Having all but closed the books on a complete zoning code overhaul that has taken years, Bethany Beach planning commissioners are now looking at a whole new slate of issues that they — and the town council — believe need to be tackled in the near future.
Kicking off that work with an extensive discussion of “green” endeavors, commissioners at their Aug. 16 meeting also delved into the topic of possible limitations on flags and flag poles, as well as on residential parking.
Commission Chairman Lew Killmer noted that the flags and flagpoles issue had been raised by Town Council Member Bob Parsons, based on some concerns expressed by some citizens about flagpoles raised in recent years atop homes that already near or reach the town’s building height limit.
Parsons had inquired neutrally as to whether the town should restrict or permit such installations. As he pointed out in his request, the town currently has no ordinances dealing with flags or flagpoles, in any respect. And they’re not alone in that, Killmer noted.
“There are little or no regulations across the country,” he said, pointing out a singular exception that many communities require the lighting of a U.S. flag if it is flown 24 hours a day.
That said, those concerns raised by citizens led commissioners to draft a potential new set of ordinances that would control the number and size of flags and flagpoles in both residential and commercial districts within the town, as well as their condition.
Under the draft regulations, the town would permit flagpoles to exceed the permitted building height in a given zoning district by no more than 8 feet.
Flags in the commercial and municipal districts would be limited by the size of maximum signage permitted on the property, while those in the residential district would have to be in proportion with the pole upon which they fly.
Those that become faded, torn or frayed would have to be removed or replaced with flags in good condition — a notion Killmer admitted might pose some problems in designating a particular level of fading to be the point of requiring a replacement. Rips and frays, he said, would be obvious in terms of enforcement.
Enforcement raised another concern for Commissioner Faith Denault. “Is someone going to measure them?” she asked, pointing out the potential difficulty of pinpointing the height of every flagpole in town, or the size of flags already flying many feet above the ground or structure.
“If it’s something obvious, they will check,” said Killmer. “They may not check to see if it’s 8.5 feet versus 8 feet,” he acknowledged.
A bit easier to enforce would be new regulations limiting how many flagpoles property owners can erect and how many flags those poles can fly.
The draft ordinance limits a residence or business to just two flagpoles of any type, be they ground-mounted vertical poles, structure-mounted verticals, mast-arm (angled) poles on structures or nautical-style poles.
No pole would be permitted to fly more than three flags – an allowance not only for people choosing to fly, for example, a U.S. flag and a state flag, but for those using nautical-style, multi-arm poles with a central vertical pole and two horizontal arms.
“We worked to avoid creating non-conformities,” Killmer emphasized, noting a survey of existing flag displays in the town.
Even those who might already have topped the proposed limitations would have a chance to make some changes before they’d officially be in violation of a newly passed ordinance.
“If we’re making a change from something people have been doing for some length of time, we owe them the courtesy of giving them a period of time (to conform),” said Vice-Mayor and Council Liaison Tony McClenny, who supported a full year grace period.
Commissioners agreed with the benefit of delayed enforcement, with Killmer proposing that the ordinance, if and when adopted, not go into effect until a future date set at the time of its adoption, such as a year.
The town opted for a similar delay with new signage ordinances that prohibit so-called “pole” signs. That ordinance is to take effect a full five years after its adoption (still pending), giving business owners time to replace their existing signs with conforming ones on a more typical replacement schedule.
Commissioner Don Doyle inquired as to the decision to draft the ordinance with a limit of two flagpoles per residence instead of just one. Killmer again noted the desire not to throw existing installations into non-conformity. The residential limitation being based on a per-residence basis, he emphasized, was to deal with condominiums and planned residential developments, where a single lot might contain multiple dwellings or businesses.
Killmer and McClenny both pointed out that the ordinance would not just limit traditional vertical flagpoles but also smaller ones that might be displayed angled off a deck and could hold only one flag per pole. To display more than one flag with such poles, more than one pole would be required.
“I don’t consider a small decorative flag off the house to be a flagpole,” Doyle argued. “It’s just another outdoor decoration.”
But, Doyle said, “Limiting it to one would be too restrictive if those are included.”
Further, Doyle said, even though the town hasn’t had a bevy of complaints about the issue, developing regulations on flags and flagpoles is still timely.
“You’re dealing with a problem that hasn’t been raised yet,” he said. “It’s good to tackle it beforehand,” he added, making a parallel with the town’s Design Review Committee “acting as consultants to people who would like to know what the limits should be.”
That raised a point of discussion for McClenny, who asked, “If there are no restrictions on flags nationwide, are they needed?”
Commissioners were of the consensus that some sort of regulations or guidelines would be of benefit.
Remaining unanswered as commissioners looked to review the draft ordinance at their September meeting — before possibly sending it off to the town council for review, a public hearing and a vote — was whether the town will permit owners of nautical-style flagpoles to also fly a series of pennants.
Building Inspector John Eckrich pointed out that many already do so, with the pennants carrying a coded meaning.
Parking regs and ‘light commercial’ on the horizon
Doyle also raised two issues on Aug. 16 for future discussion by the Planning Commission: parking regulations and the possible introduction of a “light commercial” zone designed to buffer residential areas from outdoor business uses.
Commissioners held limited discussion of Doyle’s parking recommendations, with McClenny recommending the topic be tabled until their September meeting since it was not specifically indicated on the meeting’s agenda.
Doyle said he would propose that the town limit vehicle parking on residential properties to the property’s designated driveway only, in addition to on-street parking. That on-street parking would be limited to parallel parking, with face-in parking prohibited. Vehicles could not be parked elsewhere on a residential property, such as in a front yard.
“We’re getting in to the appearance of Tobacco Road when people park willy-nilly,” he said, noting that the city of Baltimore is looking to strictly enforce parking regulations as a source of revenue, as well as for enforcement and aesthetics purposes.
“This is a minimum type of standard,” Doyle added. “There are few people who don’t follow these kinds of rules now. But, without regulations, you will have people who do it, renters, who are indifferent to it.”
Doyle noted that his fellow property owners in the Turtle Walk community had asked one neighbor to put an end to face-in parking, which had been adopted at the property to ensure that renters could fit more cars onto the property.
“It would add some type of orderliness to the town, and it would give John [Eckrich] and the police a chance to say ‘You can’t do that.’ It would add orderliness without restricting how many cars you can have,” he said.
McClenny said he was concerned that the town specifically require cars to be parked fully out of the roadway, not just to require — as now — that two wheels be on the grass of a yard or in the driveway. He noted that some residents currently park in their back yards, on the grass or sand.
The discussion of restrictions led Commissioner Fulton Loppatto to question whether accommodations might need to be made for property owners with less room for parking, such as those in the R1 residential zone, compared to those with wider R2 lots.
“I don’t know what we’re going to do for the high-density areas,” he said before discussion was tabled until September.
Doyle on Aug. 16 also briefly introduced his recommendation for a “light commercial zone,” which he proposes to be put in place in existing commercial zones where they abut residential zones. He said the change could help to reduce the impact of lights, noise and crowds from businesses that might otherwise conduct their business outdoors.
The recommendation, Doyle said, was meant to deal with circumstances such as Capt. Jack’s Mini-Golf, which was approved — with restrictions on light, noise and hours of operation — on a lot immediately adjacent to several residences. Neighbors have since complained about interruptions to their peace in quiet, despite the business being in compliance with restrictions on its operation and with town ordinances.
Also on Aug. 16:
• Killmer reported that the commissioners’ recommendations for the town’s annual update to its comprehensive plan had been submitted to the town manager, with a timetable to begin work on the update in November and submit it to state officials in early 2009.
• Commissioners expressed interest in attending that annual Sussex County Today & Tomorrow Conference, which deals extensively with the subject of planning for the area on a variety of subjects from housing and business to transportation and energy.
• Killmer reported that the Design Review Committee had approved a request for awnings to be added at DiFebo’s restaurant. The business is hoping to reduce problems with glare and heat by adding the awnings. The DRC also approved a new canopy for the Route 26 Shore Stop gas pump island — a replacement for one felled in heavy winds earlier this year. The new canopy will carry no signage, owing to the business already exceeding the town’s signage limits.
• Killmer noted that a number of communities across the region and nationwide had asked for a copy of the town’s design guidelines in recent months. McClenny said nearby Lewes had asked for a copy of the town’s legislation on antennas and towers. Killmer said Dover city officials had also asked for a copy of that legislation.
• Commissioners acknowledged a potential for change in the makeup of the commission, with both McClenny and Killmer running for seats on the town council in the Sept. 6 elections. If both are elected, McClenny said he plans to resign as council liaison to the commission, in favor of Killmer’s extensive experience with the subject. The council would then have to find a citizen replacement for Killmer on the commission. Such an election outcome would also require a change in membership on the DRC.