Download the proposed Ruddertowne mutual agreement here.
Objections and Questions Regarding the Proposed Ruddertowne Settlement Agreement
Compiled by Citizens to Preserve Dewey
January 9, 2011
1. Item (1)b. GROUND FLOOR: This section describes generic, textbook “retail/service” examples of uses, as permitted by applicable law, and gives further details only with examples of some of those possible uses – including spa, gym, restaurant, public attractions, ice-skating rink, bowling alley, parking and hotel. It in no way obligates the developer to build anything beyond restaurants and parking. If this agreement is being interpreted as providing “amenities” for public use, those amenities should be defined, detailed, agreed upon and incorporated into the Mutual Release prior to execution of the agreement. Will the agreement be amended to incorporate specified amenities agreed upon by the developer and the Town, including detailed plans?
2. Item 2. HEIGHT: As we read it, the developer agrees not to attempt to increase the height of this structure beyond 45.67′, but we do not see any reference to prohibiting the building of future structures beyond our 35′ height limit. Should the developer obtain contiguous properties, it may again sue the Town to be permitted to build to 45.67′, thus setting a precedent. THIS AGREEMENT MUST CLEARLY STATE THAT DBE AND/OR ITS PRINCIPALS, SUBSIDIARIES OR ANY OTHER ENTITY WITH WHICH IT IS ASSOCIATED AGREE TO A PROHIBTION ON ANY FUTURE LAWSUITS TO BUILD ABOVE 35’ ON THIS OR ANY OTHER DEWEY BEACH PROPERTY. Will you add such a prohibition to the draft agreement?
3. Item (2)a. PARKING: If parking is at “grade,” as described, then this structure would appear to stand at five floors at 45.67’, including an “at grade” parking level. Can five floors even be limited to 45.67 feet? Does DBE plan to build 4 or 5 floors? The number should be specified in the draft agreement.
4. Item (3) PUBLIC AMENITIES: We believe that all public amenities should be completed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. As we read it, this agreement requires only that the proposed Bay Walk be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the “main structure.” Additionally, DBE describes the project as having a “main structure,” yet there is no explanation or detail as to what the “main structure” consists of, and no detail relative to what other “out structures” or “non-main” structures will be built that are not considered part of the “main structure.” We request a precise definition of what structures will be built that are not part of the “main structure,” and what amenities will apply to those structures.
5. Item (3)c. BAY WALK & GAZEBO: The question arises as to whether DNREC would allow any new construction so close to the bay. It would seem that the parties could have DNREC officials determine what type of structure is permitted, and what the building setbacks would prohibit, in advance of signing this agreement. The proposed Bay Walk would be approximately one block long and would connect all of DBE’s operations via a walkway on the bay front. Have you asked DNREC to evaluate this plan and, if so, what is its response? If you have not asked DNREC, when do you intend to do so? Has DNREC been involved in evaluating the entire plan? If not, when will DNREC conduct environmental and other impact studies?
6. Item (3)d. ROOFTOP AMENITIES: This item is “conceptual” at best and does not appear to guarantee any type of rooftop amenities for public use. The Town and developer must be in mutual agreement on this item. We note that the developer and Town have not agreed on many things over the course of the past three years. If the Town and developer are at an impasse in terms of mutually agreeable public amenities and use, then what? The document mandates only that the developer provide amenities if mutual agreement is reached. We believe that if an agreement is not reached, the developer would be under no obligation to build public amenities. Is this interpretation of the draft agreement correct? If not, why not?
7. Item (3)d (continued). ROOFTOP/HEIGHT: This section states, “Any accessory item approved by the Town and necessary to create this attraction shall not be included in the height limitation contained in Paragraph 2 (e.g., railings/canopies).” We believe that, if approved, this would put the Town at risk of a lawsuit from Gold Leaf Hotel, which was denied a building permit approximately one year ago to construct a glass retracting pool roof that would have exceeded the current height limit. Why can’t the rooftop space fit within the new height limit being proposed? If it will not, please explain why not. Will the Town be forced to grant other entities a similar exception to the height limit for their rooftop attractions or be subject to lawsuits? Please explain in detail.
8. Item (3)d (continued). ROOFTOP ACCESS: This section simply says that the rooftop will be accessible to the public, but it does not guarantee public use of any and all rooftop amenities or facilities. This item is significantly deficient in detail. Without agreed-upon terms prior to the execution of this mutual agreement, it has little merit in terms of what benefit it would offer the public. For example, even if a pool were to be approved, it might consist of an 8’x6’ wading pool with a depth of 24 inches. Furthermore, this pool area might be “accessible” to the general public as described, but at a cost of $25 per day or even $45 per day. The developer could easily implement exorbitant fees that are designed to discourage public use. Again, we believe all public amenities should be agreed upon and fully detailed prior to the execution of this release. Further, it is difficult to believe that DBE would spend close to $100 million dollars on a luxury hotel/condo/retail project that would allow the general public access to its top bay front floor with high-end amenities, such as a public pool. If DBE builds 90 hotel units and 105 condo units with maximum occupancy of four persons each, this would mean a total 840 person occupancy (if not more) that would have use of the rooftop amenities. Will another 300-400 “locals” with children and friends have the same free rein on this rooftop and equal access that the 800-plus hotel/condo owners and guests have? The draft agreement begs the question as to why anyone would want to purchase a high-priced condo in a building where the best amenities are not exclusive to the complex, but open to the general public. Would you please describe in detail what kind of rooftop amenities will be installed, whether the rooftop would be open to the public and, if so, whether there be a cost to the public? Also, please specify how the Town will be guaranteed use of the rooftop in perpetuity and without unreasonable restrictions that would discourage public use.
9. Item (3)f. PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PARKING: DBE agrees to provide 85 publicly accessible parking spaces within the main complex, subject to charge by DBE at a rate equal to or higher than the rate charged by the Town. We assume and would like confirmation that these publicly accessible spaces will also be available to hotel/condo guests and, based on that occupancy, would likely not be available to the public at any given time. Additionally, if DBE is able to charge whatever it wants for these spaces at a higher than usual charge, these spaces would be unattractive for general public use. DBE, on the other hand, could use a model (as it does for its current parking lot) whereby it charges a high space fee, which is credited when you patronize/purchase at their establishments – hence making the 85 publicly accessible spaces attractive primarily to DBE patrons. Would you please tell us what your exact plans are with regard to public parking and what spaces will be reserved for hotel/condo guests?
10. Item (7). BUILDING PERMIT: The developer is asking for a special waiver for an initial building permit that is good for 3 years from date of issue, versus 1 year, as currently described in our Town Code. Additionally, the developer specifies that this permit “may be renewed two times for one additional year each for a fee of $50, provided renewal is applied for prior to expiration date.” In total, the developer would be granted, via this agreement, a 5 year building timeframe, versus the 2 years allowed for all other commercial and residential applications. This begs the question as to why the developer would need 5 years to complete this property and again puts the Town at risk of lawsuits claiming “equal protection” to have the same building permit rights. This would also create a potential 5 year construction process (with an unsightly construction site at the southern entrance to our Town), and would expose the Town and the nearby property owners to an unreasonably long period of “construction chaos” — noise, dust, etc. Why are you considering a 5 year building permit? We have not been given a rational explanation.
11. Item (8)a. REFERENCE TO THE DEFUNCT AND MEANINGLESS RAC: The developer is asking for inclusion in the draft agreement the following: “During the Special Town Meeting the Ruddertowne Architectural Committee’s (RAC) recommendation and report to the Town Commission (RAC Recommendation) shall be considered by the Town Commission; and the Town Commission’s vote, if positive, shall also include a ratification of the RAC Recommendation as may be specifically modified by the Town Commission.” We request that all references to the RAC be deleted from the draft agreement. Referencing it is a blatant attempt by DBE to strengthen its position in litigation. DBE’s attorneys want to institutionalize the RAC, which in reality was an informal task force that automatically expired in 2007. It was a temporary group, stacked with DBE supporters, that pushed for construction of a 68-foot hotel/condo mixed use project. It is not to be confused with the official Working Group of the Comprehensive Plan, which was an entirely different group of people, officially sanctioned by the Town Council, to work on the Comprehensive Plan. We are concerned that this wholly unnecessary reference may put the Town at risk. We would like to know why references to it are included in this agreement.
12. Item 9. NO GAMBLING: The draft agreement should be expanded to include a reference which would also prohibit “sports gaming and video lottery” and “any other activity that would involve betting or wagering,” as part of the covenant on the property. However, we understand that the Delaware state legislature could overrule such a covenant and allow gambling at any facility in the state, including Ruddertowne, regardless of a covenant. Is that correct?
13. Item 11. RELEASE BY DBE AND RR: Please disclose all ownership relationships under DBE and RRI, including individual and corporate parties.
14. Item 13. INDEMNIFICATION: This section only indemnifies the Town for claims that “must touch and concern DBE’s Ruddertowne redevelopment project building permit or plan or, if otherwise successful, could halt or alter DBE’s Ruddertowne redevelopment Town approved permit or plans.” Although on the surface this seems like a good deal, some attorneys believe this indemnification is riddled with loopholes and is deficient in detail, and thus offers the Town insufficient protection. We also believe it is not only a conflict of interest, but also inappropriate and potentially dangerous, for the Town to allow a developer the right to defend the Town as the developer and its team of attorneys deem appropriate to secure their own financial advantage. Under this agreement, the Town will have essentially put its defense of these suits in the hands of the developer and out of the hands of the Town. No matter which way you cut it, our concern is that the developer and its attorneys would be given first claim in deciding the Town’s future. Could that occur? Please explain in detail.
Also, if a suit was actually successful in “stopping” DBE’s project, DBE would almost certainly sue the Town for damages. Further, claiming indemnification ONLY if a potential lawsuit makes claims specifically related to DBE’s building permit or plan leaves the Town open to a host of other lawsuits related to a myriad of non-permit issues such as: Council’s affirmation of the project and vote to approve ordinance changes; federal equal protection claims from other property owners for equal building rights; or a class action lawsuit filed by property owners claiming harm in decreased property values, lack of impact studies for health, safety environment and welfare, bay and traffic impact, etc. What if DBE argued that these charges are aimed at Council actions and federal equal protection constitutional issues, rather than being specific to DBE’s building permit or plans? And what if the Town and DBE do not agree on whether the indemnification would apply to a particular third-party suit? Engaging attorneys to settle this question could open new litigation between the Town and DBE, which could cost the Town tens of thousands of dollars per suit. All in all, we are concerned that this clause is so deficient and vague that it offers the Town almost no protection, and could be affirmatively harmful by taking away its decision-making rights. We urge you to consider deleting this section. Do you agree with our concerns and analysis? If not, please explain in detail.
15. PROCESS – CHICKEN AND EGG: Under the current process, we are told that the county will require impact analysis, environmental evaluations, traffic studies etc. But to secure these, the Dewey Town Council must first give initial approval to the project, essentially totally in the dark with regard to the outcome of these undertakings. Is this correct? Why can’t the impact analyses and evaluations be conducted before the Council makes its initial decision?
16. TIMING: We have considerable concern about this agreement being rushed through in the dead of winter, when many citizens are not residing at their homes and are, therefore, not able to attend public workshops and hearings. We are also concerned that the developer has not made clear that the public will be allowed to participate in the three public workshops which have been scheduled. The Town Attorney and Mayor Diane Hanson confirmed during a meeting on December 11, 2010 that she has the authority to allow public participating at these workshops. Overall, we believe this process should be spread out over 6 months to give all involved the time to fully understand the draft agreement, and that public comment should be an integral part of each of the three workshops. Also, we are shocked that the Town Council would schedule a vote on the draft agreement the same day as the public hearing. The Town Manager in the Town’s letter to property owners claimed this decision had to be made quickly because of “the timing of litigation,” but that may not be true. We now know that a stay of the litigation process was filed on Jan. 4, 2011 in the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. So the urgency for consideration of this agreement is apparently not due to the litigation. What is the reason for rushing it through? DBE has requested an unheard of 5-year building permit, yet wants to push for a decision in less than 3 months. Will you revise the schedule and spread it over 6 months to give the public more time to understand the draft agreement? If not, why not?
17. REFERENDUM VOTE: We believe that current law requires that any decision to increase building height beyond 35’ must be approved by the citizens of Dewey Beach through referendum vote. According to Ordinance 682, which took effect on September 10, 2010, allowable height shall not be increased beyond 35’ “unless it is approved in a referendum election by 2/3 of all eligible voters who vote in the referendum election.” The ordinance further states that said referendum vote “shall be conducted on the date of the annual municipal election.” If the Town Council decides to approve a deal with DBE for a building in excess of 35’, will you support a referendum, as the law requires, before the agreement is signed? Is every commissioner committed to upholding Ordinance 682, thus assuring the public a referendum?
18. INSURANCE COVERAGE: How much insurance coverage do we have for (a) legal fees and (b) damages? How much of our insurance coverage has been used to date on the DBE lawsuits? Has any of the Dewey Beach $250,000 legal defense fund been spent? If so, what amount?
19. FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Do citizens or Town Council members have to worry that, if they speak out against DBE or the Ruddertowne development, they will be sued by DBE? DBE has already sued three Town commissioners and one Town volunteer. Will DBE commit to refrain from suing any other Council members or citizens concerning the Ruddertowne property, as an integral part of this agreement? Have you asked them for this commitment?
20. LAWSUIT COSTS: Given that the citizens are overwhelmingly opposed to any increase in the building height limit, do we have an estimate of the costs for protecting the laws of Dewey Beach?
21. IMPACT GOING FORWARD: If this agreement is finalized, will this change the character of Dewey Beach from a community with a 35’ building height limit to something larger, like 45’? We believe that the Town Attorney admitted that a developer could use this “change of character” to challenge the Town. Can you reassure us that this will not happen? And couldn’t a developer simply sue the Town a few times and know that the Town will compromise eventually?
22. INDEMNIFICATION WEAKNESS: As we read it, there is nothing that the DBE developer can do to prevent a court from granting a new applicant a request for additional building height. It would seem that DBE would only cover the cost of the trial. Also, could DBE simply hire “cheap,” inexperienced lawyers, without regard to whether the case would be won? Would that not open the Town to more development at the higher height limit through a poorly defended case or two?
23. COMMISSIONERS: The people who are currently sitting commissioners all ran for office on a platform of fighting to maintain the Town’s 35’ maximum building height limit. How can they bring us a draft agreement with the developer that has sued the Town six times and ask us to trust that developer and them, for a project with a height limit of 45.67’?
24. POTENTIAL WEAKNESSES OF THIS AGREEMENT/RETAINING ADDITIONAL LEGAL COUNSEL: We have identified a number of potential legal issues related to this document and we feel it is imperative that expert legal counsel be retained to perform a thorough examination of its contents. In addition, the Town Attorney and our outside counsel may have to litigate these cases against DBE, if no agreement is reached. Would it make sense to retain additional counsel that could speak freely to the possible problems in this proposed agreement? If not, why not?
Respectfully Submitted by Citizens to Preserve Dewey
on Monday January 10, 2011 1:40 pm
Feel free to email us at info@preservedeweybeach.com
January 9, 2011
Dear Mayor Hanson and Commissioners Seitz, Solloway, Przygocki, and Laird:
We are writing concerning the proposed agreement between the Town of Dewey Beach and Dewey Beach Enterprises.
We, and the vast majority of the property owners, have stood firm in opposing any developer who wanted to violate our building codes or to negatively impact the character of our small town. These concerns are very near and dear to all of us as is evidenced by our donation of thousands of hours of work to insure that any new development is in compliance with the Town’s code. We believe that all buildings, whether commercial or residential, should not be allowed to exceed 35 feet.
There are also key legal issues that must be publicly addressed concerning any decision to grant one developer an exception to our zoning code. For the moment, let’s set aside the six lawsuits against the Town and Town officials and volunteers by DBE. That alone makes it difficult to analyze this proposed agreement dispassionately. But under the proposed agreement, we could be trading one set of lawsuits for a different set by other property owners who have made it clear they will file constitutional challenges against the Town under the equal protection clause if DBE is accorded special treatment.
We firmly believe that a decision to allow a building to exceed 35 feet is not yours to make. It is a decision that must be made by the property owners who elected you based on your promise to maintain our 35’ height limit. As you well know, 86% of the voters by referendum voted to keep Dewey’s height limit at 35 feet. The DBE lawsuits, which we believe are intended to intimidate/bankrupt the town into a forced settlement that compromises the 35 foot law, have prompted more controversy than the town has faced in over a decade. But it is not controversy based on division. On no other issue in recent memory has there been such public unanimity.
Dewey Beach has sponsored a number of referenda in recent years. Surely something that is so controversial and critical to the future of our town as the construction of a building that exceeds the town’s 35’ height limit warrants a referendum. We strongly urge you to respect the will of the people, which you promised to do when you were campaigning, and we ask you to commit to comply with Ordinance 682 which prohibits any building exceeding the 35 foot height limit unless approved by two-thirds of all eligible voters who vote in the referendum held at the next regular election.
Rushing this proposal through – in the dead of winter, in a beach town, in three months — is wrong. It suggests you are trying to steam roll approval of this deal, particularly when you are proposing yet another exception for this one developer by allowing a five year construction permit under the proposed agreement rather than the regular two year permit (one year plus one year extension). The timeline provided by the Town Manager for public discussion and consideration is totally insufficient to secure required impact evaluations by independent outside experts, to acquire expert legal counsel on the merits of the proposal, or to assess the public feedback needed to make an intelligent decision, all of which are essential before any referendum or final Council votes are cast.
Furthermore, the rationale for the rush to decide this issue given by Diana Smith in her December 11, 2010 letter to the Dewey Beach community that “it is necessary due to the timing in terms of the [DBE] lawsuits” is not valid. On January 4, 2011, the Town of Dewey Beach and DBE filed a joint request to stay the federal constitutional appeal pending the outcome of the proposed agreement. And it is our understanding that the other lawsuits are awaiting the decision in that case before proceeding. We do not agree with such a stay—as with many elements of the proposed agreement, it benefits DBE, not the Town. The Town is going to considerable expense to gather and answer questions, take input from citizens, and ask attorneys to analyze the proposed agreement. We should either spend enough time to thoroughly evaluate the agreement and stay the lawsuits, or wait until the Third Circuit rules instead of investing all of our time and Town resources in a rushed and flawed process to evaluate it.
The process for considering the proposed project is so rushed because you have inappropriatelymixed apples and oranges in one agreement negotiated and drafted secretly with DBE.
1. The proposed project of course had to be negotiated with DBE.
2. But you allowed DBE to also dictate the time frame for approval of the project by
putting both the project proposal and the dates for workshops, hearings, and voting, and
scope of review by the Council and Planning and Zoning
in the same agreement.
DBE should have NO role in deciding the process used by the Town and the voters toevaluate the project. With no public discussion you wrongly decided behind closed doors to set impossible time limits pressed by DBE. You compounded this error by incorporating this fast-track process into the proposed agreement so that public consideration would be constrained and you could claim the dates are set in stone.
The proposed agreement sets three workshops (which the proposed agreement Sec.g(8)(a) calls “DBE’s … public workshops”) with presentations by DBE at so-called
“workstations” which in reality are just advertising booths allowing them to informally selltheir project–not on the public record, with no accountability for anything they say. The citizens of Dewey Beach were never consulted about the process, they have not beenasked to make any presentations, and until the January 8, 2011 Town Meeting, at which Mayor Diane Hanson overruled Commissioner Laird and the Council, for which we highly commend her, no public comment was even allowed at the workshops, although any commentsstill will not be on the public record. And astoundingly, you agreed to vote immediately after the only on-the-record public hearing in late February. This process is wrong and must be rejected.
The public deserves the opportunity for a more robust and considered discussion of the proposed agreement. We respectfully request that the time for consideration of the draft agreement be substantially extended to allow six months for property owners and residents to understand and participate in discussions on its merits.
As presently constructed there is no time for presentations from our citizens’ group (or any other citizens) whose primary mission is to defend the 35 foot height limit and we question the motive for stifling our voice while allowing a developer who is suing the town to lead the workshops. We request time to make a presentation at the public hearing. We also request that the Council ask Chris Fazio, the Town’s previous professional planning consultant, to evaluate the Ruddertowne proposal and make a presentation at one of the workshops. Lastly, the Council is scheduled to vote immediately after the only official public hearing without taking sufficient time to reflect on public comment and research and evaluate any issues posed during this public hearing. We would think that the Council would need time to consult with the Town attorney and retained counsel in executive session prior to a vote. This is ill-considered and yet another sign that the developer is setting this timetable, not our Town officials. This is outrageous and unacceptable.
If the Town Council decides to support a deal with DBE and does not authorize a referendum, we will have to evaluate our legal options. No Town Council should usurp this authority. A referendum is legally required, and it is the fair way to explore this agreement, to improve it as much as possible, and then let the people decide if they think it has enough merit and benefit to the Town even though it would change the character of the town forever.
Respectfully submitted,
Citizens to Preserve Dewey Steering Committee
Joan Claybrook, Joy Howell, Rick Judge, Linda Winton,
Marcia Schieck, Anne Duffin
info@preservedeweybeach.com
www.preservedeweybeach.com
Dear Friends and Neighbors, December 11, 2010
As you know, there was an important town meeting today during which the Council presented a proposal jointly negotiated by the Town and Dewey Beach Enterprises/Ruddertowne Redevelopment Inc. for a 45.67-foot high mixed-use structure for the Ruddertowne property. This concept site plan consists of a maximum of 105 residential condo units and 90 hotel units, if hotel use is allowed by the town. Commercial operations currently proposed may include any retail/service type uses as permitted by applicable laws (e.g. spa, gym, restaurant, public attractions, ice-skating rink, bowling alley, parking and hotel.)
After the Town Council meeting, a few of the CPD Steering committee members along with the Civic League board of directors and some members of the Planning and Zoning Commission met with Mayor Diane Hanson, Commissioner Jim Laird and Town Attorney Glenn Mandelas. The questions were primarily on the procedure for informing the public about this proposed settlement and the beginning of a question and answer process. CPD stated that we were formed by property owners who believe in a 35 foot height limit for the town and preserving our small town character. We do not know at this point whether the majority of CPD Steering Committee members would consider a proposal for any part of the town that is above 35 feet in height. We do not know how the majority of property owners will feel about this plan. We hope you will take the time to review the plan, formulate your questions and provide them to us and the Town Council. It would be helpful to know your thoughts so we can get a sense how you feel and what your concerns are.
We will be scheduling a conference call with entire CPD Steering Committee this weekend to discuss the proposal. We have a number of questions, as I’m sure you do. The proposed settlement agreement is posted on the town website (www.townofdeweybeach.com). We also understand that if people have questions, they should be directed to Mayor Diane Hanson who will compile the questions and answers for a Frequently Asked Questions section on the town website.
We understand that the town’s elected officials have put a tremendous amount of work into exploring whether there is any benefit in settling the litigation and we respect their hard work and desire to provide all of us with options. Those options will become clear in the coming weeks. There will be three public workshops, with opportunity for public comments, questions and discussion, on Jan. 8, 15, 20, 2011. There will be a Town public hearing on February 5, 2011 and a Special Town Meeting immediately following it to approve or deny DBE’s proposed Structure, surrounding development, plan and building permit application. We will send you more information as it becomes available.
Wishing you a safe and happy holiday season! Stay warm!
Marcia Schieck, Joy Howell, Joan Claybrook, Linda Winton, Rick Judge and Anne Duffin
CPD Steering Committee
Press Release
Contact: Diana Smith
Phone: (302) 227-6363
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
12/11/2010
Consideration of Mutual Agreement regarding Ruddertowne Development
Dewey Beach, DE. (December 11, 2010) – The Town of Dewey Beach and Dewey Beach Enterprises have agreed on a path forward with respect to the Ruddertowne Development. On December 11, 2010, the Town Manager presented a proposed Mutual Agreement to the Dewey Beach Commissioners for consideration.
The Town of Dewey Beach and DBE have agreed to enter into a public process for the purposes of reviewing and considering a redevelopment plan for Ruddertowne. The public process includes holding three public workshops and a public hearing.
The redevelopment plan includes a mixed use structure at approximately 45 feet in height, rather than the 68 feet previously proposed. The structure will also include a baywalk, gazebo, dedicated town space, public restrooms, and additional public parking. In addition to the new commercial uses proposed, the Lighthouse, Cove, and Que Pasa restaurants will continue to operate. There is also potential to include family oriented facilities such as a bowling alley and public pool.
If approved by the Town Commission in accordance with applicable law, this compromise plan will bring an end to three years of litigation between the parties.
At present, the following dates are proposed for public input:
· Public Workshop – January 8, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
· Public Workshop – January 15, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.
· Public Workshop – January 20, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.
· Public Hearing – February 5, 2011
· Special Called Meeting – February 5, 2011
December 11, 2010
Dear Neighbor,
The Town of Dewey Beach is at a crossroads in terms of a major decision: What will be built at Ruddertowne. We have come to a point where we must decide if we can work out a suitable agreement or continue on the path of litigation with Dewey Beach Enterprises (DBE).
An official announcement was made at the December 11 town council meeting that the commissioners were presented with a proposed Mutual Agreement between the Town Manager and DBE for consideration by the Town. The Commissioners have decided to move forward with the process outlined in the Agreement. Part of this Agreement includes three public informational workshops and a public hearing at which public input is requested. The Town feels strongly about providing the community with the opportunity to read the proposed Agreement and to have the chance to ask questions and make comments regarding this matter. There will be more details to follow regarding the outlining and format of these public meetings in the near future. This proposal does not mean that a deal has been reached between the Town and DBE, but does provide an opportunity to move forward with a process to consider this proposal.
This proposal is being considered for a number of reasons including the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of DBE regarding density, and what would be in all likelihood a long and expensive court battle. It is understood that should DBE be victorious in their lawsuits against the Town, legal fees and damages could be awarded for several million dollars, which is well beyond the Town’s insurance coverage and a structure could feasibly be built in excess of the 45.67’ proposed in the Mutual Agreement. If the Town is victorious, DBE would still be able to build an extremely large and dense building 7’ from the sidewalk to the bay. The mixed-use building at 35 feet could consist of as many as 250+ condominium units and commercial property.
We recognize that from the referendum in 2008, that the vast majority of those who voted overwhelmingly support a building height limitation of 35 feet. However, in spite of all this, the 35’ limit is not fully secured and lies in the hands of the courts. In view of the risks associated with continuing the litigation, the commissioners are willing to attempt to develop a solution that might be agreeable to the property owners of a mixed use facility with a height of 45.67 feet, or four stories high.
Upon reviewing the agreement you will notice it explicitly contains a NO GAMBLING clause; restricts this one time agreement to this 80,000 sq. ft parcel; and the town is indemnified should future legal actions result from this agreement.
The new structure would be a mixed use facility of residential and commercial components including condominiums, possibly a hotel, retail services, etc. It would also serve partially as a town center and have family-centered activities. The proposal so far includes a bowling alley, a public pool on the roof, a bay walk including a gazebo with seating, a convention center, and 3,000 square feet of town space – the purpose of which may be determined by the Town . There would also be public restrooms and public and private parking. The complete proposal is available on the town’s website at www.townofdeweybeach.comon the home page. If you do not have computer access, please contact town hall at 302-227-6363 and we will gladly fax or mail one to you.
We strongly urge you to attend the following informational workshops to learn more about the proposal before passing judgment:
December 11, 2010– announcement of the Agreement by the Town Commissioners to present the proposal to the public
January 8, 2010, at 2:00 pm– First public workshop
January 15, 2010, at 10:00 am – Second public workshop
January 20, 2010, at 6:00 pm– Third public workshop
February 5, 2010– additional public workshop if necessary due to cancelation of any of the above workshop dates
February 5, 2010– Public Hearing and Special Called Meeting
While we are very sensitive to the fact that conducting these proceedings during the winter months will bear some burden on the community to attend, it is necessary due to the timing in terms of the lawsuits. In order to help people become informed, we are offering three different dates for workshops in an attempt to provide a chance for anyone to attend a meeting that wishes to do so The purpose of this is to assure that all property owners are aware of these meetings and have time to make arrangements to be in Dewey Beach to attend. Our webcast capabilities will also allow you the ability to watch the meetings online from anywhere in the world either live or later at a more convenient time. Go to the town website at www.townofdeweybeach.comand click on the date of the meeting you want to view. On the left you will see the following prompt: A video recording of this meeting may be downloaded for viewing by clicking here. If you do not have a computer, you can use one at a local library.
We believe it is important for you to have any questions answered and for you to provide input on this matter. It is not until the workshops and public hearing have been conducted that a decision will be made by council regarding this proposal.
If you are unable to attend in person to provide your comments and questions, please send them via email to the Town Manager and commissioners or feel free to phone your commissioners. You may also send questions to the town manager through the webcast during the workshops. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Diana Smith
Town Manager
Diana Smith
dsmith@townofdeweybeach.com
Mayor Diane Hanson
hanson@team-doctor.com
Martin Seitz
mgseitz36@yahoo.com
Richard Solloway
solloway@aol.com
James “Zeke” Przygocki
zekec5@yahoo.com
Jim Laird
booglaird@aol.com