It was an agenda heavy with coastal Sussex County projects for the county’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on Dec. 15. So heavy, in fact, that commissioners commented at the start of the evening, “This is Rodney Smith night,” referring to the coastal area’s representative on the commission.
Indeed, Smith represented some five of the eight items on the agenda for the night, though one was withdrawn before the commission held the planned public hearing on the application.
Conditional-use application No. 1633 was pulled from the agenda in order to allow time to resolve an issue with the property’s title. P&Z Director Lawrence Lank noted the applicant, Michael Orndorff, planned to resubmit the application once that title issue was resolved. The application was for 16-unit multi-family dwelling structures on 4.1 acres in the GR General Residential district, northest of Sandy Cove Road (Road 358) and Cedar Neck Road (Road 357).
Commissioners quickly resolved one bit of old business, also under Smith’s purview, with the application for a change of zoning from AR-1 agricultural residential to C-1 general commercial for the J & Y Parker Family LP’s 3.52 acres in the Houston Acres subdivision (lots 76, 77 and 78), southwest of Route 20 and southeast of Road 333.
It was noted that the parcels were part of a larger tract of land, with the zoning change requested to increase the commercially-zoned area so that the overall property lines could be made contiguous with existing boundaries of the same property owner.
Though commercial zoning changes can be controversial, commissioners deemed there to be no negative affect of the change due to its small size. They approved the change 4-0, with new commissioner Irwin G. Burton III abstaining due to his not being present for the previous hearing on the application.
Also at the Dec. 16 meeting:
• Commissioners granted unanimous approval (5-0) to the application of Timothy and Vickie O’Hare for conditional use of their AR-1 zoned 35-acre parcel southeast of Route 54 (Omar Road) and across from Road 343 for a wood shop. Lank noted that the structures for the facility were already built.
The O’Hares explained that they have a construction company (Timothy B. O’Hare Construction) that provides built-in elements for homes (such as entertainment centers) that they have traditionally constructed on-site at the customers’ property, with eight or 12 homes done per year. But they said moving equipment for each job made things very difficult for them, risking damage to the equipment as well. They wanted approval to use a small building on their property to do the construction instead.
Smith noted that a visit to the property had revealed neighbors were so far away from the planned site (at least 1,000 feet) that neighboring residences couldn’t be seen. Having questioned the O’Hares on the typical work hours at the location (daytime hours on weekdays, morning hours on Saturday), the commissioners limited the use to those hours.
No signage is planned at the location. The O’Hares said they planned no commercial activity at the location, with no desire to have traffic going in and out. Deliveries were anticipated once or twice per week at most, totaling four or five a month. O’Hare said that might come by tractor-trailer but noted he himself has one he keeps on site already, something his neighbors are already used to And commissioners limited employee presence to the maximum of five the O’Hares said they might have on-site at one time.
Letters from neighbors supported the use, noting the couple was quiet and friendly and kept the property in immaculate condition.
• Commissioners voted to defer action on the application of Edward Chaisson for conditional use of 38,653 square feet (on Lighthouse Road) of AR-1 land northwest of Route 54, across from Road 394A and southwest of Route 20.
Attorney Tasha Stevens, speaking on behalf of Chaisson, noted that he had owned the property for 30 years and that the commission had previously denied his application for a change of zoning to C-1 general commercial on the basis that he had been very vague about his plans for its use.
At the time, he had mentioned ideas including a golf pro-shop, a gift shop and several other uses. Chaisson had since decided on a nautical-themed gift shop and applied for the conditional use on that basis. He plans to run the business out of the existing home on the property, in which he lives. He plans for 11 parking spaces.
Stevens noted the property was adjacent to golf course offices, a water tower for the associated golf course, a carpet-cleaning business and an auto-repair center. Chaisson would operate the shop year-round, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., seven days a week in the summer and perhaps four in the winter. He said he would be requesting one lighted sign by the road and an additional sign on the building.
Commissioners noted that with a U-shaped driveway, additional signs might be needed on the road to guide customers. They also expressed concern about the planned display of merchandise in the yard.
Chaisson noted that existing buildings would be used for some storage and referenced similar displays outside at Floators nautical gift shop nearby. He said he wanted customers to be able to “walk the property and pick what they want.” That would include weather-resistant items such as scale lighthouses, which Chaisson currently builds in sizes ranging from 4 to 20 feet, and crab pots.
P&Z Chairman Robert Wheatley said, “The yard display needs to be circumscribed somehow. I’m concerned he will have stuff out on highway. I have no problem in particular with application, but I suggest we stipulate the location of the display. If we don’t, we will have hard time enforcing it later. It has the potential to obstruct the view.”
On the basis of those concerns, the commissioners elected to take additional time to consider the situation and perhaps visit the property in person.
• Finally, commissioners voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the application of Bayville Shore Associates I LLC to increase density of the Bayville Shore residential planned community (RPC) in the HR-2 RPC high-density residential district to allow an additional 10 units, up from 332 to 342.
The application was unique in that the plans involved not developing empty land for additional residences in the 91.88-acre development near Route 54 and the Little Assawoman Bay but instead replacing an existing storage facility there with residences.
Shannon Carmean, an attorney representing the applicant, noted that a 40-unit storage facility had initially been built in the development, with an eye toward providing storage space solely for property owners and residents. The storage facility ownership was transferred to Bayville Mini-Storage LLC, separate from the RPC, she said, but it had been vastly underutilized, with some half-dozen units being used currently.
The change in use of the parcel was being proposed in part to eliminate less-attractive commercial use while allowing the property owner to more fully take advantage of the land. Carmean pointed out that the maximum buildout for the RPC had been 656 units, though only 332 units had been formally approved. The increase of density — by .2 units per acre — was therefore less than might have happened, she argued.
An additional benefit would be to the current home owners, who would save in HOA fees by virtue of having 10 more units paying in, according to Coleman Bunting, an engineer on the project. Some small portion of the storage will be relocated, it was noted.
And Jack Daggett, a homeowner and sales manager in the development, said the consensus of homeowners’ opinions on the issue was generally apathy, that no one was up in arms over removal of storage area. “A lot of people consider it an accident waiting to happen,” he said. He said the change would be an aesthetic improvement.
Commissioners agreed, calling it an asset to what is there now. However, Wheatley said, “I want to point out that it does bother me a little bit that something was approved and now they’re coming back and asking for a little more. There needs to be some good reasons why, so we don’t create a stampede of people coming in trying to knock down a pool house and put in five more units.”
Smith noted the commission would review the site plan and pointed out that maximum buildout could have been much higher. But Wheatley responded. “What was approved was 332. I could care less what was possible.” Smith referenced the Americana Bayside RPC (now Bayside) and how it was recommended for approval for different densities at various points. Wheatley concluded, “What was on the page was already approved. It’s a non-issue.”
In the end, commissioners unanimously recommended approval, with the final site plan subject to approval of P&Z, a maximum of 10 units, no passive or active amenity being compromised and the RPC not losing any open space. They noted it was a unique change of use within an RPC, through the elimination of an underutilized asset.