Bethany Beach Town Council members on Monday wrestled with potential unwanted impacts from proposed changes to its code on non-conforming structures, uses and lots. They were seeking both conformity to the town code and to not unnecessarily encourage those owning some non-conforming structures — namely the town’s small, traditional duplexes — to raze them in favor of large single-family homes.
The issue came up before the council on Jan. 14 as part of a proposal from the town’s planning commission and Chairman Lew Killmer, who emphasized that the town had not updated its code regarding the non-conforming entities in quite a long time.
“This is a vast improvement to the existing code,” Killmer told the council. “It will be easier for the Board of Adjustments to deal with these issues because it specifies a direction for them.”
Killmer suggested that if the council agreed with the draft changes, the new ordinances could be sent on to the town solicitor for eventual adoption.
As previously suggested before the Planning Commission, Vice-Mayor Tony McClenny asked whether the town has an inventory of non-conforming properties. It does not, though examples of several kinds of non-conformity were quickly cited by Council Member J. Robert “Bob” Parsons — who also heads the town’s Board of Adjustments — and by Building Inspector John Eckrich.
Council members were of the consensus, as commissioners had been, that such a list could prove helpful. But Eckrich said he expected there would be some challenges posed by the need to go inside properties to determine things such as their actual use, even to determine whether an apartment had been created inside the building, he offered.
That complication raised another previously discussed idea that was not yet on the table for the council: the idea of a requirement for an inspection of all properties prior to settlement of their sale. Killmer is working on a draft ordinance that would make that a reality, too.
McClenny asked Parsons on Jan. 14 whether the revised code on non-conformity would be helpful to the Board of Adjustments in performing their duties. Parsons said the board always works by interpreting the town council’s rules, with clearly written rules reducing potential problems for the board and town.
Parsons said he did have some concern about the term “less non-conforming,” by which the BoA might be called to grant a new variance on an existing non-conforming property.
“Would that be fewer customers? Fewer cars coming in and out? Less income?” Parsons asked about the case of a non-conforming use wherein a commercial enterprise exists in a residential zoning district.
Generally, Killmer said, the aim of the town would always be for conformity with existing code. The residential property with a grandfathered commercial use upon it would ideally be sold for use as a residence.
But the Board, he said, could also find that it was “less non-conforming,” or at least no more non-conforming, for a realty office to be sold for use as another type of professional office. The same would likely not be true of conversion of that property for use as a gas station.
That judgment lies in the hands of the board members, though, and thus efforts by Killmer to provide more specific guidance on what the town council would like to have weighed in such decisions. He provided some 13 criteria for such a decision, in fact.
Allowance seeks to preserve duplexes
Discussing conformity requirements for uses, Council Member Tracy Mulligan questioned the wisdom of requiring that non-conforming properties not be expanded in their cubic footage. The town’s traditional small duplexes are, by nature, now non-conforming in use, since the town no longer allows duplexes to be built in its residential zones.
While Mulligan conceded that smaller properties tend to provide a benefit to the community in offering more affordable rentals for the nuclear family, as might centrally be the case with duplexes, he said he was concerned that property owners would simply tear down these homes in favor of large single-family homes because they would find themselves prevented from expanding the existing duplexes due to the non-conformity rules.
Those seeking to preserve the town’s existing character have targeted older, smaller homes as potential targets for preservation and have discussed ways in which the town could encourage the preservation of at least their facades, rather than losing entire buildings that speak to the town’s past.
Thus council members and planners debated Monday whether the draft rules should be altered to allow expansion of the space in a duplex. But doing so raised concerns that a non-conforming commercial use could be expanded through expansion of its building under that allowance. Council wanted to avoid that unintended consequence as well.
Parsons said, “I would like to allow expanding a duplex’s size within the code but not allow it to become a triplex.” And other council members were in agreement on the issue, suggesting that the physical expansion of a duplex could be defined as not being an expansion in use, whereas the expansion of a business structure would allow an expansion of that business use where it is a non-conforming use.
Eckrich noted that a density increase could be created by allowing expansion of a duplex. But council members said they expected the increase would be similar to that of a duplex being razed for construction of a large single-family home and thus be no net increase for the town.
Rules elsewhere in the draft code also limit expansions of non-conforming properties to less than 25 percent of the replacement cost of the structure, which council members saw as further limiting potential abuse of the allowance targeted at duplexes.
McClenny, however, said he felt the allowance would encourage a non-conformity to remain, which is not a traditional use of town code.
“That’s OK with me,” Mayor Carol Olmstead said.
“It’s not OK with me,” McClenny replied, in favor of strict conformity.
Still, with a consensus on the issue, the council voted to forward the draft ordinance to the town solicitor for codification. The council will have another chance to look at it before they can move it forward to a public hearing and potential adoption.
Boat and trailer rules, ‘special needs’ rental requirements discussed
Council members backtracked on work by the Planning Commission on another issue: allowances for the storage of boats and trailers within the town.
After the town sent notices of violation of existing 6-foot limits on boat trailer width to numerous residents while in a widespread code enforcement effort, some residents had objected, saying a 6-foot maximum width was unnecessarily small for today’s larger boats.
The commission had subsequently drafted slightly larger limitations and specific limitations on boats themselves, seeking to control the size of the boats and of boats stored off trailers.
But Town Manager Cliff Graviet on Monday said he believed the town should ignore the 8-foot width noted as legal for transport on roads and highways and focus simply on what size of trailer or boat the town wanted to allow to be stored inside its limits, and for how long.
“What we had was there for a reason,” agreed McClenny. “For $50 for the winter they can have their boat shrink-wrapped and stored.”
Code Enforcement Official Barry English said he was concerned that with just the width limit of 8 feet for trailers the town could end up with cigarette boats of 35 to 40 feet in length stored in front of or beside homes for lengthy periods of time.
The town’s rules on camper trailers already require that they not be kept on a town street for longer than 24 hours without special permission from the town manager, English pointed out as an incongruity with the proposed policy.
Council members generally favored a similar permit system that could help prevent long-term storage of boats within the town, as well as keep truly monster-sized boats out of its yards and off its streets.
Citing the low cost of boat storage locally, but making allowances for the regular use of some boats — particularly during the summer — and for the convenience of vacationers, the council favored looking at an allowance for moderate-sized boats to be in the town for 24 to 48 hours before they would have to be moved or permitted by the town.
Graviet said he would look at a period ranging from a week or two up to a month as a possible line at which the town could require off-site storage.
The issue was forwarded on to the town’s ordinance committee for further work.
The council may also forward the issue of requirements for homes to be rented to groups of people with “special needs” to the Charter and Ordinance Review Committee, after discussion on Jan. 14.
Killmer had presented an informational “white paper” to the council on the subject after some incidents with “special needs” visitors in recent years. He said at least two homes in Bethany West were regularly being rented to a service business that operates “special needs” group homes and would bring their residents to the beach for a week or two in the summer.
In at least one of these cases, police became involved, when a resident wandered during the night and began banging on a neighboring residence, thinking it was his temporary home. Killmer said the home’s residents had been frightened by the early-morning incident.
Killmer said he had taken industry-standard requirements for regular group homes and made a list of recommendations to the council for requirements that might be imposed on property owners renting to these kinds of service organizations in the future. Those requirements might involve things like installing locks or alarm systems that beep when doors are opened, or insuring that a given level of supervision was being provided to a certain number of residents.
The requirements would not come into play for individuals with special needs visiting family in the town or visiting with family or friends, but instead just to property owners renting to a “group home” type of entity.
Council consensus was that such requirements would benefit the community, the “special needs” clients and the property owners, as well as the town government, and they agreed to take a vote at their Jan. 18 council meeting as to whether CORC should proceed with formal work on such an ordinance.