As Ocean City Lifts Homes, New Guidelines Emerge
City Council passes the first reading of an amended zoning ordinance designed to help owners rebuild after Sandy.
Photos
Pdfs
In a world a little farther above sea level, nothing seems to fit.
As homeowners and contractors begin to consider elevating homes to meet new guidelines for flood safety, stairs would stretch into side yards and a host of other zoning issues would be raised along with the homes.
City Council on Thursday passed the first reading of an amended ordinance drafted to help homeowners rebuild in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, which struck on Oct. 29 and left Ocean City buried under record flood levels.
The ordinance was designed "to quickly address zoning issues in the new world of ABFE maps," City Solicitor Dorothy McCrosson told City Council.
New Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE) maps require substantially damaged homes to be rebuilt at higher elevations — in many cases dramatically higher elevations.
The ordinance is intended to help homeowners displaced by the storm quickly rebuild.
"The city would be flooded with zoning applications for minor issues," McCrosson said.
The ordinance (see attached PDF for the full text and an explanation of the changes) includes detailed revisions to zoning guidelines.
Buildings with nonconforming setbacks, for instance, would be allowed to elevate without variance approval.
The draft ordinance was distributed to council members only shortly before Thursday's meeting, and that led to a discussion of concerns about carefully considering the lasting impact of the changes.
Part of the debate centered on the definition of floor area ratio (FAR), a measure that helps determine the maximum allowable size of homes.
Crawl spaces (but not garages/carports) would be excluded from the FAR calculations under the proposed ordinance.
But that provision could discourage property owners from using space under newly elevated homes for parking cars — a potential solution to summer parking problems on the streets.
"Let's find the silver lining," Councilman Tony Wilson said of the opportunity to use the new elevation requirements to alleviate the parking problem.
City Council passed the ordinance, 5-0 (Councilmen Scott Ping and Mike DeVlieger were absent) with minor revisions. The second and potentially final reading of the ordinance is scheduled for March 14. The ordinance is the first of what likely will be attempts to address several other "mechanical issues" in the landscape of the new flood requirements.
Sam Lavner
9:35 am on Sunday, March 3, 2013
Tony's got the right perspective - find a sliver lining. There will not be many opportunities for that given the hassles, hardships, and absense of appealing options many property owners face in the wake of Sandy. Excluding carport and garage space from the FAR caculations seems to be one fine silver lining (I am trying to imagine the disadvantages in the context of its FAR's purpose and cannot - assuming the carports and garages are just that and nothing more). There are more silver linings and all interested parties should regularly remind themselves, during their deliberations, to devote time to identifying and creating them. The city has been good about relaxing and eliminating requirements that cannot be met now that houses must be raised (an unanticipated scenario when the ordinances were drafted). Let's also work to finding some advantages to this otherwise dificult situation.
John Hay
12:10 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013
Tony Wilson hit the nail on the head. How many times have well intentioned people created rules and regulations which ended up rendering unanticipated [negative] consequences. Done may be better than Perfect, but it's hard to un-ring the bell.
John Hay
1:30 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013
Free Sandy desktop Clock and mini-clock here:
http://www.orijinations.com/HTML/JH/SandyDay.html
Frank Worrell
1:47 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013
It,s refreshing Tony Wilson has been a real plus to council and he brings a REAL COMMON SENSE approach to the many issues coming before council.
George Petrie
4:15 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013
Add Tony Wilson to the long list of subjects that Worrell must recuse himself from an Ethics Board hearing should Tony be part of a complaint - on either side of it. Way to go Frank. Town first.
Gsieri Builders
9:56 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
Between the local architects and engineers communicating with council members the best option will be figured out you have our support.
Jeff Monihan
10:31 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
Back the South end beach replenishment: Why are we given every lame BS reason why it can't be done, piping plovers, environmental issues, fish and wildlife opposition , funding, ACE permits,(already approved , oh sorry now they'll take 18 months ), DEP permits, Gov. Christie is demanding wide beaches with large mature protective dunes) but we're told state permit are a problem. Now at the council meeting, the 2 guys hauled in to shut the residents/ taxpayers up say this: The reason you're not getting anything is that you need too much sand. " We can't use the ACE established, approved borrow area at Corsons Inlet , the one that we used in 2000 and again to do 8 miles of Strathmere to Townsends Inlet, because your 11 blocks will take too much sand. Your problem requires a "special" dredge miles offshore with a shuttle barge bla bla bla! Someone is lying .
Eric Sauder
5:32 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
I deleted my comments here. I'm frustrated and angry but I should have waitied until I cooled down. My apologies.
EXiT REALTY OCEAN CITY
11:05 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
I t is good to see that the city government is trying to make it easier for property owners to rebuild. As to having garages and parking pads under the homes that have to be raised, it is a great solution to the parking problem that exists every summer.
Joseph Landicini, Broker 1301 West A-1 OCNJ 609.525.9901 Ext 14
vic
4:26 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
when frank worrell writes a comment on patch, he is speaking as an individual, not as a representative of the ethics board. readers should be able to differentiate the two. frank has every right to express his opinion as an individual.
George Haverstram
9:49 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
frank is in fact a member of the ethics board. there is no unbundling that. and nobody is arguing that he has no right to express his oppinion here. try to think beyond the level of "it's a free country". if what you say were correct than there would be no case where someone's written record of thier positions is cause for recusal, or material to appeals, etc...so, your defense of worrell is utterly baseless and false. and foolish. and irresponsible. unless you are kidding - in which case sorry i missed the joke.
Frank
6:10 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
Eric...you really need to stop! You are creating much anxiety. You are also generally misinformed.
George Petrie
10:07 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013
I think Vic must be kidding. Tell us you are kidding. "he is speaking as an individual, not as a representative of the ethics board"????????? Does anybody think Frank is writing on behalf of the ethics board? Of course not and that is not the problem. There are not two Franks in this matter. No judge or review board will recognize two distinct people. The roles are played by the same person. The record applies to the same person. If he wanted to continue to spout off his opinions on people and issues in town he should not have gotten on the ethics board. He should give up one or the other. Doing both is reckless, harmful, and selfish. And his persistance in doing it is petulant and an embarassment to the town.
Eric Sauder
12:04 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
I fail to understand why it is so incredulous to think that candidates here are backed and supported by a political party. Isn't that generally how things work in the political world? Here there is (for all practical intents and purposes) only one party and just about everybody that is anybody belongs to it. So I'm curious. Who am I creating anxiety for? Over what am I misinformed? What did I say that was so terrible?
This is my first comment of the day (I'm keeping track :)