After debate among the council and with a local developer, the Wilmington City Council delayed considering a change to the city’s ordinance governing lot size in the historic district until October.
The change would have modified the city’s building code to require newly recreated lots in historic districts to be at least 33 feet in width, as opposed to the current ordinance which mandates all lots in Historic District (HD), Historic District – Mixed Use (HD-MU) and the Historic District Residential (HD-R) zoning to be at least 3,004 square feet.
The city’s planners argued that the change would help encourage infill development on parcels in that district, prevent gaps in between houses and discourage the creation of so-called “flag lots” where the property is too narrow for emergency vehicles to reach them.
Councilman Kevin O’Grady raised objections to the proposal, partly based on the short timeframe given the council and the limited review by local historical groups, while also arguing that the focus on consistency could impact the variety of structures and lot sizes that make Wilmington’s historic district unique.
“The problem I have is when developers start to see value in taking down our historic houses and our smaller cottage houses, combining those lots and creating identical houses, putting in a look to them like they’re historic, but they’re really creating Disneyland,” O’Grady said. “They’re creating a false historic downtown.”
But downtown developer Dave Spetrino said that the 33-foot lot width preserved the vision of Wilmington’s original founders. Spetrino and O’Grady debated the merits for several minutes.
“It preserves the original pattern of development. I want to preserve how our city was founded,” Spetrino told the council. “Keep the lots at 33, everything else goes well.”
O’Grady put forward a motion that would require the city planners to bring the proposal to the Historic Preservation Committee and the Historic Wilmington Foundation, while also encouraging more public input, before returning to the council Oct. 6. It passed 6-1, with councilman Charlie Rivenbark arguing that the ordinance was ready to be passed as is.
Email [email protected]
