Speaker: Senator David Sokola
Topic: "Race to the Top" and other education issues under consideration in the Delaware State Senate
Location: The meeting will be in the Paris Community Room, Troop 2, 100 La Grange Avenue in Bear (MAP) at 7 PM tonight.
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.The pointing of fingers and "hot potato" approach over who is responsible for county infrastructure must stop. See: (News Journal) Influence, access taint land-use decisions“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 Plan14) 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 variancesCCS Farms LLC - 6 variancesTupp Signs Inc. - 5 variancesPerhaps 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?
Plus, (WDEL) Amy Cherry reports ~ Newark lawmakers say no to shopping center on Kirkwood HighwayNEWARK – Citing traffic and environmental concerns, six Newark-area legislators sent a letter Wednesday to New Castle County Council urging councilmembers to vote against a rezoning request that would allow developers to build a 345,000-square-foot shopping center on a tract of farmland along Kirkwood Highway.Reps. Paul Baumbach, John Kowalko, Joseph Miro, Edward S. Osienski and Michael Ramone and Sen. David Sokola signed the letter, which states that the rezoning request for the Stopyra property is “inappropriate for that area.”Rep. Baumbach said building a shopping center on the site is not viable and would have negative implications on the surrounding areas. The Delaware Department of Transportation’s traffic impact study predicts a near 50-percent increase in traffic on Capitol Trail/Kirkwood Highway. Additionally, leveling the property’s hillside terrain could lead to dangerous run-off problems and flooding.“The downside of developing the Stopyra tract as requested far outweigh the benefits,” said Rep. Baumbach, D-Newark. “We have to consider the implications for the area’s residents. A 50-percent increase in traffic is simply unfathomable on Kirkwood Highway – already the fifth-most-congested roadway in the state. This is why the parcel is zoned as it is, and why the current zoning should stand. What’s also concerning is that the massive engineering project required to level the hillside could lead to major issues with water runoff and flooding. We don’t believe those are risks worth taking.”New Castle County Council is scheduled to vote on the rezoning request at its February 12 meeting.
The Newark Democrat tells developers to look elsewhere to plan. "We've got plenty of properly zoned property up and down Kirkwood Highway; we do not need more of it," he says.
And to proponents who say the project is good for economic development, [Paul] Baumbach says...."If we need economic development, then we should be redeveloping the dark areas, the non-used areas, the vacancies up and down, redo shopping centers."
http://www.civicleagueforncc.org/7PM Meeting location: Community room, Paul Sweeney Public Safety Building, 3601 DuPont Highway , New Castle ( Minquadale) ( County Police Headquarters)
7:00 PM call to order, update comments7:15 PM State Representative Michael Ramone (R), 21st District with comments on proposed legislation and various aspects of the 147th General Assembly. With his current committee assignments including:
House Capital Infrastructure...there should be some informative dialogue.
House Economic Development/Banking/Insurance/Commerce
House Gaming & Parimutuels
House Housing & Community Affairs
House Revenue & Finance
House Telecommunication Internet & Technology
House Veterans Affairs
At the conclusion of this segment there may be a presentation by the New Castle County Police on programs they have throughout the various communities. This request has not yet been confirmed.
8:45 PM Closing comments, reports, distribution of community contact information for League recruitment.
9:00 PM Adjournment
Prepared by
Chuck Mulholland
President, Civic League for New Castle County
"the full text of 9 Del. C. 2662 imposes on both DelDOT and County Council the burden of establishing LOS standards, on DelDOT the burden of ANALYSIS, and County Council the burden of considering the results in dealing with each rezoning application. Thus dealing with highway capacity - the title of 9 Del. C. 2662 - - is a SHARED burden.
Here are Vic's three questions ~Vic introduces his questions @5 minutes and distributes printed copies@14 min. Shahan says yes to the three questions@ 17 min. Taschner says yes to the 1st and no to the 2nd and 3rd. Bullock says yes to all three.@17 Clark makes a long preamble, says no to the 2nd without answering 1st and 2nd.@18 Gordon says yes to all three.@19 Shahan makes further comment@20 Husband says yes to the 1st and no to the 2nd and 3rd.
THE BARLEY MILL PLAZA CONTINUING SAGA
And here is Vic's letter published 1/24/13 ~ Court, Council should follow law in Barley Mill caseSubj: For your information
Date: 1/25/2013 9:26:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: VSinger01@aol.com
To: jmreda@nccde.org, rsweiner@nccde.org, jkilpatrick@nccde.org,
phollins@nccde.org, ediller@nccde.org, wepowersjr@nccde.org, gsmiley@nccde.org, jjcartier@nccde.org, tpsheldon@nccde.org, cljackson@nccde.org, dltackett@nccde.org, jwbell@nccde.org
CC: VSinger01@aol.com
Members of County Council:
The following e-mail, sent to Council President Bullock at 1:52 pm this
afternoon, urges a no contest plea by County Council in the about-to-start
lawsuit following up your rezoning for the proposed Barley Mill Plaza. You
should all be aware that 9 Del. C. 2662 requires that Council consider traffic
impact before EVERY rezoning, and that the UDC defines how traffic impact
must be studied. And you should all be aware that no such study was done.
A no contest plea would acknowledge the truth, and would start on the path
to correction of a grievous error. AT LONG LAST ! !
Sincerely, Victor Singer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj: about-to-start lawsuit, Barley Mill Plaza re-zoning
Date: 1/25/2013 1:52:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: VSinger01@aol.com
To: cabullock@nccde.org
Dear President Bullock
Perhaps you might remember the 8/21/2012 meeting of Civic League for New
Castle County, where you appeared with Renee Taschner and the four hopefuls
for the Democrat candidacy for County Executive.
And perhaps you might remember that I asked three questions - - orally - -
after a one sentence preface, and after passing hard copies to all six that
included the full text of 9 Del. C. 2662 from the "Quality of Life Act"
(adopted by the General Assembly in 1988). The preface and questions were:
PREFACE: According to the Oath of Office required by the Delaware
Constitution, elective and appointive officeholders swear ALWAYS to uphold the
Constitutions of the US and the State.
. . . . .
QUESTION ONE: Do you regard that oath as requiring you to uphold laws duly
enacted at both State and Local levels under authority granted by the State
Constitution?
. . . . .
QUESTION TWO: Do you regard the recent changes to the Redevelopment
provisions of the UDC that allowed the County to rezone WITHOUT a traffic
impact study - - NC County Code, §40.08.130.B.6.a thru h - - to constitute refusal to SHARE the burden imposed by 9 Del. C. § 2662, and therefore violations of the Oaths by the relevant legislators and Executive?
. . . . .
QUESTION THREE: Do you regard those Council members and the County
Executive who approved a rezoning in violation of 9 Del. C. § 2662 as
having violated their Oaths of Office?
. . . . .
Tom Gordon, Bill Shahan and you answered "YES" to all three. Jon Husband
and Renee Taschner answered "YES" to the first and "NO" to the 2nd and 3rd.
Paul Clark answered "NO" to the second and responded to the others with
remarks that I (Vic Singer) am a rocket scientist but not a lawyer.
I'm certain that you have been following media coverage of the SOC lawsuit
about the Barley Mill Plaza rezoning lawsuit that is about to start.
Yesterday's News Journal seems to report that four members of Council are
figuratively wringing their hands about the anticipated expenditure for Council's
defense. Today's News Journal included my brief letter-to-the-editor quoting
the essence of 9 Del. C. 2662, and pointing out that the rezoning was
forbidden by State law.
Council's adoption, some years ago, of the "Redevelopment Ordinance" added
to Article 8 of the UDC the following sentence: "A traffic impact study
shall only be required if requested by DelDOT." Obviously, that sentence
cannot relieve Council of the obligation establishd by 9 Del. C. 2662, by act of
the General Assembly and the Governor's signature. Council cannot veto
State law.
But that sentence validly directs the Land Use Department to base its
recommendation on everything else EXCEPT traffic impact. The Planning Board, on
the other hand, is required by 9 Del. C. 1304(2) to give recommendations to
County Council on zoning map amendments (and other things) whenever it - -
the Planning Board - - deems it appropriate. That obligation under State law
over-rides the above-quoted sentence.
Since Council's rezoning is not defensible, Council faces two alternatives:
<> Enter a "No Contest" plea immediately, acknowledge the prior error and
beg the public's forgiveness on a "Nobody's Perfect" premise. That will save
the public a lot of money.
<> Continue the legal battle, at large public cost, and wait to be
disgraced for violating the Oath of Office. That will WASTE a lot of public money.
Your answers last August told the public where you stood. We have seen
nothing from you reversing your stated position. Now, as President of County
Council, you have an opportunity to lead the effort for Council to do the
LAWFUL thing, FINALLY.
Your comments are invited, of course.
Vic Singer
News Journal coverage of the ongoing Barley Mill Plaza saga has focused intensely on cosmetics and ignored the key issue. State law says: "The County Council shall not approve any proposed change in the zoning classification for land (i.e., any 'rezoning request') without first - - consider[ing] the effects of existing traffic, projected traffic growth in areas surrounding a proposed zoning reclassification and the projected traffic generated by the proposed site development for which the zoning reclassification is sought." (9 Del. C. 2662) The County's UDC prescribes how to consider those effects. (NC County Code Section 40 Article 11) Council approved the rezoning without the required studies, which don't yet exist.
. . . . . .
County Council, the County Executive and the Chancery Court judge are bound by their Oaths of Office (Article 16, Delaware Constitution) to uphold duly enacted laws of the Nation and the State. When the not-yet-started trial will reach the key issue is a matter of legal procedure and strategy. The public should be reminded of the heart of the complaint.
Hopefully, this evidence will serve to disabuse comment that Gordon's stance on the Chancery court case is a mere political machination. It is respect for the law.Perhaps FIASCO is too strong a term for the Barley Mill Plaza rezoning. Maybe not. Judge for yourselves.
. . . . . .
New Castle County Council's rezoning of 36.8 acres of the 92.1 acre Barley Mill Plaza parcel from Office Regional to Commercial Regional violates portions of the Unified Development Code and State law. Council accepted the Land Use Department's favorable recommendation, not the Planning Board's unfavorable one.
All Delaware public officeholders are by oath bound to uphold the law. Therefore they must read and understand it. Ignorance doesn't excuse malfeasance. They needn't be attorneys; the words were given force by lay legislators.
. . . . . .The UDC constrains land use intensifications initiated after its effective date (12/31/1997) according to the capacity of infrastructure already in place, under construction, or under contract for construction. For land uses that became nonconforming when the UDC became law, a "Nonconforming Situations" Article allows lawful continuation of prior lawful uses without full compliance with the UDC's adequate infrastructure provisions. But redevelopment with a use (zoning) change thereafter had to comply fully with the UDC use provisions (ref: Section 40.08.110).. . . . . .That was in the UDC at its beginning, and hasn't been amended. Years later, however, Council added subsections (Subsections 40.08.130.B.6.a thru h) establishing for "all major redevelopment plans . . and any plan that is also requesting a rezoning" (Section 40.08.130.B.6.d) that "a traffic impact study shall only be required if requested by DelDOT" (Section 40.08.130.B.6.e.7).. . . . . .The first section of the "Transportation Impact" Article of the UDC (Division 40.11.000) states: "No major land development or any rezoning shall be permitted if the proposed development exceeds the level of service set forth in this Article unless the traffic mitigation or the waiver provisions of this Article can be satisfied." The Article requires that "the transportation capacity for a proposed development shall be based upon the available capacity as determined by a traffic impact study" (Section 40.11.110). No redevelopment exemption is among waiver provisions (Section 40.11.121), but staging to coincide with transportation system improvements and developer contributions to improvement costs are addressed.. . . . . .Our nation is ruled by law, starting with the Constitutions of the US and each State. Each State makes rules governing its Counties and Municipalities. New Castle County Council and the Land Use Department occasionally forget to comply with State law. Delaware State law demands that when a new County Ordinance repeals or amends prior County law, the new Ordinance must set out in full both the prior language and the new language (Ref. 9 Del. C. 1152).. . . . . .The recently added UDC subsection clearly authorizes redevelopment with a use change, which had been forbidden earlier. At the very least, the phrase "except as provided elsewhere in this Chapter" should have been - - but wasn't - - added to the UDC's "Nonconforming Situations" and "Transportation Impact" Articles.
Violation of this procedural requirement alone is sufficient to void the UDC change enabling a rezoning without a TIS.. . . . . .A deeper issue also applies. State law designates that among the purposes of the County's zoning regulations is promoting the safety and convenience of the state's inhabitants by limiting congestion in the streets and roads (Ref. 9 Del. C. 2603(a)). It prohibits any zoning change that doesn't follow an agreement between the County and DelDOT ensuring that while the rezoning is being sought, traffic analyses must be performed that "consider the effects of existing traffic, projected traffic growth in areas surrounding a proposed zoning reclassification and the projected traffic generated by the proposed site development for which the zoning reclassification is sought" (ref. 9 Del. C. 2662).. . . . . .That State law provision requires the County and DelDOT to share responsibility for congestion on the transportation system. HOW to share - - rather than WHETHER to share - - is left to the County and DelDOT to work out. The County cannot discharge its SHARING responsibility by legislating that it won't think about congestion while giving redevelopment rezonings a free pass. Even if the State's procedural requirements for changing the UDC had been followed to the letter, the recently added UDC changes are voided by their substance.
Given the magnitude of the proposed Barley Mill Plaza project, the County Executive agrees with the injunctive remedy sought by “Save Our County.” Consistent with his campaign promises, County Executive Gordon firmly believes that a traffic study should have been conducted and provided to County Council prior to the vote to rezone.
Developing over 36 acres of commercial space on Route 141 could have significant consequences to the quality of life of the nearby citizens along with major economic implications for the City of Wilmington.
The owner of the property, Stoltz Real Estate Partners, also is named in the suit. Stoltz attorney John Tracey declined comment.
The suit was filed a year ago, when Paul Clark was county executive. Gordon took office Nov. 13.
Councilwoman Janet Kilpatrick said she was stunned by Gordon’s comments. “I’m shocked,” she said. “This is a lawsuit against the county. Why are we making statements at all?” County Council also is named in the suit. The council voted 7-6 to rezone 37 of the property’s 92 acres from office to commercial use.
December 31, 2012Delaware Department of TransportationPO Box 778Dover, DE 19903Re: Public Comment – Dec 14 Draft Amendment to Traffic Study RegulationsThis past October, individual citizens, major civic organizations, and area legislators expressed their concerns about DelDOT’s proposed Amendment to the Standards and Regulations for Subdivision Streets and State Highway Access. On December 14, DelDOT issued a 2nd draft of the proposed Traffic Study Regulations, and we were surprised and disappointed to read the new proposal. After a lengthy public comment period, ostensibly designed to seek/incorporate upgrades to a 1st draft offering inadequate protection to local communities, we see that DelDOT has both rejected important suggestions to protect the public interest while adding new language to further weaken current/proposed regulations. Our comments on this latest draft are detailed below.Important Suggestions Rejected1. Legal Authority. DelDOT failed to address the longstanding issue of “hot potato”, where DelDOT and the County each point to the other on responsibility for transportation infrastructure. Our reading of the law is that the State’s roads are fundamentally the responsibility of DelDOT. The below text, added by DelDOT in the latest draft, perhaps best illustrates the gulf between the public’s expectations and DelDOT’s perspective. In the preamble discussing the purpose of Traffic Impact Studies, DelDOT has added these words “DIRECT REQUIREMENTS BY DELDOT TYPICALLY ARE LIMITED TO THE LOCATION AND DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT ACCESS” (Sec 2.1).2. Infrastructure Funding. DelDOT made no changes to the flawed infrastructure funding program whereby developers pay an assessment to DelDOT and are then free to proceed with development. This sets up a situation where developers can pay pennies on the dollar for improvements, the improvements never get made, and the public is left with a traffic nightmare that the taxpayer ends up eventually funding out of our own pockets. There needs to be DIRECT LINKAGE – needed improvements are identified up front, and developers make (and pay for) the required upgrades CONCURRENT with the build-out of their project. If this occurs within a TID, DelDOT can apportion the work across the responsible parties, but the developers fund and implement the work as a condition of occupancy. This is the only way to protect the public.3. Regional Impact. DelDOT failed to address developments with regional impact to the transportation system. The proposed "3rd road out limitation" specifically prevents this type of analysis and needs to be changed (Sec 2.5.2.2). Some states such as Florida have a square footage threshold for major land developments that have regional impact.4. Public Engagement/TIDs. DelDOT’s responses to specific questions posed by the public continue to indicate their concerns regarding public involvement. This is particularly significant given DelDOT’s push to broadly implement Transportation Improvement Districts with their long time horizons, complexity and limited role for the public. As one citizen noted, TIDs may have the effect of further reducing public engagement in an environment where it’s already judged to be insufficient.New Language to Further Weaken Current/Proposed RegulationsWe believe that traffic study regulations are needed that balance the interests of all stakeholders, supporting needed growth while preserving the character of our communities. We strongly object to the following new language incorporated in the latest draft.1. Non-Residential Rezonings. The latest draft adds a clause that non-residential rezonings without a specific associated development plan should be CONSIDERED WITHOUT A TIS at all, and that the need for a TIS be evaluated when the development proposal is defined (Sec 2.3.1). This is unacceptable to the community.2. Existing Conditions. The latest draft REMOVED LANGUAGE that DelDOT will recommend a TIS if development is proposed for a non-rural area where existing conditions are currently below LOS D (Sec 2.3.1). Again, this is unacceptable.3. Calculation Methods. The latest draft curiously modified several calculation methods which appear to FURTHER WEAKEN CURRENT/PROPOSED REGULATIONS, and are unacceptable.-Default Contribution Formula. For situations in which a TID exists and no formula for developer contributions has been defined, the default formula for contributions is now proposed to be based on % of total traffic vs % of increased traffic, A MAJOR CHANGE (Sec 2.3.4). To illustrate, lets examine a roadway with, say, 6,000 vehicles of peak hour traffic. A development is proposed that adds 3,000 vehicles of peak hour traffic. With no other nearby new developments underway, logic would require that 100% of needed road upgrades be funded by the developer creating the impact (using the % of increased traffic method). DelDOT, however, is now proposing to use a % of total traffic method. Under this calculation, the developer would only be required to fund 33% (3,000/9,000) of needed road upgrades, with the REMAINING 67% SUBSIDIZED BY THE TAXPAYER.-Queuing Analysis Standard. A Queuing Analysis is utilized to determine whether existing and proposed left hand turn lanes near developments are adequate. Current regulations specify that 98% of expected queues be accommodated at signalized intersections. DelDOT’s latest draft proposes toRELAX THIS TO 95% with the reasoning that it’s “consistent with our current practice”. In our view, the fact that DelDOT may not have followed established rules is no justification to relax existing requirements. This logic, carried forward, creates a host of unintended consequences.We appreciate the opportunity to comment for the record and reiterate our offer to meet with you to develop a balanced approach that represents the interests of both the development community and the public.Respectfully submitted,Save Our County, IncJoseph C. Kelly, Esq.Walter P. McEvilly, Jr., Esq.Tom DewsonChuck Mulholland, President-Civic League for New Castle County & Southern New Castle County AllianceFran Swift, President-Greater Hockessin Area Development AssociationBill Dunn, President-Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance