Lewes’ Tulip Drive redevelopment awarded variances
Site restricted from high-volume businesses
By GEORGETOWN — A Lewes redevelopment effort was granted most of its variances Monday by the Sussex County Board of Adjustments.
This paves the way to add three more commercial structures and associated parking to the site on the east side of Coastal Highway and Tulip Drive.
The property owners sought six variances and one “special exception” for the land.
Board members Kevin Carson and John Williamson recused themselves from Monday’s vote, meaning any board decision needed to be unanimous to pass. However, the issues concerning this parcel were addressed by the board without that coming into play.
Four of the variances, mainly concerning setbacks and an overlay encroachment, passed without much debate.
But it was a variance for another building, on the rear of the lot, that drew the board’s most attention.
“This one here I’m having a little more trouble with, as we do have a house, on that rear,” member Jordan Warfel said.
With the other modifications to the site, Mr. Warfel explained, the owners could achieve their goals in several ways. The structure needs a parking variance in order to be built, and with this specific location abutting a residential home, the rules are somewhat different.
Rather than pore over those rules, the board decided to go a different route, restricting usage of the proposed building, so the parking requirement wouldn’t be an obstacle.
“Would you be opposed (to there being) a restriction on (it being) a restaurant/bar-type of business, as long as it was a low-traffic, low-volume type of business in that building?” board member John Hastings asked.
Further, Mr. Warfel was curious how that restriction would read, and the board spent some time exploring options.
But the body agreed to a motion made by Mr. Hastings, to approve the related setback for the proposed building but place a condition that it not be used as a restaurant, bar, event space or similar high-traffic site.
The motion was then amended to “subject to conditions,” which will be delivered as part of the board’s final findings during a future meeting.
Meantime, members expect the language to change to something more specific.
