(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.

~*~

Civic League for New Castle County Blog

About Us

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

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

Index of /CCOBH/19005 Council May28

No comments:

Post a Comment