FENWICK ISLAND – A recommendation to keep proposed parking ratios, but to change suggested requirements for mechanical equipment, will advance to the Fenwick Island Town Council for a second reading.
Last Friday, the Fenwick Island Charter and Ordinance Committee met to discuss proposed ordinance amendments pertaining to mechanical equipment and off-street parking in the town’s commercial district. Citing concerns from the business community at a recent public hearing, Mayor Natalie Magdeburger, committee chair, said the goal of the committee meeting was to review the proposed changes and hear business owners’ suggestions.
“We had a hearing regarding some of the proposed ordinances we had a first reading on,” she said. “We got further information as a result of the hearing.”
In a public hearing held last month, several members of the Fenwick Island business community came before the town council to share their opposition to two proposed ordinance amendments involving mechanical equipment and off-street parking. While the changes would apply to new and substantially improved properties, business owners last month argued the changes were onerous and impacted commercial development.
“The setbacks, mechanical equipment location, parking spaces and delivery zone requirements you are proposing make it nearly impossible for any new businesses to be built in Fenwick Island,” said Kinsley Hazel, whose family owns undeveloped commercial property along Coastal Highway.
Back on the agenda for review last week, committee members met with business owners to discuss the two proposed ordinance amendments, the first of which requiring new parking ratios and delivery zones for commercial buildings such as restaurants, retail stores and hotels.
“My personal belief is we are taking steps on this council to try to alleviate the parking situation …,” Magdeburger said. “If we don’t do something to address this, we will continue to have a parking problem.”
As proposed, the ordinance amendment would change parking ratios to one per 50 square feet of patron space for restaurants, one per 250 square feet of floor area for retail, and 1.5 per sleeping unit and 1.5 spaces for each 10 rooms for hotels. The proposed changes would also require designated space marked for deliveries.
While acknowledging the proposed ratios were more stringent than the current ratios, Magdeburger said they would address the growing parking problems in Fenwick. She noted that since 1995, the town’s parking space requirements had eroded to the point that they no longer met the needs of the business community.
“These parking ratios and requirements weren’t just to protect the residents, but also to protect other businesses,” she said.
Magdeburger told business owners this week the proposed parking ratios would only apply to new and redeveloped properties and that owners would be able to seek a variance from the Fenwick Island Board of Adjustment if needed. She added that the proposed ratios were also less stringent than those in the Sussex County code.
Several business owners, however, urged the town to keep the current parking ratios until a parking study could be conducted. Attorney Richard Abbott, representing Balsamo Real Estate, pointed out that the town’s comprehensive development plan called for a parking plan.
“Right now, we’re just kind of guessing,” he said, “and that’s not what the comprehensive plan calls for.”
Warren’s Station owner Scott Mumford said that a study was needed to address the town’s parking problems.
“I don’t know if anyone knows what the ramifications would be, what the impact would be on businesses in the future …,” he said. “We all know there is a problem, but I don’t think this is the answer.”
Matt Patton of Matt’s Fish Camp agreed.
“I agree there is a problem, but without a study I think it’s anecdotal to say what that problem is or what the extent of the problem is …,” he said. “I can say with 100% certainty there are very few lots, maybe none, in Fenwick that would be financially viable with the proposed amendments.”
Committee member Ann Riley acknowledged that some adjustments could be made, such as dropping the delivery area requirements and increasing the parking ratio for restaurants from one space per 50 square feet to one per 75 square feet. She noted, however, that the proposed changes would not impact existing businesses.
“It does not solve the issue we have today, and I think we are accepting that,” she said. “What we are saying is this is for new builds, so that we don’t continue to make the problem worse.”
Committee members Mike Quinn and Jay Ryan, however, said they could understand business owners’ concerns.
“How do you come up with this magic number?” Ryan said. “I’m struggling with that.”
Magdeburger argued that the current ratios were not sufficient for commercial properties. She said the new ratios would better address the parking shortage.
“I think the proposed parking ratios are less stringent than they were in 1995, but they certainly give us a better sense of making sure the required parking is more adequate,” she said. “I’d say most of the businesses could meet this today.”
After further discussion, the committee last week voted 5-2, with Quinn and Ryan opposed, to keep the parking ratios as proposed but to make changes to delivery zone requirements.
“No developer wants one new restriction …,” Riley said. “But we’re not talking about maximizing everybody’s investment. That’s not the job of the town. The job of the town is to balance the needs of the commercial and residential [districts]. So I think it’s important to put something on the books for future builds.”
The committee last week also revisited a proposed ordinance amendment that would, among other things, establish new setback and screening requirements for mechanical equipment and transformers. As written, mechanical equipment would have to be placed on roofs, screened from view and located no closer than 25 feet from the rear setback line.
In last week’s meeting, however, Southern Exposure owner Tim Collins pointed out the proposed amendment could impact the residential property located behind his store, should it ever be redeveloped.
“My concern is the residential properties that live behind the commercial properties …,” he said. “These units are going to go on the roof, eventually. I don’t think that’s the place for them.”
While he had no issue with the mechanicals being screened, Collins argued that the equipment should be allowed on the ground.
Officials, however, pointed out residents’ concerns regarding noise. The proposed ordinance would require decibel levels at less than 85 decibels at the source and no more than 55 decibels as measured at any residential property line.
“The first issue addressed that was highlighted in the hearing was the decibel levels we had put in place for the mechanicals,” Magdeburger said. “[Resident] Amy Kyle raised the issue as to whether or not they were low enough given the improvements in technology in that regard.”
After further discussion, the committee recommended keeping the proposed decibel levels, but eliminating the requirement to place mechanicals on roofs. Committee members also recommended removing the 25-foot rear setback requirement and maintaining the existing 10-foot rear setback requirement for mechanical equipment.
“It can be outside the 10-foot property line with the understanding it must be no more than 55 decibels at the property line,” Magdeburger suggested.
She pointed out that noise, not location, appeared to be the biggest complaint among community members.
“The purpose of this is to create balance between the business and residential community,” she said. “And the issue we hear from the residential community is noise and that it doesn’t look pretty.”
A motion to send the recommendations to the town council passed 5-2, with committee members Jacque Napolitano and Roy Williams opposed.
“I think what’s proposed represents a reasonable compromise,” said committee member John Nason.
