Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Updated: NCC Council Ord. 19-005; Council's REPEAL Of Concurrency Should Alarm Everyone

(Jakim Mohammed image, Thank You for your activism!)

Update: REPEAL of Concurrency

Ord. 19-005 Voted through 8 - 5. Audios below.

Of five floor amendments in play, the two that had the blessing of the Meyer were passed but were not made available to the general public so I will have commentary in a future post.

County Council hopes to bring in more economic development

From RJ Miles ~

Ordinance 19-005 - May 28 Council Meeting
Audio Recordings - Please note there is a fulll recording, as well as shorter comments to review final comments from Council members and the vote.
The Vote was:
Kenneth R. Woods YES
Janet Kilpatrick YES
Lisa Diller YES
George Smiley YES
John Cartier YES
Timothy Sheldon YES
David Tackett YES
Bill Bell YES
Karen Hartley-Nagle NO
Jea P. Street NO
David Carter NO
Penrose Hollins NO
Dee Durham NO

Index of /CCOBH/19005 Council May28

Reposted from the DE Way blog:

I have been hearing some encouraging news about a series of floor amendments that will be introduced this evening at the NCC Council regular meeting in Wilmington.

REMEMBER, this ordinance is not confined to TIDs as most people think of it. Ord. 19-005 fundamentally changes the code for regular development processes too. It repeals our rights to concurrency and protection against traffic congestion and protection against abuse of public tax expenditures.

There was no access to this ordinance by the public until it was introduced this January. It is falsely described as having had years of public input. This is ABSOLUTELY FALSE! There were general discussions but no actual law language was ever shared with the general public. And we were told by a certain county official that we civics were too stupid to understand the ordinance when we were able to actually read it and petitioned against it. It was suggested by the same county official that the Planning Board was also too stupid to understand the ordinance.

Common sense should tell everyone in Delaware that flaunting the concerns of the NCC residents and of our Planning Board is a no go. The voice of Karen Peterson is not one to be toyed with!

In case you haven't been paying attention, Peterson. as the new Planning Board chair, led the discussion that led to the vote against this ordinance AS DRAFTED.

The public is not AGAINST TIDs as is being relayed by supporters of this ordinance. Rather, the vulnerabilities baked into this massive alteration to the county code MUST BE ADDRESSED.

A message from Tom Dewson, our subject matter expert on county transportation issues ~

Dear Neighbors,

Deeply flawed Transportation Ordinance 19-005 will come before County Council for a final vote on Tuesday, May 28. 860 residents from over 100 neighborhoods have written to oppose the ordinance [plus over a hundred more individuals signed onto the CLNCC petition]. 4 independent subject matter experts, including a former head of DelDOT, have shared their serious concerns. And the Planning Board voted 5-3 against 19-005 as currently drafted. Yet the County Administration continues to push hard for adoption.

As written, it's clear this legislation will dismantle the meaningful traffic protections present in the Code today.

-groups of projects in a geographic area could bypass current traffic congestion requirements via inclusion in a Transportation Improvement District (TID). ANY level of congestion could potentially be approved in a TID, and TIDs could be declared anywhere

-ANY method could potentially be used to measure congestion in a TID-and individual project applications could bypass current traffic congestion requirements via a new "anything goes" congestion (Level of Service) waiver clause.
The list goes on. These flaws are too serious to remain unaddressed. Please come to the County Council meeting at 6:30pm Tuesday May 28 in the City/County Building, 800 French Street. If passed as is, Transportation Ordinance 19-005 will profoundly impact our county for years to come.
Thanks and best regards,
Tom Dewson

Transportation Ordinance 19-005Changes Needed
Below are the changes needed to the ordinance to address the concerns expressed by the community, independent subject matter experts and the Planning Board. All changes are based away from Substitute 1 to Ordinance 19-005.

1. Division 40.11.000 – Purpose. Reinstate “Transportation capacity is allocated to proposed land developments on a first come-first serve basis.” This is a foundational principle underpinning the transportation section of the Code and must remain unchanged.

2. Sec 40.11.120 – Need for Traffic Analysis. Reinstate 500 Average Daily Trips (the current standard) as a trigger for a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). Please note that the PLUS Review letter confirms the current standard in DelDOT’s Development Coordination Manual is 500 Average Daily Trips.

3. Sec 40.11.130 – Traffic Impact Study Requirements. Redo to properly reflect already allocated traffic capacity. Add language to include all previously approved but unbuilt projects – in incorporated or unincorporated areas - within a 5 mile radius if expected to contribute 5 or more peak hour trips to the intersections being studied.

4. Sec 40.11.210 – Level of Service Standards. Redo to require that increased road capacity be ready and available concurrent with the start of traffic from new development.

5. Sec 40.11.220 – Traffic Mitigation Measures. Reinstate requirement that traffic mitigation measures be underway before development can proceed. Also reinstate the requirement that traffic mitigation measures be recorded as a deed restriction (vs the new proposal to just list as notes on a record plan).

6. Sec 40.11.230 – Level of Service (LOS) Waivers. Remove (broad) language currently in the ordinance. Redo to codify County Council’s thoughtful and careful prior practice of limiting LOS waivers to proposals linked to high pay, high quality jobs (quantify “high pay” as ~$30/hour).

7. Sec 40.11.310 – Transportation Improvement Districts (TIDs).

-Restore uniform, County-wide level of acceptable congestion (generally LOS D in sewered areas/ C or better outside sewered areas). One LOS standard should continue to apply County-wide, even in a TID, unless modified via a new, separate review and waiver process linked to high pay/high quality jobs, time shifting of traffic and required traffic mitigation measures.

-Restore traditional/time-tested delay at intersections method to measure congestion (LOS). Other measurement approaches can provide supplemental info.

-Specifically articulate the methodology used to calculate developer contributions to road improvements in a TID.

-Specifically define economic development as high pay/high quality jobs (~$30/hour). Article 40.01.015C, the prior language, lacks specificity.

-Remove language stating “this section does not apply to any area zoned exclusively for commercial uses” and replace with “this section does not apply to any area zoned exclusively for any combination of the following districts: Commercial Regional (CR) or Commercial Neighborhood (CN).” CR and CN, though commercial, permit uses other than commercial.

-Require that-road improvements in a TID are phased coincident with project buildout-no development work in a TID can proceed without full funding of associated phased roadwork-transportation impacts outside the TID need to be specifically addressed

8. Sec 40.11.320 – Complete Community Enterprise Districts (CCEDs). Require the same changes as outlined above for TIDs.

A note from civic leader RJ Miles ~

WHY is there such a rush to get ordinance 19-005 passed?
When we have a majority of NCC Council members expressing concerns regarding some of the details of this new ordinance, concerns shared by the Planning Board and major community groups, why is there no effort to work out those points of concern?
While I appreciate all of the positive goals ordinance 19-005 might accomplish, the ordiance is also repeating many mistakes of the past.
There are many people who want to make ordinance 19-005 a better piece of legislation, yet their call is going unanswered.
WHY?
What is the rush to vote on this ordinance?
May I say, for an ordinance which is explained as being "simply enabling" and that will preserve "oversight by the Planning Board and the community", the process being followed on 19-005 so far, is to the exclusion of Planning Board oversight and community feedback.
How is the community to have faith in any future process in the construction of a TID, when a balanced and responsible process is not being honored during the construction of ordinance 19-005?
The process so far, offers a bad look.
The appearance, is a process which is serving the interests of the development community, to the exclusion of meritorious concerns of long established community groups and the Planning Board.
How can the community have faith future consideration of a TID would be any different?
There needs to be a proper balancing of strategies to promote economic development and the safe guarding of community quality of life in those areas where a TID might be proposed.
The choices outlined in ordinance 19-005, choices which will trade community quality of life protections for a more expedient Land Use decision making process, will only repeat our mistakes of the past. Mistakes which contributed to the bad land use outcomes we observe in some of the most congested areas of the community.
The major contributor to those bad land use outcomes, has been inadequate funding to provide for the infrastructure improvements, to handle traffic demands associated with new development.
Can we honestly reflect on the past, and agree it was the development community which successfully advocated to avoid contributing their fair share to the costs of keeping infrastructure current?
There have been past legislative attempts to provide long term funding, but such efforts were lobbied against.
Ordinance 19-005 offers a new opportunity to not only implement innovative changes in land use policy to promote economic development, but an opportunity to establish a broad funding mechanism to help pay for needed infrastructure improvements, rather than undermining the concurrency standards which serve to protect community quality of life.
Who is responsible for the new repeat of the mistake of NOT properly funding the required infrastructure improvements associated with new development?
We have a chance to make ordinance 19-005 better legislation, yet there is an effort to avoid taking a pause, to allow amendments to be discussed.
Continuing the rush to pass ordinance 19-005 in its current form is not good public policy.
We can do better.
RJ Miles
President – McDaniel Civic Association
Vice President – CCOBH (Council of Civic Organizations of Brandywine Hundred)

And Lex Wilson's story on the issue is finally in print in the News Journal today ~ Proposal in front of New Castle County Council would impact development, traffic

The Meyer administration says the rules will help bring jobs and revenue to the county. But, at a recent council committee meeting, some members said they wanted more detailed commitments from developers if they seek a TID. "I don’t want to be able to pass a TID and then we get a $10-an-hour job," said Councilman Tim Sheldon. "The wage should be up there and defined in here."

Others have questioned how the funding mechanism will work. The county doesn't build roads. It may require developers to fund road improvements under the current setup, but otherwise, the state Department of Transportation's long-range plan governs road improvements. Those plans often don't coincide with development projects. Under the TID scheme, developers would pay a fee into an account that would be married with state funds. DelDOT would be party to the contract designing the district, creating greater coordination between development and road improvements, Hall said........There is already one TID in southern New Castle County where cost share between developer and the state is 50/50. That TID did not require relaxation of current traffic standards because it's being built on a relatively clean slate of farm fields. In northern New Castle County, where the bulk of existing development and failing intersections exist, development is more about filling in holes and re-purposing parcels.

Councilman Dave Carter questioned whether there can be enough money generated in a TID to fund improvements quickly enough that the system isn't gummed up for years. He said DelDOT's priorities have historically been subject to the economy and politics, creating more uncertainty. Detractors have raised a scenario where a $10 million fix is necessary, but only $1 million is raised from development interests in the area — so that fix goes unfunded for years while traffic from development grows. "You have such little bit left to be developed, you may never collect enough to make a dent in the problems you are going to create," said Karen Peterson, county Planning Board chair and former state senator.

Detractors also see this as a way for developers to shift more cost onto state taxpayers for projects they will profit from.........The county's Planning Board, which evaluates land use proposals and new regulations, did not recommend approval of the legislation. "I get the objective but I don’t get the mechanics," said Peterson, the board chair.

If you care to listen to Karen Peterson and other members of the Planning Board express concerns, listen HERE.

To listen to the May 21st NCC Council Land Use Committee discussion last week, Click on the audio link HERE.

~*~

Saturday, May 18, 2019

CLNCC Meeting - Asbestos And Lead Sign On Letter - 7PM Tuesday, May 21ast In Christiana

CLNCC Monthly Meeting

7:00 pm - 9:00 pm Tuesday, May 21st

Christiana Presbyterian Church

15 N. Old Baltimore Pike Christiana, DE 19702

Please join us in welcoming NCC Council President Karen Hartley-Nagle to our meeting this month.

June, 18 2019 is our CLNCC Annual Meeting:
Election of Officers

AGENDA May 2019

Call to Order

Guest: NCC Council President Karen Hartley-Nagle

Officers Reports

Treasurer

Secretary

Vice Presidents

President

Old Business

New Business

Additional Member Comments

Bill Dunn will be presenting on the Coastal Zone Regulations Draft

Asbestos and Lead Sign On Letter to the General Assembly presented by Sarah Bucic;

Dear Civic League of New Castle County,

Environmental, health and labor organizations are working together in Delaware to reduce the potential for community exposure to hazardous substances, including asbestos and lead paint, from demolition projects.

Demolition of industrial, commercial and multi-family housing facilities that contain asbestos, lead paint, or other hazardous materials in proximity to homes, parks and schools creates a public health risk.

To prevent community exposures, we have drafted a petition to DNREC asking for regulatory rule-making and a permit structure for demolition where hazardous substances are present. These regulations should include community notification, air monitoring, and emergency plans if something goes wrong.

We intend to submit the petition on June 1.

Please let us know if your group would like to sign on to the petition.

Sincerely, Sarah Bucic, RN

PETITION FOR REGULATION-MAKING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE

DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES CONTAINING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

INCLUDING ASBESTOS AND LEAD PAINT
Title 16 of the Delaware Code, Chapter 78. Asbestos establishes an oversight structure by DNREC and the OMB to “ ensure the health, safety and welfare of the public by regulating the practice of asbestos abatement, particularly in locations where the general public can reasonably be expected to have access for the purpose of ensuring that such abatement is performed in such a manner as to minimize exposure to asbestos fibers and contamination.”
§7806 assigns DNREC with the power and duty to “promulgate rules and regulations as are necessary to implement the enforcement aspects of this chapter.”
At present, DNREC does not have an adequate oversight structure for the protection of the public. It lacks basic transparency measures (including community notification) to ensure that the public is notified of the demolition activities, data collection (including air monitoring) to ensure that air quality is not diminished, and emergency response plans on file for when something goes wrong. DNREC does not do random site visits to make sure that proper handling procedures are followed. Because DNREC does not issue permits for asbestos removal, it does not collect permit fees to cover the costs of administering the asbestos removal program.
DNREC Regulations 1102 Permits requires an air pollution permit for all “alteration” activities except those that are exempt in Appendix A. Because Appendix A does not include the demolition of any structure, demolition activities, including the removal of hazardous substances from a site, should fall under DNREC air pollution permits. Demolition activities can cause asbestos, lead paint chips, grit or dust, or other hazardous materials to become airborne in close proximity to homes, parks, schools and ecosystems where it can harm public health and the environment. Because DNREC does not presently have any air permit for the demolition of any structure, DNREC regulations and permitting are incomplete.
As stated on the DNREC website, “The mission of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control is to ensure the wise management, conservation, and enhancement of the State’s natural resources, protect public health and the environment , provide quality outdoor recreation, improve the quality of life and educate the public on historic, cultural, and natural resource use, requirements and issues.”
To protect public health and the environment and to educate the public about demolition
activities, we the undersigned request the initiation of DNREC regulatory rule-making
proceedings for demolition activities where hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead paint, are removed.
We ask that new regulations and a permit structure be developed for demolition activities where hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead paint, are removed, and that these new regulations and permit structure include:
1. Community notification that includes which hazardous materials are being removed, the timeline for removal, and a public health fact sheet about the health effects of the
specific hazardous materials.
2. Air monitoring at the fenceline daily for the duration of the time period when hazardous materials are being removed from the site, with air monitoring results available to the public.
3. A Site Emergency and Release Response Plan prior to issuance of the permit, which
should include: the immediate notification of the public likely to be impacted of the risks
of exposure; a coordinated effort between property owner, DNREC, and the Delaware
Division of Public Health to protect the health of area residents; personal precautions
that can be taken by individuals; a person to contact for questions/concerns at DNREC,
and; a proposed response timeline.
Such regulations and permit structure shall entail associated permit fees to cover the costs of administering the program. Unscheduled site visits by a DNREC site inspector should be included in the provisions to ensure that all permit provisions are being followed. To ease the burden on small businesses and the public, we suggest limiting the scope of these regulations and permit structure to include commercial, industrial and multi-unit housing where the footprint of the structure exceeds 5000 square feet.

Anyone can sign the petition as an individual. Click on the link HERE to sign this petition.

Friday, May 17, 2019

Please Attend The Public Hearing For NCC Ord. 19.005, 3PM Tuesday, May 21st In Wilmington

The chance to influence New Castle County Council members on reconsidering this ordinance as drafted is now in the final weeks.

Council is expected to be voting on the legislation at their regular meeting on the following Tuesday evening (6:30 p.m. May 28th).

The public hearing this Tuesday will be held at 3 p.m. in council's 8th floor conference room, 800 N. French Street in Wilmington. View the agenda HERE

Listen to the Planning Board discuss flaws in the ordinance HERE

Read more about 19.005 on Facebook HERE

Read CLNCC member comments on the legislation HERE in our April Newsletter

The News Journal is working on a story on the legislation and hopefully will also publish an editorial. CE Meyer has taken the position that the general public and the Planning Board have rejected the ordinance only because they do not understand it. That is an offensive position!

Please let your council representative know we do understand Ord. 19-005 and we want council to amend it by removing the flaws.

Read all of the communications regarding the ordinance at the NCC Land Use Department Project #190050 page HERE.

Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Future Infill In Northern DE As Worst Case Example Under Proposed NCC Ord. 19-005

(image)

From Nancy Willing -

NCC is upset that residents are pointing out possible worst case examples after examining the proposed Ord. 19-005.

We were called out on March 1st by Meyer's Land Use Dept. GM for "misleading people" through having "inaccurately painted the draft ordinance in such a negative light." saying, "Every point in your summary is false"; "alarmist language" etc..

But the NCC Planning Board recently argued many of our EXACT same points, as led by former state Senator Karen Peterson.

And now Meyer et. al. feel perfectly comfortable dismissing Karen Peterson's concerns just as they dismissed ours.

Please ask your council member if they will also dismiss these concerns when considering to vote for this ordinance as it is currently drafted or will they study these concerns and address them?

Listen to the Planning Board discussion and vote HERE

The image above is from our collaborative community facebook site on the proposed transportation NCC Ordinance 19.005 with this post by R.J. Miles:

Will the 202 corridor look like this in 2050?

Land use protection to the west and a free for all to the east?

Is NCC laying the foundation for dramatic disparity in land use policy, honoring some constituencies concerns with specific protections in the UDC/Comp Plan, while sacraficing the concerns of others by removing current protections?

Civic League for New Castle County Blog

About Us