OV considers comments on code revisions

The Ocean View Town Council held a special workshop on Aug. 31 to review and discuss the town’s existing Land Use and Development Code.

Administrative Official Charles McMullen distributed a packet of questions and comments he had received from council members and Planning and Zoning Commission members, as well as residential communities and independent firms.

McMullen presented suggestions from local business and property owner Andy Timmons that 80 percent commercial use be allowed in the newly proposed mix-use planned communities, whereas the town is proposing a 50-50 residential-commercial ratio.

“The purpose of a planned community such as that was to have the relationship there, something much like they have in Lewes at Five-Points, where they have a general business area mixed in with residential,” explained McMullen.

“In fact, you don’t have mixed use. You have a commercial use of the property,” noted Town Solicitor Dennis Schrader. “So the idea behind the balance was to be sure that there was going to be even development of both parts.”

Timmons’ written suggestion stated that such a change in ratio would “allow flexibility for success.”

“That’s not our job,” said Mayor Gordon Wood. “Our job is to provide solid, good planning.”

“This allows them to have something where the forefront of the development or parcel would present a commercial area, with access for the residential community in the back,” said McMullen. “That was one of the thoughts and ideas when we did this.”

Timmons had also suggested to the council that the number of Planning and Zoning Commission members be increased. Both McMullen and Schrader advised against the proposed change.

“When you go around and try to find five who are willing to sit down 12 times a year to do planning and zoning work, in a community that’s largely retired, you exhaust your available resource pool of talent. To increase these does not necessarily make them more efficient,” said Schrader.

Another recommendation to council was that the wording of the town code be changed so that a passed vote requires the majority of the council body to vote in favor of the issue, rather than just the majority of those council members attending that meeting – to avoid ties and controversy.

Schrader pointed out that two votes or less in favor, no matter how few council members are in attendance, would be an automatic “fail.”

Timmons also recommended that minutes be immediately available for public review on the town’s Web site.

McMullen pointed out that meeting minutes may not be distributed until they have been approved and filed by the producing council or committee. However, all audio recordings of meetings are immediately available to the public, upon request, under the Freedom of Information Act.

Timmons’ recommendations went on to suggest that the town consider revising how it regulates parcels that do not conform to town code when the owners wish to make improvements.

“You are not allowed to do anything to a parcel within the existing footprint if any portion of it is non-conforming,” said McMullen. “We have a considerable number of homes – particularly in the older part of town here – that are nonconforming, mostly because of the encroachment of the front-yard setback. We allow no change within that footprint,” stated McMullen.

“The fundamental thrust of being a zoning official or land-use planner or the role that you’re doing tonight is that, ultimately, you’re trying to get people to come into conformity with code, not provide them with opportunities to escape the effect of the code,” commented Schrader. “I appreciate that what Mr. Timmons is doing is somewhat assertive, maybe even aggressive, but when you get to nonconformities, there is a real balancing act that must be performed… I think the current ordinance does that.”

Timmons went on to suggest that town code require public notices to be posted on the town’s Web site, to allow for “transparency” and encourage public involvement.

McMullen noted, “It’s not required by state law for it to be placed on the town Web site,” adding that he had no objection to the Web site postings. He requested the council be consistent in posting.

The town currently informs residents of public hearings, and pending council decisions, via certified mail to those persons affected, as well as via publication in local newspapers, and posting a notice on the town’s bulletin board and agenda board.

“By putting additional items on the town Web site, it is just one more way of letting people know,” said Schrader.

“It’s one less opportunity for people to say that they didn’t know,” added Lawless.

Of Timmons’ suggestions and comments, Wood stated, “It is appreciated what Andy did and the time that he took.”

McMullen went on to address other concerns that had been brought to his attention.

The town’s current code defines a permitted “grocery/convenience store” as being 3,000 square feet or less. In the proposed revision presented to council, McMullen stated that a permitted grocery store had yet to be defined other than being greater than 5,000 square feet, but that a permitted convenience store had been defined as being less than 5,000 square feet.

Wood asked McMullen to define a grocery store. McMullen replied that a definition – outside of the size limitations – was not written. Wood then requested that McMullen present to council a proposed definition of grocery store at their next meeting.

Wetlands buffer zones have been a point of contention with some residents and McMullen suggested the town “minimize” its involvement with wetland regulations.

“While Planning and Zoning is suggesting that we stay with the 75-foot buffer, others have suggested that we either stay with what we have, at 25 feet, or what the state has, which is 50 feet,” he said.

McMullen requested the chance to review and discuss with outside consultants how involved the town should be and to present that information to council on a future date.

“We need to have a reason and a rationale for creating it, not just because we think it’s the right thing to do,” McMullen said.

“Why would we do anything different than what the state requires?” asked Wood.

“I’m going to tell you right now – 50 is not chiseled in stone with the state,” Schrader interjected.

McMullen pressed the council to allow him to explore the town’s options further.

“I have no problem with that, but at least one council member says this is a thicket we want to stay out of,” said Wood.

“I think having a logic trail of why we have a buffer, what that buffer would be, is great – as long as we understand what it is we’re trying to accomplish,” said Lawless, adding he had no problem with McMullen giving the council more information at a future meeting.

Of the code revision process, McMullen stated, “We tried to change what we thought was appropriate.”

Council has requested numerous times that those persons who could be affected by the code revisions contact the town or attend future meetings.

“Anybody whose ox is likely to be gorged in this process, we’d like to hear from beforehand, rather than a year later,” said Lawless.

Council members plan to vote on the revised Land Use and Development Code at their Sept. 21 council meeting, to be held at 7 p.m.