FENWICK ISLAND – Citing concerns from commercial property owners, two proposed ordinance changes related to parking and mechanical equipment will return to the Fenwick Committee for review.
At a public hearing held last Friday, several members of the Fenwick Island business community came before the city council to share their opposition to two proposed ordinance amendments.
“The deficiencies, location of mechanical equipment, parking spaces and delivery zone requirements that you are proposing make it almost impossible to build any new business on Fenwick Island,” said Kinsley Hazel, whose family owns undeveloped commercial space along Coastal Highway.
Simply put, the first amendment that went to public hearing last week establishes setback and screening requirements for commercial pools, hot tubs and spas, as well as abatement and inspection requirements for mechanics and transformers. HVAC equipment, for example, will need to be mounted on roofs and shielded from view.
Southern Exposure owner Tim Collins, however, claims the proposed ordinance could affect the residential property behind his storefront, if it is ever redeveloped.
“If I was required to put mechanical equipment on the roof … it would destroy their view, their ability to talk and their ability to enjoy themselves,” he said. “My point is that it’s not a problem for me and it’s not a problem for them. But we’re talking about things that will affect people in the future.”
Fenwick Shores hotel owner Spiro Buas also questioned whether such demands were achievable.
“Has a study been done to understand what would be the envelope that can be built when you apply all these interferences, especially the shielding transformer and the forward stall transformer?” he asked. “My understanding from the state highway is that we have to have moving things inside the front … and screening around the transformer is not even allowed by the power company.”
City Manager Pat Schuchman said the city contacted Delmarva Power to confirm the transformers could be protected, but said she was not aware of the front setback requirements set forth by the Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT).
“I haven’t talked to DelDOT,” she said.
Business owners also went before officials last week to oppose an ordinance change that would have established delivery zones and a new parking ratio for commercial buildings such as restaurants, retail stores and hotels. Although the changes would apply to new and redeveloped commercial properties, business owners have argued that the amendments are onerous and limit redevelopment opportunities.
Attorney Richard Abbott, who represents local businessman Joe Balsamo, noted that the parking regulations would change restaurant parking ratios from one per 100 square meters of patron space to one per 50 square meters of patron space.
“By doubling the amount of restaurant parking, that’s really the death knell for major redevelopment projects, which I think the city would like to encourage,” he said.
Abbott noted that the city wants to launch a business assistance initiative that would allow restaurants and retail stores to partner with commercial property owners to share parking spaces. He encouraged officials to see if the plan addresses some of the city’s parking problems.
“My client will challenge this if necessary, if it is passed in its current form,” he said. “We don’t want to do that, because I think there’s a more cooperative consensus-building process that can be undertaken … to look at the parking situation.”
Collins said the proposed ordinance would limit commercial development.
“The fact is that in the last 15 or 20 years, only two commercial buildings have been built from the ground up in this city…” he said. “This has to be reasonable. It can’t be overdone, and this is overdone. This will stop development in the town of Fenwick Island because there is nothing we can do with the properties.”
Councilwoman Natalie Magdeburger, chairwoman of the city’s Charters and Ordinances Committee, argued that the proposed parking changes are less stringent than in past decades.
“It’s actually less restrictive than 1995 and less restrictive compared to Sussex County,” she said.
Resident Ann Riley agreed, but noted that some changes could be made.
“Perhaps further consideration should be given to changing or eliminating the delivery area requirement,” she said. “I think the language for natural disasters should be added. If a building suffers a fire or flood and is rebuilt in the same footprint with the same patron capacity and the same use, in my opinion no additional parking should be required.”
Warren’s Station owner Scott Mumford also asked the board of charters and ordinances to work with business owners.
“This does not solve the parking problem as it is now…” he said. “We ask that you work with us, work with me. Do not pass this ordinance.”
At a city council meeting later that day, a motion was unanimously passed to return the two ordinances to the Statutes and Ordinances Committee for consideration.
“We applaud the companies for coming forward,” Magdeburger said. “We want your input, we want to hear what you need, and we want to have a dialogue.”
