Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeal And Variance Rebuild topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board affirms town on 203 Carolina appeal, then grants variance to rebuild on existing foundation
Summary
After hearing testimony that contractor work caused an accidental collapse at 203 Carolina Street, the board affirmed the town’s stop‑work order on appeal, then granted an alternate variance permitting reconstruction on the existing foundation and to retain a 1.8‑ft nonconforming west wall.
The Town of Dewey Beach Board of Adjustment on balance sided with town staff in an appeal over the reconstruction of a legal non‑conforming house at 203 Carolina Street, then approved an alternate variance that will allow the owners to rebuild using the existing foundation and retain a west wall that extends 1.8 feet into the setback.
Contractor Jason (Swell Design Build) described how an excavator incident tore through roofing and debris and caused a masonry feature and a roof to collapse "in an instant," leaving the crew with a partial foundation and a damaged floor system. "It fell flat literally in an instant," he said during testimony. Jason and the owners told the board they inspected footings, obtained engineering review and had neighbor support; they asked the board to treat the collapse as accidental and permit rebuilding in the original location.
Town solicitor Fred Townsen urged the board to deny the appeal, arguing the town’s interpretation of the municipal code (section 185‑59) turns on whether the acts that caused destruction were part of an intentional construction activity — not on whether a specific person intended the damage. Town staff showed photos taken after the stop‑work order and reported new joists and poured footings in areas the town said went beyond the scope of the original permit. "We ask that you deny the appeal," the solicitor told the board.
After hearing testimony from the contractor, the property owners and town officials and reviewing documentary evidence, the board voted to affirm the town’s decision on the appeal. Following that decision, the board considered the alternate variance. Owners and their attorney argued denial would create practical and financial hardship, citing neighbor support and constraints posed by mature trees and existing foundations.
On the variance, the board found the application met the required factors and voted to allow reconstruction on the existing foundation with the 1.8‑foot nonconforming west wall to remain. The board instructed the owners to complete any required demolition, permitting and inspections, and reminded parties the variance applies to the facts presented and does not alter county or state requirements for building permits or floodplain compliance.
The board’s two rulings — affirming the town on the appeal and granting the variance as an alternate relief — mean the owners will need to follow up with the town and county building authorities to complete the permitting and inspection process.
