Georgetown grocery hits zoning snag
Deed restriction from 1970s could limit commercial use
GEORGETOWN — Applicants who have been running a small, pre-existing grocery store within the County Seat subdivision and dealing primarily in packaged and dry goods for the neighborhood …
You must be a member to read this story.
Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.
Already a member? Log in to continue. Otherwise, follow the link below to join.
Please log in to continue |
Georgetown grocery hits zoning snag
Deed restriction from 1970s could limit commercial use
By GEORGETOWN — Applicants who have been running a small, pre-existing grocery store within the County Seat subdivision and dealing primarily in packaged and dry goods for the neighborhood didn’t quite get the conditional zoning use they were seeking on Tuesday, as council deferred action until more information on possible deed restrictions could be gathered.
According to a memo prepared by Jamie Whitehouse, director of planning and zoning, the development has restrictive covenants dating back to the 1970s prohibiting commercial use unless permitted by the developer.
“It has been the policy of Sussex County that while it is not bound by private deed restrictions, it should not completely ignore their existence, either,” Mr. Whitehouse said in the memo. “The restrictive covenant for County Seat Gardens states that no commercial activity of any type shall be conducted in the residential lots,” he elaborated during the meeting.
Danny Perez, representing applicant Nicasia Chavez Reyes, told the council his clients had permission from the subdivision owner, who was not identified during the session. Mr. Perez, under questioning from J. Everett Moore, a lawyer representing Sussex County, said some lots within the subdivision are rentals while some had been sold.
Mr. Moore told the council the one owner may not be enough, even though the application has had no opposition during the hearing process. If any lots within the subdivision had been sold, Mr. Moore said, depending on how the covenants were handled or skipped entirely, the situation may become legally complex.
There is a legal remedy for the situation, Mr. Moore assured the council, though he was unwilling to discuss it during open session because it required more research.
He requested the public record on the matter remain open so the status of the restrictions, once established, can be included. Mr. Moore then asked council to defer action until his research was completed and could be brought forward again on a future agenda, which passed without dissent.
Staff writer Brian Gilliland can be reached at 410-603-3737 or bg@iniusa.org.
