TOWN OF OCEAN VIEW

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

MARCH 15, 2007

Chairman Dick Logue called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. with Commission Members Carol Goodhand, Joe Evans, Perry Mitchell, and Garland Saville present.  Town Administrative Official Charles McMullen, Town Solicitor Dennis Schrader, and Town Planning Consultant Susan Frederick were also in attendance. 

1.      The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 

2.      There were no changes to the Agenda.  Carol Goodhand made a motion to approve the agenda.  Joe Evans seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously. 

3.      There were no changes to the minutes from the February 15, 200, meeting.  Perry Mitchell made a motion to approve these minutes.  Joe Evans seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. 

4.      Old Business

None

5.      New Business

1. Subdivision Plat Review – Review of subdivision plat submitted by Timothy and Elenita Yeager in conjunction with Application P-220 for subdivision of a parcel located at 5 Butler Road (405.012) into two lots   Chairman Logue explained that this application would not be heard tonight because it failed at the Board of Adjustment hearing held today and is tentatively scheduled for the April 19^th meeting.

2. Subdivision Plat Review  Review of subdivision plat submitted by LeRoy Thomas on behalf of Mariner’s Bethel United Methodist Church in conjunction with Application P-225 for combination of four parcels located at 81 Central Avenue (PIDN’s 048.000 and 054.000), 89 Central Avenue (050.000), 91 Central Avenue (PIDN 050.000), and 93 Central Avenue (PIDN 051.000) into one parcel.  Russell Archut served as spokesman and said that he is here to present the proposal to combine three lots with the existing Mariners Bethel property.  He said that Duncan Cornell is also here.  He said that they seek approval to combine 93, 91, and 89 Central Avenue with the existing church property.  He said that the church has been trying to acquire these properties and combine them with the existing church in order to give them other options in the future.  The first two were acquired over the last few years, and they have been able to sign a contract to purchase 89 Central Avenue, which is closest to the church, but they want to make sure that they can use it in conjunction with the rest of the properties.  In answer to a request from Chairman Logue, Mr. Archut went to the site plan and pointed out the existing church and parking lot and the location of the various properties.  He showed the location of the two properties that were previously purchased, and the one that is under contract and again said that there concern is that they would like to be able to use these lots in conjunction with the church property and are here today to seek approval for combining all these properties into one property.  He said that they want to finalize the sale of the last lot and look at ways to utilize the property to its fullest extent but know that they need the Town’s approval.  Charles McMullen read his overview (copy filed in official file).  Garland Saville questioned the inclusion of § 222-24.  Erection of more than one principal structure on a lot because he said that the structures already exist; they do not plan to build anything.  In answer to a question from Carol Goodhand, Mr. Archut said that the houses at 93 and 91 Central Avenue are rented.  One is rented by the ministerium, which is a part of the church community in the area.  He said that the other property owner asked to stay there until September, and they have no objection to this.  He said that it is not their goal to rent them; they have rented them to cover costs until they decide what to do with them in the long-term.  They hope to rent them until they come to a decision about that; he said that they will eventually have to tear down these houses.    Duncan Cornell said that they are paying above-market price to purchase this property but would not be fulfilling their fiduciary obligations to the congregation if they didn’t make sure that they would be permitted to use this property for the future growth of the church.  In answer to questions from the Town Solicitor, Mr. Archut said that they are renting two of the properties to the ministerium and a private person; the church is the landlord.  He went on to explain that the ministerium is a non-profit organization that is helping the family that is living in the home.  The church is a member of the organization, but the ministerium is a separate organization.  He said that he doesn’t know when the occupants of the home will leave.  Duncan Cornell said that the ministerium hopes to help this family get on its feet and pays the rent on this house.  They have had the arrangement for about 6 months, and it is part of the community pastorate of this church.  Mr. Duncan went on to explain the mininisterim.  In answer to a question from Susan Frederick, Mr. Archut said that it is used as a single-family home.  Susan Frederick explained that her report is similar to Mr. McMullen’s overview.  She noted the same missing items from the site plan and said that they can be easily added if the Commission wishes them to do so.  She agreed with Mr. McMullen that more than one principal structure is permitted on a lot if there is sufficient lot area, and this certainly has it.  She said that she found no other issues with this combination of lots.  In answer to a question from Perry Mitchell, Mr. McMullen said that it appears that the house at 91 Central Avenue is within the front and side yard setbacks.  He said that there are some accessory buildings on 91 and 93 Central Avenue lots that are within the side yard setbacks.  He said that there are some sheds on the existing church property that are within the 10  yard side yard requirement and they don’t appear to be 5 feet apart as required by the Code.  In answer to a question from the Town Solicitor, Mr. Archut said that he doesn’t know when these structures were constructed but said that they have been there as long as he can remember, and he has been here since 1978.  He said that he doesn’t know about the accessory buildings.  Mr. Cornell said that all of the principal structures are old; 91 Central Avenue, the middle one, is at least 50 years old.  He said that 93 Central Avenue, the yellow house, was moved to that site about 25 or 30 years ago and was totally renovated.  He said that the front house at 89 Central Avenue is at least 50 years old, and the addition is 20 – 25 years old.  In answer to a question from Joe Evans, Mr. Archut said that all three homes have well water at this time and understands that they will become part of the Town’s water system in the future.  The Town Solicitor asked that if this application is granted, the church will cooperate with the Town in the acquisition of any necessary easements to serve this property.  Mr. Archut said that they will take a look at this.  He said that they have been told that there are a number of graves along the edge of cemetery and said that he couldn’t give a more definitive answer because he isn’t sure about what easements that the Town Solicitor is asking about.  He said that they might have difficulty if the easement would bisect the property but doesn’t think that they would have concerns if they are on the edge of the property.  Chairman Logue then asked if everything that they planned to do in the future would fit into an R-1 zone and was told by Russell Archut that it is his understanding that other church-related uses are allowed in that zone. Chairman Logue said that there are some things that are not permitted, and he wants to make sure that they check the list before they begin their planning.  The Town Solicitor said that use of the property as a rectory and other church-related uses would be permitted within the R-1 district.  Mr. Archut then asked for an example and said that they would not build apartments as has been done by other churches.  The Town Solicitor said that they would not be permitted to use these properties as investment properties.  Mr. Archut said that their goal is to build other worship and youth facilities and mentioned the possibility of a family life center that might include a gymnasium and places for youth to go.  The Town Solicitor said that it would be worthwhile for them to check with the Town Administrative Official to make sure that they haven’t gotten outside the zoning ordinances.  Mr. Archut said that if they get approval for this step, their first goal is to come up with a site plan and a long-range planning document for the property and would come to the Town to get their opinion.  There were no public comments or questions.  Garland Saville made a motion to accept this application and with respect with § 222-24, we apply the setback when they actually do some erection of property.  Joe Evans seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.  The Town Solicitor said that because there are no planned revisions to this plat, it can be made a final.  Garland Saville then made a motion that it be made a final.  Joe Evans seconded the motion.  Chairman Logue then asked if Garland Saville’s condition meant that they should address contour lines.  Mr. Saville said that his condition referred to the discussion about the setback that was improper; he said that this should not be applied now but should be applied when they actually build something and confirmed that this final approval is for the combination of the lots.  The motion for the approval as a final approval was approved unanimously. 

3. Review of An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 222, Zoning, Article XIX, § 222-82, F of the Ocean View Code Relating to Definitions  Town Administrative Official McMullen said that he has revised the current gross floor area of this section of the Code to reflect what the Town is doing; it now includes all spaces within the exterior walls of a structure or attached structure.  He explained that the yard definition establishes where the yard and the setbacks occur and  said that the Town has had numerous occasions in which cornices and eaves have gone past the building setback line, and the builder/developer had to seek variances from the Board of Adjustment.  He explained that the Board of Adjustment recently asked him to address this issue with the Town Council; therefore, he added “Cornices and eaves may project into any yard space a maximum of 15 inches provided that said yard is a minimum of five feet” to this ordinance.  He said that 5 feet is the smallest yard permitted in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts.  He said that the Commission may wish to recommend a change to 18 or 24 inches, which is more prevalent in the adjoining towns and may wish to consider cantilevered fireplaces.  In answer to a request for comments from Chairman Logue, Garland Saville said that he had no problem with fireplaces and eaves but he is not sure about measuring from the outside of the structure.  He noted that the ordinance says the area of the floor and said that the floor is inside but also said that he is not a real expert in this area.  Carol Goodhand said that in her experience as a builder, they have always used the exterior walls as a typical measurement for floor area.  She said that most surveyors do that as well.  She said that in reference to the cornices and eaves, 18 inches and 24 inches are the standard in residential construction; she said that 16, 18, and 24 inches are industry standard for measurement of material so there is not a lot of waste.  She said that 18 inches and 24 inches are more of a standard with soffitts and eaves.  The Town Solicitor said that Sussex County does permit some encroachment depending on what and where it is, and this particular ordinance would not be in conflict with the County.  In answer to a question from Chairman Logue, Mr. McMullen said that the measurement would have to be larger than 18 inches to accommodate cantilevered fireplaces and went into some detail about the reasons for that.  He said that the measurement would have to be 24 inches.  Carol Goodhand agreed with that.  Susan Frederick said that she typically put them in that way, and this is the norm in several towns such as Lewes, Dewey, and Rehoboth.  Carol Goodhand raised the issue of adding bay windows.  In answer to a question from Carol Goodhand, Chaley McMullen said that this ordinance will permit these 24 inch projection to go into the setbacks but they must be cantilevered.  He explained that he established a minimum of 5 feet for yards because a 24 inch projection would not leave much space for walking between houses if the minimum was 3 feet as it is in Bear Trap.  In answer to a question from the Town Solicitor, Mr. McMullen said that he would not object to amending the definition of yard to include the addition of gutters and bay windows and changing the space from 15 to 24 inches.  Carol Goodhand and Garland Saville asked to add cantilevered fireplaces.  The Town Solicitor said that they need to add that nothing can be put at grade, and they must be cantilevered. Chaley McMullen said that he would revise the ordinance per their recommendations and present both versions to the Council, indicating the changes recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.  The Commission members agreed with these changes. 

Chairman Logue said for the record and on behalf of the himself as Chairman and the entire Commission and the Town of Ocean View that he wished to take this time to thank Garland Saville for his years of service to the Commission and noted that his input has always been welcome, knowledgeable, and intelligent.  He appreciates that Mr. Saville has over the years made it easier for the rest of them to understand the confrontations between the lawmakers and the builders, and the Town thanks him for this.  He went on to say that he wishes the best to Garland Saville in his new endeavors.  Garland Saville thanked him and said that he has enjoyed his time on the Commission.  The audience applauded. 

Garland Saville made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Joe Evans seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.   The meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m.

                                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                                 Carol Goodhand  

                                                                 Acting Chairperson

                                                                 Planning and Zoning Commission

Transcribed from tape and notes:  April 16, 2007