CITY OF MILFORD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meeting August 9, 2018

A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held in the Joseph Ronnie Rogers Council Chambers at Milford City Hall, 201 S Walnut Street, Milford, DE on August 9, 2018.

PRESIDING: Brendon Warfel IN ATTENDANCE: Ronald Baker, Chad Carter ALSO: City Solicitor David Rutt, Planning & Economic Development Director Rob Pierce, Deputy City Clerk Christine Crouch

Chairman Warfel called the meeting to order at 10:00 am followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

NEW BUSINESS Davis, Bowen & Friedel Inc on behalf of Downtown Properties of Milford, Wavecrest LLC, Ditomasso, John 106 North Church Street, 201, 205, 207, 209, 211 Northwest Front Street MD-16-183.10-02-082.00; -081.00; -080.00; -079.00; -077.00; -059.01

1. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(3)(b) which states “The number of dwelling units per acre shall not exceed 12.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow the number of dwelling units per acre shall not exceed 14.3 for proposed lots 1 through 9.

2. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(3)(i) which states “Minimum lot size shall be one acre for townhouse projects or complexes, with a minimum of 2,000 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow a minimum total project area of 0.63 acres for the proposed townhouse project.

3. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(3)(j) which states “A minimum of 400 square feet per unit shall be designated as open space subject to the recreational use requirements in Subsection B(3)(k) herein.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow no minimum open space requirement for proposed lots 1 through 8 and lot 9.

4. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article IV-Off-Street Parking and Loading, Section 21B which states “Use Standards. All uses permitted in this chapter shall be subject to the following minimum off-street parking requirements in addition to any special requirements as indicated in each zoning district. Dwelling, one-family detached, semidetached or mobile home shall provide 2.5 per Board of Adjustment Page 2 of 11 08.09.18

dwelling unit. Dwelling, townhouse, garden apartment or multi-family dwelling shall provide 2.5 per dwelling unit.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow 2 off-street parking spaces for proposed lots 1 through 8 and lot 9.

5. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(1)(a)[1] which states “Minimum lot area shall be 7,500 square feet.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow a minimum lot area of 1,910 square feet for proposed lot 9.

6. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(1)(a)[2] which states “Maximum building coverage shall be 45%.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow maximum lot coverage of 75% for proposed lot 9.

7. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(1)(a)[3] which states “Minimum lot width shall be 60 feet.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow a minimum lot width of 28’ for proposed lot 9.

8. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(1)(a)[5] which states “Minimum building setback line shall be 30 feet.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow an encroachment of 24’ into the minimum building setback for proposed lot 9.

9. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(1)(a)[6] which states “Side yards shall be provided as follows: each lot shall have at least two side yards eight feet in width, except semidetached structures, which shall have at least one side yard per lot eight feet in width.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow an encroachment of 7’ into both side yard setbacks for proposed lot 9.

10. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(3)(i) which states “Minimum lot size shall be one acre for townhouse projects or complexes, with a minimum of 2,000 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit.” Applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the lot size for proposed lot 3 to 1,123 square feet.

11. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(3)(c) which states “Maximum building coverage shall be 60%.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow a maximum lot coverage of 90% for proposed lot 3.

Board of Adjustment Page 3 of 11 08.09.18

12. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(3)(i) which states “Minimum lot size shall be one acre for townhouse projects or complexes, with a minimum of 2,000 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit.” Applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the lot size for proposed lot 4 to 1,260 square feet.

13. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(3)(c) which states “Maximum building coverage shall be 60%.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow a maximum lot coverage of 80% for proposed lot 4.

14. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(3)(i) which states “Minimum lot size shall be one acre for townhouse projects or complexes, with a minimum of 2,000 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit.” Applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the lot size for proposed lot 5 to 1,265 square feet.

15. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(3)(c) which states “Maximum building coverage shall be 60%.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow a maximum lot coverage of 80% for proposed lot 5.

16. Applicant is seeking relief from Part II-General Legislation, Chapter 230-Zoning, Article III-Use and Area Regulations, Section 11B(3)(f) which states “The minimum width of any side yard abutting a street, driveway or parking area within the townhouse area shall not be less than 30 feet.” Applicant is seeking a variance to allow an encroachment into the side yard abutting a street, driveway or parking area of 13’ for proposed lot 8.

Solicitor Rutt noted Mr. John Ditomasso was one of the property owners of the application and he has represented him in the past. If anyone on the Board or in the audience has an objection, he will recuse himself or he can stay at the table to advise the Board on legal matters. Mr. Ditomasso is one of the legal property owners, but is not present today. With no objections from the Board or the audience, Solicitor Rutt will remain.

Director Pierce explained the project is within historic district and the Downtown Development District (DDD) and comprises six parcels. The properties are zoned R3, the present use is existing dwellings and vacant land. The applicant intents to submit a major subdivision application for eight townhouse units. Variances 1-4 relate to the entire project; variances 5-9 relate to the single family lot 9; variances 10-15 relate to lots 3, 4, and 5; and variance 16 relates to lot 8.

Director Pierce read each variance request for variances 1-4. When asked, there were no questions from the Board on those variances.

Board of Adjustment Page 4 of 11 08.09.18

Director Pierce read each variance request for variances 5-9 and when asked, the Board had no questions.

Director Pierce read each variance request for variances 10-16 and when asked, the Board had no questions.

Mr. Ring Lardner with Davis, Bowen and Friedel and Mr. Daniel Bond of 200 Front LLC were sworn in by Solicitor Rutt. Mr. Lardner stated they are here for an unusual request due to number of variances requested. Mr. Lardner confirmed it would be acceptable to present all the variances as one presentation.

Mr. Bond stated his wife and he moved to Milford in 1991 and resides on NW Front Street therefore he is resident in the area where project is located. He was asked to join the Strong Neighborhood Program managed by Delaware State Housing Authority (DSHA). He agreed to join and explained the program this project was submitted to DSHA for approval.

The focus of the project is the fourth ward where the housing stock needed a program like this. Mr. Bond is interested because he knew he could develop better housing than what exists. This is also a viable commercial opportunity as well. All of the benefit of the program goes to the home buyer because the buyer receives a $50,000 reduction on the sale price of the home and does not have to pay that back if they live in the home for 10 years. There are income limits on who may purchase the home and based on those income limits, this project is targeting middle income home buyers. Mr. Bond intends to construct homes in the low $200,000 range.

As part of the Strong Neighborhood Program, 20% of the construction cost is reimbursed from the State using DDD grants. This project has been approved as one of two projects in Milford.

DSHA strongly encourages the sale of homes, not rental properties. The grant was approved in late 2016 and requires half the money be spent by the end of next year so now Mr. Bond is getting into a time constraint. He would like to put nine of the remaining units DSHA has given approval for on this property. Finding land, acquiring plans, etc takes time and he needs to get the nine units complete.

Mr. Bond continued by stating he resides on this street and has seen where this is where the gap in the street is. It looks the worst. There are prominent churches on either end and he plans to design the homes to look appropriate and complementary for the area.

Mr. Lardner provided handouts of four pages to be included into the record which will be included in the minutes.

He explained there is a small piece of land that Mr. Bond has been discussing with the Western family. Mr. Bond has agreed to give 300 square feet of land to them and that 300 square feet has been accounted for in the plans before the Board.

The City code has three different density counts. R1, R2, R3 and R8. He argues that is wrong and should have only one density count. Board of Adjustment Page 5 of 11 08.09.18

In regards to parking, if the project were one block east, located in a C2 zoning district, there would be no parking requirements. The parking that is being provided is a parking lot in the rear of the project, with one access point, instead of four driveways entering and exiting on NW Front Street. This will be safer for the residents and cars traveling. The plan proposes two parking spaces per unit and there is parking available on nearby streets as well.

The properties combined are .63 acres and feels the code requirement for the minimum lot size is meant to be for new subdivisions, not redevelopment of existing properties. The entire block is 1.5 acres and it would be infeasible to purchase the entire block in order to conform to the code requirements of minimum lot sizes.

The parking being located in the rear of the project is the most appropriate location but doing so reduced the lot sizes for the dwelling units. The parking lot will be maintained by an HOA.

Again due to the parking location, the lot sizes have been reduced which is why a variance is need for the townhouse units lot coverage.

For lots 4 and 5, the building coverage reduction needed is due to the staggered right of way in the front of the property. DelDOT may require additional right of way, which means an additional variance may be needed in the future.

In regards to the side yard setback variance, the code requires 30’ however that is not practical because this lot preexists the code. Mr. Lardner explained the side of the building, because it will face Front Street, will not be closer to Church Street than the home behind it.

Parcel -59.01 is a large parcel which can accommodate a single family home, however because the parking for the Front Street units is behind the buildings, it makes all the lots smaller. Mr. Larder stated he cannot stress enough how the parking being located at the rear is for the betterment and safety of the public. And putting the parking in the rear also reduces all the other lot sizes and increases the lot coverage.

The open space requirements for these units is not being met because it would be more prudent to have the residents use the parks downtown, which are so close by, instead of creating open space just because the code requires it.

This is a unique project because it is redeveloping a tract of land in the DDD and historic district. The lots, as configured, are not re-developable, which is the point of the DDD.

Director Pierce stated in regards to lot 9, based on the building code, there would be no openings permitted on the exterior wall closest to the neighboring property and it may need to be fire rated as well.

Solicitor Rutt confirmed with Mr. Lardner there will be HOA documents recorded with the County Recorder of Deeds office. In addition, Mr. Lardner stated he will provide copies at the next approval stage. Board of Adjustment Page 6 of 11 08.09.18

When asked by Mr. Carter how tenants will access lot 1 from the parking lot, Mr. Larder explained there will be a breezeway between lots 3 and 4 which will run from the parking lot to the sidewalk out front.

Mr. Carter questioned if other options were explored to turn the parking lot so it runs parallel with the townhouses. Mr. Lardner explained this is the fifth iteration of the plan and yes they had tried that layout. While it created more parking, it created more of an issue with the smaller lot sizes and lot coverage. By process of elimination, this became the preferred layout.

Chairman Warfel confirmed the total reduction is parking spaces is five and that parking is available on Church Street.

Chairman Warfel called for public comments.

Mr. Paul Western and Latricia Davis of 104 N Church Street were sworn in by Solicitor Rutt. Mr. Western stated they live in the house next to this project and people have told him their family is worried about the impact it will have, although he is not really worried. He recalled prior to the house on the corner being demolished there was a crunch on parking in the area. Of course, a lot of the houses in the area there were built before cars were around too. He continued by recalling when there was a grocery store at the corner and there were parking wars. He would heavily favor additional parking for the project.

Mr. Western had concerns with the 1’ side setback and if that would create a rat run. It would be too small for the property owner to maintain and he could see a potential problem.

He also stated he would like to have two curb cuts on his property so he can get his vehicles off the street for parking purposes.

Chairman Warfel confirmed Mr. Western’s main concern is parking. Mr. Western added during the day the parking is not an issue. It becomes an issue after work hours.

Mr. Spiro Stamat, who owns 108 and 110 North Church Street was sworn in by Solicitor Rutt. He explained he can attest there is no parking in the evenings as well. He stated if a family of four lives in one of the units and one of the kids gets a car, there are now three cars to one house with no where to park.

Mr. Stamat added he also has a problem with the density being proposed. He questioned how many units could be built if the code was being followed. Chairman Warfel stated approximately seven units. Mr. Stamat replied the request is for nine and it is undersized, the parking is not good and there is no open space. This is a money-making enterprise. He wants to see the neighborhood better.

Mr. Russell Huxtable with Milford Housing Development Corporation was sworn in by Solicitor Rutt. Mr. Huxtable stated MHDC is the applicant to DSHA for the Strong Neighborhood Housing Fund discussed earlier. In regards to this project being built for rentals, he confirmed Board of Adjustment Page 7 of 11 08.09.18

the goal is to encourage home ownership, which is why sellable housing is being proposed. There are an abundance of rentals in this area, therefore home ownership opportunity is the focus.

With no additional public comments, the public hearing was closed.

Chairman Warfel asked Director Pierce if there were some variances of the 16 that if they are denied it kills the entire project. Director Pierce explained he has grouped them on the agenda so that if the Board reviews them one at a time it would make the most sense.

Chairman Warfel stated there is not a single zoning classification that would accommodate these areas of town where existing homes are being re-developed. Mr. Carter agreed and added C2 is the closest zoning, but that would reduce the density even further. In addition, according to Director Pierce, if a difference zoning classification was desired, it would require a change to the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

There are several properties in the area that are zoned R3 and do not have 2.5 parking spaces, per Chairman Warfel. That is because the housing pre dates the zoning code, therefore the existing dwellings with inadequate parking are considered legal non-conforming.

Solicitor Rutt added as a historical note, when he was researching this application he found the lots dated back to the 1700’s and 1800’s. The zoning code was adopted in the 1970’s according to Director Pierce.

Mr. Baker stated since the project falls under the DDD, he allowed that to weigh heavily on his decisions today. The DDD promotes redevelopment however these are major variances being requested, in his opinion. Mr. Carter added the DDD is an incentive program more so than anything else. It does not govern the zoning.

For variance 1, Mr. Carter moved to grant a variance to density on the entire townhouse project from 12 units per acre to 14.3 units per acre, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes adding he does not have a fundamental problem with. He doesn’t necessarily think that 14.3 acres may be it but if that’s what they are requesting, then he is in agreement. It is infill development and will meet the intent of … with an infill development like this, to do this project it will take the increase. Mr. Baker voted yes adding he did consider the DDD factor. Chairman Warfel voted yes for reasons discussed.

For variance 2, Mr. Carter moved to grant a variance for a reduction of minimum lot space for the entire proposed townhouse project from 1 acre to .63 acre, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes stating without this variance the project will not be able to move forward, and he’s unsure what other project would be able to move forward other than single family homes. Mr. Baker voted yes adding he did consider the DDD factor. Board of Adjustment Page 8 of 11 08.09.18

Chairman Warfel voted yes.

For variance 3, Mr. Carter moved to grant a variance eliminating open space for the entire proposed townhouse project, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes stating downtown has a lot of options available for recreation and he doesn’t see how having so little open space in this project will promote any other kind of use. Mr. Baker voted yes for the same reasons Mr. Carter provided. Chairman Warfel voted yes.

For variance 4, Mr. Carter moved to deny the variance reducing the required parking spaces from 2.5 per townhouse unit to 2.0 for the proposed townhouse project. With no one seconded the motion, it died.

Director Pierce asked Solicitor Rutt if something less than 2.5 spaces and 2.0 spaces could be approved by the Board to which Solicitor Rutt stated the Board could not grant a variance less than 2.0 spaces due to advertising.

Mr. Baker moved to grant a variance reducing the required parking spaces from 2.5 per townhouse unit to 2.0 for the proposed townhouse project, seconded by Chairman Warfel. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted no. Mr. Baker voted yes because as he walks in this area regularly early in the morning, spaces are always taken, however on Truitt Ave there are a lot of spaces available. Chairman Warfel voted yes because it goes along with the area and 2.0 is probably more than what the area has now.

Director Pierce confirmed with Solicitor Rutt that when this project goes to the Planning Commission and City Council it cannot be denied if it meets the code and the variances.

For variance 5, Mr. Baker moved to deny a variance of 5,590 square feet to reduce size of Lot 9 of the proposed townhouse project from 7,500 square feet to 1,190 square feet, seconded by Mr. Carter. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes for reasons Mr. Baker stated. Mr. Baker voted yes adding that is a 75% reduction and feels that is too much of a variance to grant even considering it is in the DDD. Chairman Warfel voted no.

Mr. Larder spoke from the audience however it was inaudible. Solicitor Rutt stated his opinion would be, for variance 5, being denied and all the other variances, 6 through 9, being somewhat dependent on that what would happen is the site plan for variances 1 through 8 would be approved. But lot 9 he doesn’t see how the Board could approve a plan as shown today. He may have to come back for that. Mr. Carter confirmed the applicant may come back to the Board at a later date and apply for a different variance.

Board of Adjustment Page 9 of 11 08.09.18

For variance 6, Mr. Baker moved to deny a variance for the maximum building coverage from 45% to 75% for Lot 9 of the proposed townhouse project, seconded by Mr. Carter. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes based on variance 5 being denied. Mr. Baker voted yes because this is too great of an increase in building coverage. Chairman Warfel voted yes because variance 5 was denied.

For variance 7, Mr. Carter moved to deny a variance of 32 feet to reduce the minimum lot width for Lot 9 the proposed townhouse project from 60 feet to 28 feet, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes due to variance 5 being denied. Mr. Baker voted yes because it is a very large reduction and doesn’t feel the DDD was meant to grant this great of a variance. Chairman Warfel voted yes.

For variance 8, Mr. Carter moved to deny a variance of 24 feet to reduce the minimum building set back line for Lot 9 of the proposed townhouse project from 30 feet to 6 feet. With no second the motion failed.

Director Pierce explained within Chapter 230 of the code there are provisions for the applicant to use adjacent properties front setbacks within 200 feet of the side lines. He thinks the applicant elected not to go that route to survey other properties in that area and utilize that information to establish that front setback. The City encourages trying to match the front setbacks along street lines so you don’t have something out of character.

Mr. Carter moved to grant a variance of 24 feet to reduce the minimum building set back line for Lot 9 of the proposed townhouse project from 30 feet to 6 feet, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes because it matches adjacent properties of the established building setback line. Mr. Baker voted yes because in the character of the neighborhood, none are 30 feet. Chairman Warfel voted yes.

For variance 9, Mr. Baker moved to deny a variance of 7 feet for each side yard on Lot 9 of the proposed townhouse project to reduce the required side yard width from 8 feet to 1 foot, seconded by Mr. Carter. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes due to the fact it will negatively impact the adjacent properties. Mr. Baker voted yes because he would never consider 1 foot off a property line. Chairman Warfel voted yes.

For variance 10, Mr. Carter moved to grant a variance of 877 square feet for the minimum lot size for Lot 3 of the proposed townhouse project reducing the minimum square footage from 2,000 square feet to 1,123 square feet, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes in order to establish off street parking. Board of Adjustment Page 10 of 11 08.09.18

Mr. Baker voted yes for the reasons stated by Mr. Carter. Chairman Warfel voted yes for reasons stated.

For variance 11, Mr. Carter moved to grant a variance for lot 3 of the proposed townhouse project of the maximum building coverage from 60% to 90%, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes in order to make room for the off street parking. Mr. Baker voted yes. Chairman Warfel voted yes.

For variance 12, Mr. Baker moved to grant a variance of 740 square feet for the minimum lot size for Lot 4 of the proposed townhouse project reducing the minimum square footage from 2,000 square feet to 1,260 square feet, seconded by Mr. Carter. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes for reasons stated. Mr. Baker voted yes for reasons stated. Chairman Warfel voted for reasons stated.

For variance 13, Mr. Carter moved to grant a variance for Lot 4 of the proposed townhouse project of the maximum building coverage from 60% to 80%, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes in order to establish off street parking. Mr. Baker voted yes for the reasons stated. Chairman Warfel voted yes for the reasons stated.

For variance 14, Mr. Carter moved to grant a variance of 735 square feet for the minimum lot size for Lot 5 of the proposed townhouse project reducing the minimum square footage from 2,000 square feet to 1,265 square feet, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes in order to establish room for the off street parking. Mr. Baker voted yes for reasons stated. Chairman Warfel voted yes for reasons stated.

For variance 15, Mr. Carter moved to grant a variance for Lot 5 of the proposed townhouse project of the maximum building coverage from 60% to 80%, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes in order to establish off street parking. Mr. Baker voted yes for reasons stated. Chairman Warfel voted yes for reasons stated.

For variance 16, Mr. Carter moved to grant a variance of 13 feet for the minimum side yard on Lot 8 of the proposed townhouse project from 30 feet to 17 feet, seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion carried with the following votes: Mr. Carter voted yes as it is in character of the surrounding properties and matches the established building line. Mr. Baker voted yes because it is within the purview of the DDD act. Board of Adjustment Page 11 of 11 08.09.18

Chairman Warfel voted yes for reasons stated.

ADJOURN

With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:42 am.

Respectfully Submitted,

Christine Crouch, CMC Deputy City Clerk