Bethany Beach planning commissioners on Jan. 19 expressed their concerns about a lack of information and clarity in the sketch plan presented to them for the proposed Mews of Bethany community.
Stanley J. Walcek, the owner of the property at 501 Garfield Parkway, presented the plan with the preface that he was attempting to obtain permission from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reclaim about 2.2 acres of his 10-acre wetland property, which is bordered by a canal, Gibson Avenue and Tingle Road. In order to do so, he said, the Corps required the town to express some form of approval for his overall plan for the land.
Walcek said he planned to build an 18-lot planned residential development (PRD) or subdivision on the property if hurdles to use of the property for that purpose can be overcome.
State officials, he said, had also predicated any access for the community off Route 26 as requiring him to reserve potential access area to connect the community’s interior roads to nearby Central Boulevard Extended.
Town officials rejected formalizing the extension of Central Boulevard to the area about 18 months ago, but Walcek said he had interpreted the interest of state officials in preserving a possible access through his property as potentially indicating future state pressure to extend the road, even though the town — and more than a few residents — have opposed it.
“We are very opposed to extending Central Boulevard,” neighbor Carolyn Miller Parr told commissioners on Jan. 19.
“The state told me to reserve it. And they are well aware of the objections to having Central extended,” said Walcek.
“If it happens, it will be because the state does it,” added Commissioner Don Doyle.
Building Inspector John Eckrich said he believed state officials could deny Walcek access from his property onto Route 26, since he would technically be able to access Central Boulevard.
“Could the state force the town to allow the extension of Central?” Doyle queried. Eckrich’s reply was in the affirmative.
Walcek said he believed the effort to force him to reserve area for a connection through to Central Boulevard suggested the state might push the town to extend the former “paper street” at a later time, if deemed appropriate.
“I guarantee you the town of Bethany Beach will want to open Central Boulevard in 20 years,” put in Bethany Beach Town Council Member Steve Wode, who was present at the Jan. 19 meeting. He alluded to growing traffic tie-ups in the town, and indeed, he said, the road had originally been envisioned as a main thoroughfare for the town — hence, its “boulevard” designation.
Neighbors also expressed concern about the plan’s potential impact on stormwater flow in the area.
“It can’t handle all the water now, and now you’re talking about filling about 20 percent of the wetlands,” neighbor and former mayor Jack Walsh said. “How is this going to affect our quality of life?”
Walsh said he was concerned about the project’s effect on flooding on and around Wiegand Lane, which connects to Central Boulevard and also borders the property.
His wife, Jeri Walsh, said she was also concerned about the issue, suggesting that impermeable surfaces be minimized as much as possible on any project there, including roads. Walcek said the Corps had already told him that permeable surfaces for the project’s driveways would be a must.
Jack Walsh said his concern also included the impact of covering much of the surface of those 2 acres with non-permeable surface, including in the footprints of the homes.
Those issues were only two of the possible concerns that planning commissioners will have to deal with if the project moves forward. But a laundry list of problems with Walcek’s sketch plan was cited on Jan. 19 as the reason why commissioners found the application lacking as presented.
Walcek was unable to provide an exact size for the area proposed for the PRD, leaving commissioners unable to calculate a permitted density for the project or whether it would exceed maximum lot coverage standards.
Vice-Mayor and commission ex-officio member Tony McClenny said he’d found the plan “very confusing and very incomplete.” Doyle said he found the plan “too exploratory,” without a clear idea of what was planned and with too many options Walcek said he was still considering.
Commissioners were generally in agreement that many of the issues should have been worked out with Eckrich prior to their reviewing the sketch plan. Though the commission does not approve or disapprove a plan at the sketch plan review, they encouraged Walcek to consider their input and need for further information before the plan could be approved.
Walcek said he would return to the commission with a new plan at a future date.
Revisions to architectural guidelines planned
Also on Jan. 19, commissioners reviewed a series of proposed updates to the town’s commercial architectural design guidelines.
Among them: including “public buildings” in the structures to be subject to the guidelines; formally adding outdoor businesses, such as miniature golf, to projects to be reviewed; adding procedures for filling empty seats on the review committee; and developing a plan to allow awnings, so long as they are deemed “tasteful” by the review committee.
Commission Chairman Lew Killmer also said the updates should correct an error in the amount of lighting permitted, which had originally overshot intended limits by two or three times. The error led to excessive light at the new miniature golf course, but Eckrich said that it should now meet the revised guidelines. Finally, the updates proposed included changing the guidelines from reflecting only “commercial” properties to include all non-residential uses.
Commissioners concerned over county response on growth
Commissioners also considered Jan. 19 their review of the town’s comprehensive plan, as consultants URS are asking for comments on the plan in preparing an annual update. Commissioners were in agreement on a number of accomplished items that should be noted as such in the update. They were also united in expressing considerable frustration with Sussex County officials on matters of wider growth in surrounding communities.
A letter from the commission and town council to the Sussex County Council in conjunction with the development of the county’s five-year comprehensive plan update — still undergoing revisions –— has netted no feedback at all, commissioners noted.
Wode argued that the drafting of the letter to the council — due to the lack of response from county officials — should not be considered an “accomplishment” by the commission.
“That’s like saying the operation was a success but the patient died,” Wode commented, while agreeing that the commission should note that the town had sent the letter of input and concern to the county.
Commissioners favored listing the issue among the “impediments” to be cited to its plan in this year’s update, perhaps in terms of a “lack of a workable solution for the impact of overdevelopment on the town and its infrastructure.”
“They didn’t deal with any of the issues,” Killmer said.
Town Council Member Joseph “Joe” Healy said he favored couching county government’s response — or lack thereof — as “inappropriate response or attention.”
Commissioners said they would forward their comments on the survey from URS to the town council for their own comments, all of which are likely to be taken into consideration when developing this annual update to the town’s comprehensive plan..