Rehoboth commissioners choose planners over city staff

Rehoboth Beach commissioners have scheduled a public hearing for Tuesday, March 11, on an ordinance that gives the planning commission interpretive authority over the city’s zoning code. However, no public hearing was scheduled on an ordinance that gives that power to the city’s building inspector.

For well over a year, city commissioners, planning commissioners and city building officials have been discussing who should have interpretive authority over the city’s zoning code. For various reasons, planning commissioners think they should. For another set of reasons, the city’s building officials think they should. Both sides made their pitch to city commissioners during a joint meeting Jan. 23.

Leaving the joint meeting, the expectation was that during a special meeting Jan. 31, city commissioners would set public hearings on two ordinances – one that gives the power to the planning commission, another that gives the power to the building inspector.

That’s not what happened. After a brief discussion, primarily on what date works best for everyone’s schedule, Commissioners Patrick Gossett, Francis “Bunky” Markert, Mark Saunders and Craig Thier voted against setting a public hearing on an ordinance giving the power to the building inspector.

Commissioner Edward Chrzanowski called out his fellow commissioners after the failed vote, saying he was incredibly disappointed with his colleagues.

It is incredibly disingenuous and an example of bad government, said Chrzanowski. The point of a public hearing is to hear points of view and then take proper consideration, he said, adding he will not be attending the meeting if both options are not being considered.

Commissioner Suzanne Goode had a similar view. The intention of the hearings was to allow the public to express their preference, said Goode. It seems the building inspector version is being hastily jettisoned, she said.

“Something is wrong here,” said Goode.

Following the vote, Gossett and Saunders explained their decision.

It does not make common sense to pass two conflicting ordinances, said Gossett. Therefore, it does not make sense to hold two hearings at the same time on conflicting ordinances, he said.

Saunders said he had posed the possibility of doing something like this at the joint meeting the week prior. His reasoning, he said, was that having two public hearings seemed messy because what happens if both fail or both pass.

“Keep in mind, any public member can still speak for or against,” said Saunders. “Why make them first speak against one possible motion and then later have them speak against another? [It] just seems more complicated than it needs to be.”

Markert and Thier could not be reached for comment.

Separate from setting the public hearing date, Goode made a motion that no taxpayer-funded attorneys be present during the public hearing. No one seconded the motion, so it failed.