Lewes considers cap for minor subdivisions

Lewes Mayor and City Council is considering capping the number of units in a minor subdivision at five. 

Tom West, the city’s planning and development coordinator, said a maximum number of units permitted in a minor subdivision would make the process clearer for applicants and the public. 

Without a limit, he said, the building official is left to weigh several factors in determining if a request should be filed under major or minor subdivision. 

“Sometimes you’ll get a subdivision in with a dozen or so lots as a minor subdivision because there is no cut off,” West said. “After discussions with the planning commission, we thought it was really time to have some number.”

But having a limit does not necessarily mean every project with fewer than five units will be a minor subdivision. Several other factors are weighed, including extension of water and sewer or the construction of a new road. For projects such as those, the city engineer and Board of Public Works would have to get involved, making the project much more involved, West said. 

Planning commission Vice Chair Kay Carnahan said the level of public involvement is significantly different for major and minor subdivisions, and that was one of the reasons why the commission wanted to ensure certain projects are considered as major subdivisions. 

“The discussion we had about this did not involve any specific project,” she said. “All we’re trying to do is get the proper level of scrutiny on developments when it’s appropriate.”

Attorney Tim Willard, who represents the Lewes Ice House, questioned the city’s intentions with the cap. He said there are very few lots in the city this would affect. One is his client’s property on New Road, he said. 

“Normally you have a piece of legislation for a purpose,” he said. “What problem are we addressing here?”

Carnahan, Councilwoman Bonnie Osler and City Manager Ann Marie Townshend each said the impact on the Lewes Ice House property was not a factor in the city’s code amendment proposal. 

Carnahan said Building Official Henry Baynum has relayed to the commission that this has been an ongoing problem. One particular incident occurred when several properties were developed between Front and Second streets many years ago. 

“That was very contentious for lots of reasons,” she said. “People didn’t realize it was zoned residential. Then it was a minor subdivision, which involves much less public scrutiny. It was a shocker all the way around.”

West noted that amending the minor subdivision code is one of several items the planning commission plans to address as part of the comprehensive plan implementation. During that process, he said, the commission developed a list of items that have tripped up staff and could benefit from clearer language.

Council did not take action on the issue at its Oct. 15 meeting, and it may reappear for a vote at the Tuesday, Nov. 13 regular meeting.