As a homeowner on State Road a few hundred feet from the intersection with Rehoboth Avenue, I regularly pass by the dilapidated structure at 330 Rehoboth Ave. that once housed the Seahorse Restaurant. I’ve been puzzled by the delay in removing this eyesore from our neighborhood.
After reading the article “Attorney: Rehoboth officials biased in denial of rezoning” and reviewing the briefs of 330 Hospitality Group LLC and the City of Rehoboth Beach, I am very disappointed by the actions of city officials in evaluating the proposed rezoning to allow the eyesore to be replaced by a new hotel. I’m reminded of past opposition to the new Dogfish Head Brewery restaurant in Rehoboth and Dewey Beach Enterprises' renovation of Ruddertowne in Dewey Beach. In both instances, the new structures are significant improvements over what they replaced (neither of which was as dilapidated as 330 Rehoboth Ave).
Based on my review of the facts and arguments laid out in the parties' briefs, the actions of Rehoboth Beach appear unfair for several reasons:
• Inconsistent handling: Initially, the planning commission suggested pursuing a zoning change to simplify development. However, when the applicant moved in that direction, the commission delayed proceedings due to an unrelated lawsuit and later seemed to excessively focus on the hotel's specifics rather than the rezoning itself
• Procedural delays: The planning commission moved at a slow pace, delaying the application process for three years, despite the absence of specific prohibitions in city code against moving forward during the litigation's resolution
• Changing focus: The commission began to concentrate solely on the proposed hotel's details instead of considering the rezoning request for the R-1 property, deviating from its initial guidance given during concept review
• Inadequate justification for denial: Commissioners raised issues during deliberations that seemed extraneous or lacked substantial relevance to the rezoning request, including individual research on prior rezoning actions without giving the applicant a chance to address or rebut the new information
• Prejudiced actions: Some commissioners appeared to have predetermined opinions against the application, introducing unsupported claims and personal interpretations during hearings
• Unsubstantiated opposition: Public objections often focused on irrelevant concerns regarding the planned hotel's impact rather than the rezoning of the R-1 property.
I’m very disappointed that our representatives have resorted to a passive-aggressive, seemingly abusive process rather than working cooperatively with the developer to replace the eyesore on 330 Rehoboth Avenue. I’m also disappointed by the suggestion that no one in the neighborhood supports this development – had I been asked, I would have gone on record in support of this project, which I see as an enormous upgrade over the dilapidated structure now.
The continued presence of this structure at the gateway to our city stands as a monument to ineffective government and planning. I know our representatives can do better, and I hope they will act in the best interests of our city.
-
A letter to the editor expresses a reader's opinion and, as such, is not reflective of the editorial opinions of this newspaper.
To submit a letter to the editor for publishing, send an email to viewpoints@capegazette.com. All letters are considered at the discretion of the newsroom and published as space allows. Due to the large volume of submissions, we cannot acknowledge receipt of each submission. Letters must include a phone number and address for verification. Keep letters to 400 words or fewer. We reserve the right to edit for content or length. Letters should be responsive to issues addressed in the Cape Gazette rather than content from other publications or media. Letters should focus on local issues, not national topics or personalities. Only one letter per author will be published every 30 days regarding a particular topic. Authors may submit a second letter within that time period if it pertains to a different issue. Letters may not be critical of personalities or specific businesses. Criticism of public figures is permissible. Endorsement letters for political candidates are no longer accepted. Letters must be the author’s original work, and may not be generated by artificial intelligence tools. Templates, form letters and letters containing language similar to other submissions will not be published.
