Lewes Beach residents oppose proposed code changes

Many Lewes Beach residents feel an ordinance characterized by the city as housekeeping is the latest attempt to over-regulate their properties.

A public hearing on the ordinance Oct. 26 brought out many residents who aired their frustrations and concerns about proposed changes and what’s been happening in the city over the last few years.

The ordinance covers code clarifications, responsibilities of the city planner and building official, driveway access, building height exceptions and building height in general.

While residents agree some of what’s proposed is indeed housekeeping, they say issues like building height, driveway access and off-street parking requirements are important and require more public discussion.

“Most, not all, but most homeowners would like to maintain the character of the community, but with the ongoing ability to maintain their homes, remodel, improve and rebuild in a way that’s not impinging in an unreasonable way on the rights as homeowners,” said David Schaen, a New Hampshire Avenue resident.

One of the more impactful pieces of the proposed changes is a requirement that homes within the R-3 residential beach zone have a roof pitch of 5 inches of vertical rise for every 12 inches of horizontal run if they are located in a flood-prone area. Residents say this change would effectively eliminate rooftop decks for most beach homes.

Janelle Cornwell, the city’s planning and development coordinator, said the 5:12 roof pitch requirement applied to all flood-prone areas on Lewes Beach prior to a zoning ordinance update in 2011. When the update occurred, she said, the roof pitch was erroneously assigned to the R-2 zone instead of R-3. As a result, the roof pitch requirement has not been enforced since the zoning code update became effective in 2012.

The ordinance also clarifies what is allowed to exceed the maximum building height anywhere in the city. In addition to chimneys and spires, the ordinance would now allow antennas, telecommunication towers, public utility infrastructure, cupolas and HVAC equipment. It would eliminate elevators and tanks as exceptions. Additionally, rooftop decks and associated railing systems would not be permitted to exceed the maximum building height if the ordinance passes as written.

The ordinance also limits every residential property to one driveway access. Bay Avenue resident Dennis Reardon, a former councilman, said there are many properties in the city that front a street and back up to an alley. In that case, he said, they should be able to have more than one driveway.

Cedar Street resident Jan Allmaras said she understands why the city recently mandated fire suppression systems in all new construction and its connection to the city’s mission to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents, but she said she cannot come to the same conclusion for the proposed changes in the ordinance.

“As a new property owner on Lewes Beach, I know that many of the sections in this proposed ordinance would significantly devalue my family’s property and unreasonably restrict our ability to develop our property, meet our needs and to be consistent with other existing construction around me,” she said.

Jeff Burton, owner of Lane Builders, said he believes it was one of his building permit applications that was the genesis for the ordinance. He said said roof pitch is addressed in the International Building Code and should not be included in zoning codes.

“The only thing I can think of is an architectural review committee kind of situation where we think that lower-pitch roofs aren’t as attractive,” he said.

He said he asked the city’s building official for clarification on which roofs need to comply, and the response was all roofs of a home.

“That all-roofs definition is pretty crushing to the size of homes in Lewes and to the architecture,” he said. “We looked at some ideas to try to live within the rules and, quite frankly, what we came up with is a pretty ugly house.”

Reardon criticized the city’s process in proposing and discussing the ordinance. Rather than set a public hearing for the ordinance at council’s regular September meeting, he said it was put on a special meeting agenda where only one other item was listed – a 99-year lease extension.

“That’s hardly worthy of a special meeting of mayor and council,” Reardon said.

He said he was told council members were provided a copy of the ordinance only on the day of the meeting. It was at that meeting that Deputy Mayor Andrew Williams and Councilman Tim Ritzert advocated for the ordinance to go to the planning commission for review. Planning commission members will discuss the issue and offer recommendations at their Wednesday, Nov. 17 meeting.

“I served on council for seven years and worked on numerous ordinances,” Reardon said. “Never has such an impactful ordinance been presented in such a hurried manner with lack of explanation to the public.”

Due to the city’s pending ordinance doctrine, approvals of any construction plans submitted after Sept. 16 that are inconsistent with the proposed changes are on hold.

Bay Avenue resident Kevin McGuiness presented council with a petition signed by 175 homeowners opposing the ordinance. McGuiness and other Lewes Beach residents said the ordinance and other recently proposed ordinances, such as the source water protection and sea-level rise ordinances, appear to be targeting beach residents.

He said the city’s policies are placing extreme pressure on the family-owned homes that have made Lewes Beach what it is today. He said homeowners may not spend more than 50 percent of the value of their home on renovations or repairs during any 10-year period unless they bring the home into compliance with all new rules and regulations.

“When you buy a property, no one tells you about this rule,” he said.

With regulations constantly changing for Lewes Beach homes, he said, at least 500 homes are now out of compliance.

“It’s putting generations of families that have lived there, that have passed these houses down through the generations, that have paid taxes and complied with the rules and supported the community in an unnecessary and, at times, a severe financial risk,” he said.