours of other hearings before they were finally heard.
“I’m very proud now of all of these people who came out on this coldest night of the year,” Kyle said of her fellow opponents, who braved temperatures in the teens to attend the latest hearing in person Monday night.
Kyle also said she felt they’d had a lack of notice on the application, since many reported they did not see the required legal advertisements warning the hearing was upcoming and were suspicious that the re-hearing request had purposely been made during the winter, when fewer people were around to notice or object.
Further, Kyle and other opponents noted that the required on-site sign advertising the hearing had been seen there only briefly, limiting the ability of neighbors to realize that there was any case pending regarding the property. County officials said the sign had been posted, as required, but that it appeared to have been “lifted” sometime thereafter – a circumstance for which they said the county couldn’t be held responsible.
Despite those problems, Kyle said the billboard still garnered “enormous opposition.”
“There is such a little bit of green left in Sussex County,” Kyle said. “This is one of the few scenic areas left. … We do not want this in our neighborhood – and for very good reason. It is not only an environmental issue. This is a form of visual pollution.”
Kyle noted that the billboard, at the reduced 25-foot height, would still rival Fenwick’s tallest house (30 feet) and would be noticeable even in comparison to the 85-foot-tall Fenwick Island Lighthouse, which sits just a few hundred yards away.
“I’m not opposed to any commercial enterprise,” Fenwick Island resident Vicki Carmean told the board – “just inappropriate ones.”
“This is a beautiful, wide-open, natural waterway,” she said, describing the location on the bay. “If you want to preserve this for your children, say no to this sign. It belongs to all of us.” She said she felt the proposal was designed to reap personal gain at the expense of others.
Notions of Quiet Resorts gateway differ
Carmean came armed with dozens of e-mails, faxes and letters stating opposition to the billboard, garnered after she returned from a vacation last week and on very short notice.
Among them was a letter from Bethany-Fenwick Area Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Karen McGrath, on behalf of the Chamber. McGrath’s letter, as in 2005, opposed the billboard in the environmentally-sensitive area at the edge of the bay.
“The wetlands area referenced is not buildable for a reason,” McGrath’s original letter reads. “Granting this variance would be both ecologically and aesthetically detrimental, and opens the door for a deluge of similar requests.”
McGrath wrote words startlingly similar to those spoken by Crivella himself during his opening statement to the board on Monday night, but strongly contrasting in their implication. While Crivella said he felt his billboard would be very appropriate as part of the “gateway to the Quiet Resorts” whose businesses it would advertise, McGrath wrote, “Route 54 is the gateway to the Quiet Resorts. Where possible, the views should reflect the beauty and tranquility of our bays and beaches.”
As a former town council member, Carmean also noted the official vote of the Fenwick Island government to oppose the billboard at its previous hearing – a vote that Fenwick Island Deputy Mayor Theo Brans said the council hadn’t had time to repeat this time, due to the short notice. He said the town had received many calls of opposition in the last week and added that he feared the billboard “would change the whole nature of the area.”
Council Member Chris Clark also spoke in opposition, addressing the potential environmental impact of the billboard on the already-polluted Little Assawoman Bay. He noted that federal and state funds had been spent in recent years to help restore wetlands within 1,000 feet of the property in question and questioned whether the county government should, in that light, allow something that would damage wetlands.
Clark also addressed the potential impact of light pollution from illumination of the billboard – something he said could impact crabs and fish that already live within 15 feet of the planned location of the billboard.
Moreover, Clark said he himself had made several calls to the county within the last 18 months to report apparent efforts to fill the adjacent wetlands area with sand. His bottom line: “It’s out of character with the area.”
Property grandfathered from wetlands buffers
On the subject of the wetlands, county officials initially questioned whether the planned billboard location would be impacted by a wetlands buffer. The state has an existing 50-foot buffer requirement for wetlands at such a location – a buffer that would be encroached upon by the proposed billboard. And opponents noted efforts to increase that buffer to 100 feet.
However, Crivella and his consultant, Kelly Pearson of Envirotech, said the deed on the property was dated 1988, grandfathering its use prior to the implementation of the buffers. The billboard site was to be just outside the state wetlands delineation line, Pearson said.
Pearson noted that the area is, however, part of federal wetlands, under the purview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Crivella said that were his special-use exception granted, he planned environmental and engineering studies from Envirotech, as well as efforts to remove invasive phragmites and restore natural vegetation in the area, to make it a “park-like setting.”
East of the Sun resident Frances Hussen was not persuaded by the wetlands restoration plans. “Nature has planted all the environmental ‘flowers’ we need in that area, all the muskrats and crabs need,” she said, to applause from fellow opponents.
Neither was board member John Mills persuaded as he emphasized to Crivella that the board was to make its decision on county requirements alone – namely, the prohibition on significant adverse affects on neighboring properties. He even offered Crivella a second chance to make his case on that issue.
Crivella used the opportunity to reiterate the commercial nature of many of the neighboring properties, as well as its own C-1 zoning. “If I build a structure on that property, how high can I go up?” he inquired. He said he felt the 42-foot structural height limit would make such a building more of an obstruction to the view than the requested billboard, though it would need to be a very narrow structure to fit on the lot.
Additionally, he noted the need for sewer, water, a driveway and regular access to any structure he built there. He said the billboard use would only mean people on the property about once a year, in comparison.
“Beauty is subjective,” he added in conclusion. “The Dolle’s sign is a landmark on Rehoboth Avenue,” he said, implying that his billboard might become a landmark for visitors to the Fenwick Island area.
The argument fell flat for both the board and opponents, who cheered when the unanimous decision to deny the application was rendered.
Future of parcel still of concern
Despite the jubilant mood, some opponents said they expected a “third round” regarding the property, whether it would be an appeal of the board’s decision, a new request for a billboard on the property or plans to develop a structure there.
Crivella refused to comment on his plans as he left the county administration building on Monday night.
But, mid-week, Clark and Carmean were still discussing ways to possibly help preserve the parcel’s current natural setting. Clark said they were floating the idea of possibly creating a group that would offer to buy the piece of property from Crivella — in a solution that would perhaps allow him to recoup the cost of the property and maybe even get a tax break as well.
“Our thoughts are to buy the property and correct any environmental issues (phragmites, fill, etc.) and potentially make it a little public park or donate it to DNREC or another organization that will maintain and take care of it,” Clark told the Coastal Point on Wednesday, hopeful that Crivella might contact him about the idea.
Clark has experience at wetlands restoration, as part of a property-owners group that used Bio-logs to help restore a section of wetlands on the bay in front of his home on South Schulz in Fenwick Island.
“We would just like to make this a win-win and eliminate future struggles, and potentially set a good example as to how issues such as this can be worked out,” Clark said of the concept of buying the Route 54 property from Crivella and preserving it.