OCEAN CITY – A proposed code amendment relating to non-accessory employee housing will advance to a public hearing with the support of the town council.
On Tuesday, Planning and Community Development Director Bill Neville presented the Mayor and Council with a draft code amendment allowing for non-accessory employee housing. He told officials this week amendments were initially presented to the Mayor and Council last year with a favorable recommendation but were remanded back to the Ocean City Planning Commission for reconsideration.
“We discussed it at the fall joint meeting between the council and planning commission, and staff has been working with the planning commission on several modifications that we think will address some of the council’s concerns,” he said. “The reason we are presenting it today to you at the work session is to brief you that the planning commission is ready to schedule a public hearing on this matter. We want to make sure you have an opportunity to be the first to review this before it goes out for public consideration. This is also an opportunity, if you feel like we’ve missed the mark, to put the breaks on it.”
Last year, the commission recommended a proposed code amendment that could help address the shortage of seasonal workforce housing in Ocean City. With several proposals from local businesses and organizations to construct employee housing, Neville said the town was seeking a way to make those projects a reality.
As it currently exists, the town code defines employee housing as accessory use, or living quarters with a portion of a main building or an accessory building located on the same site to be used by individuals employed on the premises. But officials are looking to include employee housing as non-accessory use.
“The revised code amendments involve adopting a new definition for employee housing non-accessory,” Neville said. “There are several major changes.”
As proposed, the amendments include new terms and definitions, as well as proposed approval processes for small, medium and large standalone employee housing projects. Tier one projects, with 16 or fewer residents, would be approved through the building permit and rental licensing process, while tier two projects, with 60 or fewer residents, would be approved through the site plan process and tier three projects, with greater than 60 residents, would be approved through the conditional use process.
“At this point, staff is recommending that you would authorize us to proceed with the public hearing,” Neville said this week. “I think all involved will benefit from whatever comments are received through that process. And again, we will be bringing back a recommendation from the planning commission for your consideration, probably end of May, first of June timeframe.”
Neville noted the proposed amendment also includes supplemental regulations, or best practices, for non-accessory workforce housing. He said staff was seeking input on three issues – the application review process, sleeping room occupancy, and living and dining room size as it relates to occupancy.
“Primarily the supplemental regs are a new section in the back, which have three main items we’re hoping to receive comments on,” he said.
During council comments, Councilman Peter Buas commended staff and planning commission members for their efforts.
“Honestly, your staff and team at the planning commission came up with something that gets the small projects done pretty quickly and allows for the big projects to have some public comment to make sure the neighborhood is protected,” he said. “So I think you guys hit the mark pretty well.”
Buas noted, however, that sections of the proposed code amendment relating to bulk incentives and deed recordings could be better defined. He also questioned parking regulations.
“In the ordinance it considers two spaces for three sleeping rooms, which I believe is about a 30% reduction in parking,” he said. “I don’t know if that’s drastic enough. I wonder if we should be doing closer to 50%.”
Buas then made a motion to issue a favorable recommendation on the proposed code amendment and to direct staff to proceed with advertising the public hearing, with the exception that the planning commission consider the parking issue and address concerns relating to incentives and deed recordings.
“This is only to reconsider or further discuss the parking issue, not to make it part of the ordinance,” Mayor Rick Meehan clarified.
Neville said those comments could be included in the public hearing.
“I think the easier thing to do is rather than spend more time to cycle through the code change, we will be able to include this in the presentation at the public hearing, that these were comments received,” he said. “That will create the cycle where the planning commission will review them.”
Meehan agreed.
“I’m comfortable with that,” he said. “I’m not so sure I agree specifically with the 50% based off the fact that it is not just J-1 housing. When you look at the individuals that come and work in Ocean City, it’s just like everybody else. They seem to bring their cars.”
The motion passed in a 6-0 vote, with Councilman John Gehrig absent.
