Opinion
C. A. No: S11A-07-010 ESB
03-11-2013
RE: Stingray Rock, LLC v. The Board of Adjustment of the City of Rehoboth Beach
John W. Paradee, Esq. Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. Daniel A. Griffith, Esq. Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP
JUDGE
John W. Paradee, Esq.
Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A.
Daniel A. Griffith, Esq.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP
Dear Counsel:
I have denied the Motion for Reargument filed by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Rehoboth Beach. In reaching my decision in this case, I was interpreting the meaning of a specific zoning ordinance, Section 215-7 (B) of the Rehoboth Beach City Code. I was not interpreting the meaning of the laws and rules governing the sale of alcoholic beverages. In my view, the meaning of those laws and rules is of no help in determining the meaning of the zoning ordinance. I also note that the Board never raised this argument in the briefing, making it inappropriate to raise it at this time.
4 Del. C. §§543(g) and (h) and Rule 42.1.
I -am satisfied that there is no absolutely doubt that Stingray was seeking an area variance from the 5,000 square foot limitation on restaurant floor space as set forth in Section 270-28. It was not requesting a variance for a use that is not permitted in the C-3 zoning district. Therefore, I have rejected the arguments made by the Board.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
___________
E. Scott Bradley
ESB/sal