Rehoboth proposes new limits on house size
The Rehoboth Beach commissioners want to limit the size of future houses and increase natural space that surrounds them in a proposed package of new zoning regulations.
A public hearing on the proposed regulations is scheduled at 7 p.m., Friday, July 17 in the city commissioners' room. The hearing will cover two ordinances: the first changes the requirements for natural areas, floor-to-area ratio, lot coverage and rear yard setbacks. The second ties the number of off-street parking spaces to the number of toilets.
New homes with three toilets would be required to have two off-street parking spaces, plus one additional parking space for each additional toilet. The measure was aimed at increasing off-street parking for large homes, while also reducing the size of homes. The commissioners previously debated tying parking spaces to bedrooms and bathrooms, but decided that would make the measure too difficult to define and enforce.
The new zoning ordinance would increase the minimum amount of unbuilt, natural area from 40 percent to 50 percent of total lot area. Fifty percent of the front setback must remain natural area and parking spaces cannot be included.
The floor-to-area ratio, which ties the size of the house to lot area, will remain the same, .6 in most residential districts. For houses with a swimming pool, total area of the house would be restricted to .5, or half the total lot area.
In most residential districts, the regulations propose that the footprint of the house could cover no more than 40 percent of the lot; in R-1(S), a special district for large lots in the Pines, new houses would be restricted to 35 percent of the area of the lot. Finally, the ordinance would increase the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 15 feet.
Building inspector Terri Sullivan said the proposed ordinance will make every residential property in the city nonconforming. All properties would be grandfathered in; all new home construction or major renovations would have to follow the new ordinance. Sullivan said a similar situation occurred in 2006 when the FAR was revised, so it is not unprecedented.
Still, citizens have voiced opposition to the ordinance, saying it is flawed and is a roundabout way of prohibiting swimming pools.
Rehoboth property owner Lori Bloxom said, “The object of trying to squeeze out pools and add parking will result in, first, the nonconformity of almost every property in town and, second, new housing which will not have the character we all desire.”
Bloxom said to maximize their square footage, builders would simply build boxes with no porches or dormers or other architechtural flourishes, since there will not be as much room to build. She said the parking component would have the unintended consequence of creating mini-parking lots instead of adding trees.
“After all, we are considering implementing zoning changes that will affect every property owner in town for a few problems that exist for a couple months of the year,” Bloxom said.
Mark Purpura, 5 Third St., said the ordinance was a thinly veiled way of prohibiting new swimming pools
“It appears that these ordinances are really simply penalties for the addition of swimming pools in an effort to prevent them, and do not relate in any rational manner to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community,” he said.
Commissioner Stan Mills said he was still on the fence, saying he was in favor of some aspects of the ordinance but not all of it. He said he favored the requirement that would decrease the FAR for houses with swimming pools, but he would not say which aspects of the ordinance he disagreed with. Mills said he wanted to hear public comment before deciding how he will vote. He said even if the new ordinances pass without his yes vote, he would be satisfied that the package of regulations is good for the city.
