Letter: Clear Space proposal oversteps bounds

We need to honor our agreements. Clear Space too should honor our agreements and submit a theater plan that conforms to our city zoning code.

Our city zoning code is an agreement that we’ve made with one another. The code tells every member of the community what can and cannot happen in our neighborhoods. 

In 1970, the city commissioners amended the 1941 code to reduce commercial building heights from 85 feet to 50 feet. In 1975, after first rejecting a reduction of commercial building heights to 35 feet, the city commissioners unanimously voted to reduce commercial building heights to 42 feet. In large part this reduction in height was a reaction to the construction of the Star of the Sea, 1 Virginia Avenue and The Ark.  These buildings we constructed in 1973 and 1974.

The exceptions to the code that the Clear Space proposal requires not only violate the current code, but violate the very purpose of the code, which reads “... to lessen congestion, to provide adequate light and air, to prevent overcrowding of land, to avoid undue concentration of population .... and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality.”

It is hard to argue that the proposed project at 53 feet (11 feet higher than code) with 28 parking spaces (100 fewer than the code requires) will promote light and air or lessen congestion. It is also hard to argue that a 25,000-square-foot building on a 15,000-square-foot lot prevents overcrowding of the land or preserves the value of the buildings around it.

In addition, precedent suggests that the theater proposal is not the most appropriate land use.  In February 2003, the city commissioners voted 6-1 to rezone the west end of Columbia Avenue between Felton and Grove Street from commercial to residential to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. As one commissioner said at the public hearing the day of the vote, “zoning should reflect the character of the neighborhood,” and speaking of Columbia Avenue, he continued, “This is clearly a residential neighborhood. Commercial development would clearly impact density, open space, light and air, and increased traffic issues could seriously increase congestion.” It was also argued at that time that the entrance to the city should not be dominated by a large commercial structure.

The city commissioners acted again April 2006, rezoning Sussex Street from commercial to residential. They acted to protect the residential status of the neighborhood. As in the case of the Columbia Avenue rezoning, they acted to protect what was there from what could be there.  They declared Sussex Street to be a residential neighborhood and restricted commercial development.

Now is not the time to consider unprecedented variances that would cause traffic congestion, noise, and reduced quality of life to the adjoining residential neighborhood. Rather it is time to rezone 413, 415, & 417 Rehoboth Ave. to reflect its neighborhood. These lots should be zoned multifamily or mixed-use commercial/residential. That reflects the neighborhood around these lots. To the east is The Ark, a large multifamily residential building. To the west are two mixed-use commercial/residential properties that include four businesses and seven apartments.  Behind the Rehoboth Avenue lots is Sussex Street. Sussex Street is a mix of single-family and multi-family residential structures, with one commercial structure, the Printz Motel.

Rather than step backward, we should continue the path of lower building heights, welcoming fewer cars in the city (as stated in the comprehensive plan) and rezoning areas to represent what is already there.

Of course, this discussion would not be necessary if Clear Space simply offered a project that fit the requirements of our code. It seems to me that Clear Space’s future in our city is in its own hands. Clear Space need only submit a plan that meets the code.

Mark Betchkal
Rehoboth Beach