We all recognize the importance that land development, homebuilding and
construction industries have in the strength and vitality of our local economy.
Good paying jobs for our citizens, home purchasing opportunities, and new employment
opportunities for a well-trained workforce, are critical to a prosperous and
thriving citizenry.
The goals and desires must be pursued, however, in a manner which includes a
land use and construction process that 1). is fair and applied equally to
everyone; 2). also protects the health safety and welfare of the citizens of
New Castle County; and 3). advances and applies the rules that call for orderly,
well-planned and logical land use and one which ensures that infrastructure and
services are, or will be, in place to support the same.
The quality of life in the county should be of paramount importance.
With these goals in mind, there are some minimal, preliminary initiatives
that should be advanced immediately:
1). Traffic
Study Before Council Action:
If a land development plan and/or rezoning requires the preparation of a
traffic impact study or traffic operational analysis, it should be completed
(and reviewed by the appropriate government agencies) prior to County Council
approval.
State Code, specifically 9 Del. C. 2662, dictates that New Castle County
rezonings already require this and the UDC says how to do it at 40.11.000 and
40.11.100. On major developments without rezonings, the UDC already
requires this at 40.11.000 and 40.11.100.
2). Traffic
Analysis Scoping Meetings:
Interested citizens should be aware of, and have the right to participate
in, TIS/TOA scoping meetings.
Further, we recommend that, after the Applicant submits what is required by
UDC 40.11.120.A, the Department's and DelDOT's findings as to the need for and
scope of further traffic analysis become recommendations subject
to approval and/or modification by the Planning Board after a Public
Hearing.
3).
Development Zones/Areas, Incentives, and infrastructure Investments:
We need to identify
development zones/areas and incentivize development, higher density and
infrastructure investment in those areas.
Obviously, since the transportation infrastructure is the most costly single
infrastructure component, and since the transportation infrastructure
investment is controlled at the State level, NC County has virtually no
opportunity to do anything other than react to the system the State
provides. Any alteration of that arrangement would require (at
least) expanding the County's taxing authority.
4).
Strengthen Record Plan Oversight:
We need to strengthen citizen's, County Council's, and the County
Executive's ability and authority to scrutinize and raise legitimate concerns
about Record Plans, and to have these plans tabled unless and until these
concerns are resolved.
5). NCC -
DelDOT MOU and TIS Regulations:
The MOU with
DelDOT needs to be reexamined including with regard to specific LOS standards.
The Comprehensive Plan and DelDOT TIS Regulations must be brought
under alignment with any revisions to the UDC and the NCC- DelDOT MOU.
When enacted, the "Quality of Life Act" required that NC County
and DelDOT establish a joint agreement on LOS to be memorialized by
ordinance. Today's version of that memorialization is Article 11 of
the UDC.
Whereas Article 11 of the UDC has been enacted by an elected legislative body
and no one at DelDOT is elected, the agency may not change anything in Article
11 unilaterally. Whatever changes that could be contemplated in DelDOT
Regulations cannot over-rule agreements that have been memorialized by an
elected legislative body. DelDOT's Regulations proposals must be regarded
as suggestions to change, rather than orders.
“DelDOT
officials say when they get the traffic operational analysis, they will
rigorously review it and make recommendations for traffic mitigation if level
of service falls below acceptable standards.
“At one level
the department is still back to an expression of an opinion to the land use
agency that makes the determination of whether to say yes, no or maybe to a
development proposal,” said DelDOT lawyer Schranck.
Such passing
of the buck by DelDOT annoys county officials.
“DelDOT is
the road authority and we don’t overrule them,” Culver said. “The county tells
developers they have to do what DelDOT says is necessary. If DelDOT doesn’t
sign off on a plan, the plan doesn’t get approved by the county.””
6). Ethics
Code Update:
The Ethics Code needs to be updated to disclose every relationship, monetary
or financial interest or involvement that any elected official or county
employee has with anyone seeking approvals or opposing any development project.
The Ethics Commission must uphold their Oath of Office in pursuing
complaints for actions violating either County or State law. When a
complaint is determined to be a violation of State law, we expect the County
Ethics Commission to forward that complaint as a matter of policy.
7). Workforce Housing Ordinance:
We need to revisit workforce housing and either enact a meaningful and
usable affordable housing ordinance or get rid of it entirely.
8). Redevelopment Ordinance:
We need to revisit the Redevelopment Ordinance and make it applicable to
true redevelopment projects which provide a benefit to the community.
Redevelopment must be adjusted to be applicable only to areas in need of
change and should go through the process the same as zoning changes. LU Dept.
should not be allowed to grant redevelopment status without input from the
community.
9). Clean Hands Law:
We need a greater use and strengthening of the Clean Hands law in order to
hold developers to their obligations and to get communities’ development plans
completed as approved.
10). UDC
Definitions:
UDC definitions
are unclear and subject to misinterpretation and misuse, e.g.,
a) The definition of "redevelopment" needs to be returned
to its original intent.
b) “Mixed Use" is so poorly defined in the Code as to
be almost meaningless. Today it can serve as a front for commercial
development in office locations. The code must be clarified. If a use is being
changed, a rezoning should be required.
c) "Limited" uses (in the use code) are similarly
poorly written and need upgrading.
d) The intent of the UDC is often ignored. It requires
that buildings be compatible w/ the area. But developers have claimed the
ability to place high rise buildings next to single family homes. Express
protections are needed, say, 50 ft height limitation within 500 ft of a single
family detached dwelling.
e) What does "by right" mean and how can abuses of that
term be avoided?
f) The proportional build-out requirement under mixed use needs to
be codified.
11). Return
to the Three Step Process:
The change from
a 3 step to a 2 step process, when the County Council only receives substantive
information after its vote, has the clear effect of preventing fact-based decision
making by the legislative branch and is, in effect, not in the public interest.
12). Deed
Restriction Amendments:
To protect the public in the event that amendments are sought to
deed restrictions, the UDC should require a 2/3 majority vote by County
Council.
13) The 2012
Comp Plan:
The
Comprehensive Plan Update process must be revisited. It is too easily subject
to manipulation, use of vague terms, and inadequate protections of the public
interest. Amend the 2012 Comp Plan to:
a) Clarify terms used such as "Community Redevelopment", "New
Community Development", "Office/Commercial/Industrial", etc.
b) Specifically
eliminate zoning code terminology (O/C/I).
c)
Re-install the wording “new development should respect the character and
integrity of existing communities” and similar phraseology present in the 2007
Plan
14) County Council Accountability:
Councilpersons need to be well informed. Of course DLU is relied on to know
the code, but often the interpretations from DLU are difficult to understand or
decipher.
County Council decisions are not held to the same standards required by the
NCC UDC code for DLU and Planning Board decisions.
This example is from County Council overturning the Planning Board decision
on a variance for the Walker Farm. Requested was a variance to allow 37 housing
units on a cul-de-sac limited by code to 16 units. The Planning Board voted
“no”. It was advertised on the council agenda as a decision on an
interconnection to the adjoining neighborhood – not a variance to allow a 100%
increase houses on a cul-de-sac.This quote is from the current business minutes
from the Planning Board meeting of Feb. 19, 2013, after Council overturned the
Planning Board decision:
“the Dept. confirmed that it was the excess
number of dwelling units on the dl-de-sac that was at issue. It was also noted
that the standard used by County Council to overturn the appeal was a much less
difficult standard than the standards the Planning Board must address.” (Gen.
Mgr. David Culver)
15). The Department of Land Use:
The LU Department Manager and/or other DLU employees have too much
flexibility to make independent decisions and changes on approved plans. The
Land Use General Manager should not be a position that serves at the pleasure
of the County Executive. Neither DLU nor DelDOT take responsibility for
transportation decisions. Current code requirements are not being followed.
16). Variance Process at the Board of Adjustment.
We need to revisit this process. Sometimes, the applicant chooses to go to
the Board of Adjustment before going through the Planning Board hearing. Other
applications go to the Board of Adjustment after the Planning Board process but
before County Council. Some choose to go to the Planning Board, then Council
and finally go to the Board. of Adjustment. It is up to the applicant to decide
what works best for their project.
A recent agenda for the Board of Adjustment had several items with
three of those requiring multiple variances:
Royal Farms/MAA Real Estate. 12 variances
CCS Farms LLC - 6 variances
Tupp Signs Inc. - 5 variances
Perhaps some consideration should be given to how many variances for a site
are appropriate. Do too many variances suggest the project just simply doesn't
fit the site? Should more attention be given to encouraging development to fit
into the zoning and code requirements instead of changing/altering zoning and
code requirements to fit the desired use of the property? Should all variances
be in place and approved before Council votes?
