OCEAN CITY – Discussions on parking and approval processes highlighted a public hearing this week on a proposed code amendment relating to non-accessory employee housing.
On Tuesday, the Ocean City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing relating to a proposed code amendment allowing for non-accessory employee housing. Planning and Community Development Director Bill Neville said the proposed changes are intended to support workforce housing projects throughout town.
“We know it’s hard work to find seasonal housing for our workforce,” he said. “It’s hard work for the employers, the sponsor agencies, the landlords, the tenants. What we’re proposing with this code amendment is to try to make the provision of that housing a little bit easier … We feel this is a good first step to open other opportunities for housing to be developed in town.”
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.
“This is a code amendment to Chapter 110, zoning,” Neville said. “It expands on the definition for employee housing from where it is today which is accessory to a commercial use, and we are adding the non-accessory potential there. Because it’s expanding being tied to the commercial, it includes more zoning districts.”
As proposed, the amendment includes 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.
“We also added that there were certain exceptions for different building types,” Neville said. “The conversion of a commercial building for residential use of employee housing would go through he conditional use process, regardless of the occupancy number, condominium and apartment units converted to employee housing would require unit owner association approval prior to building permit or rental license approval, and conversion of one- or two-family dwellings for employee housing would require site plan approval by the planning commission.”
Neville said the amendment also included supplemental regulations for employee housing. He noted those regulations prohibited barrack-style housing, set occupancy limits for bedrooms, and prohibited employee housing in the R-1 single family and MH mobile home districts.
“Technically, employee housing can still occur in the R1 and MH zones, but it has to follow the rules that are in place for that for maximum occupancy,” he explained.
During Tuesday’s public hearing, Neville noted the town council had made recommendations pertaining to employee housing definitions, deed recordings and parking requirements. He noted the current requirement called for one parking space for every five occupants.
“One of the recommendations is that the parking requirements for employee housing that are included in the zoning ordinance should be reviewed to try to target a goal of 50% of what would otherwise be required,” he said.
During public comments, Ocean City Development Corporation Executive Director Zach Bankert said that while the organization was supportive of the proposed code amendment, it did have concerns about the parking requirements.
“We, on the whole, endorse these changes,” he said. “The only hangup we might have is with the parking. We feel it is a little too high of a requirement, given the intended use and the tenants we expect to go into these projects.”
Bankert noted the current code, for example, would require 11 spaces for every 55 occupants. He said developers seeking exceptions to the parking requirements could go before the board of zoning appeals (BZA).
“We’re trying to make these projects more viable,” he said.
Glenn Irwin, OCDC’s previous executive director, echoed Bankert’s parking concerns and encouraged officials to take a closer look at solutions. He noted, however, that he supported the proposed code amendment.
“I do applaud you,” he said. “It’s well overdue for so many reasons.”
Commissioner Palmer Gillis said he had concerns about the appeals process. He noted the commission had no way of reversing a BZA decision.
“That’s where I have heartburn,” he said.
Officials questioned if parking requirements should be determined on a case-by-case basis, with potentially no parking required for J-1 housing, for example, and a parking formula for year-round workforce housing. Commissioner Janet Hough, however, questioned what would happen if there was a change in use.
“What happens if they change the property?” she said. “One year it’s all J-1 and the next it’s seasonal.”
Commission Chair Joe Wilson said the code amendment provided the town with a framework for workforce housing projects. He noted that certain elements could be changed in the future.
“If we have projects come through we don’t like, there’s nothing saying we can’t go back through and make changes to it over time,” he said.
Gillis disagreed.
“Respectfully, the council hasn’t been receptive of code changes,” he said. “So if we don’t get it right the first time and the council approves it, we’re not going to have a second shot at this.”
Gillis questioned if the commission would be amenable to adding a conditional use requirement for any parking exceptions.
“I think this is the most important code change we have, by far. With that being said, I have heartburn where our comprehensive plan says park where you reside …,” he said. “I think if we have no ability to override the board of zoning appeals, whatever we do I would still want the conditional use applied to it.”
Neville, however, said that time and uncertainty were the biggest concerns when it came to conditional use.
“I’m not sure there’s a good answer to this parking question,” he said.
Commission members this week also reviewed the tiered approval processes for small, medium and large workforce housing projects. Hough said she had concerns about the second tier, which required site plan approval for projects with 16 to 60 occupants.
“I think that second tier is too broad of a tier,” she said.
After further discussion, town staff agreed to review the approval processes and come back to the commission with different options.
