About Us

Founded in 1962, the Civic League For New Castle County is an organization comprised of community civic associations, umbrella civic groups, good government groups, businesses, and interested individuals. The League provides a forum for education about, discussion of, and action on issues relating to the impact of government on the quality of life in New Castle County

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

MLCA Raises Environmental Issues Around Residential Development Of The Hercules Golf Course


The Environmental Issue that no one wants to talk about regarding Residential Development of the Hercules Golf Course
 As some may have noticed, in the News-Journal this week was an article about the development of the Delaware National Golf Course (formally Hercules Country Club).  In that article, the well publicized traffic issues represented the core focus of what was covered, followed by the existing residents from the Little Falls community who were concerned about preserving the character of their community by seeing the proposed townhouse phase, be stipulated as a over-55 restricted community. 
In the next to last paragraph in the article, it briefly highlighted; "Other issues raised at Thursday's meeting include environmental concerns from both herbicides used on the golf course as well as commercial chemical development on a neighboring property that drains through the golf course. 
The Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance has for 13+ years taken an active interest in the development of the Hercules Country Club property for two primary reasons; The transportation and/or road expansion necessary to deal with the additional traffic that would be generated, AND, The need for proper Clean-up of well-documented environmental problems that exist in various areas of the golf courses and bordering properties. 
I spoke about these issues at the meeting Thursday night and surprised many residents, which prompted even greater concern with the information that they heard and were otherwise, completely unaware of.  
The below document is a brief review of that material we have collected and steps that the MLCA has taken, to get this significant environmental issue addressed.  Our surrounding community groups believe it is important to protect their residents and that of future residents.  PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES AND READ THE DOCUMENT.
Bill Dunn - President 
Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance (MLCA) 
302-598-6313 

Environmental Issues disregarded by DNREC and developers that will likely affect future homeowners and the surrounding community with the development of the Hercules C. C. property

By: Bill Dunn – President, MLCA

Preface
Sometime in 2011, after Greenville Overlook 1 was underway, Toll Brothers began work on moving through the development process to get approval of the remaining 18-holes of what was the Hercules Country Club.  Since DNREC had records of environmental spill(s) on the property, the State’s Hazardous Substance Clean-up Act (HSCA) analysis was mandated.  Toll Brothers hired Brightfield & Associates, Inc. to do the evaluation.  Consistent with the process, soil analysis test bores were taken at various locations and a Cleanup Plan was developed.  Subsequently, DNREC met with Brightfield several times and numerous changes were made in the planned cleanup.  In late 2011, DNREC Administrators were prepared to approve the cleanup plan, which is the point in time, the public gets to review the plan and make comments to DNREC and the developer.

Public Hearing
The Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance, having been involved in issues regarding traffic and environmental cleanup with Greenville Overlook 1, we took an interest in the proposal.  Members of the MLCA’s Technical Working Group reviewed some of the material and decided to attend and comment on issues like dust control (which was not handled very well with Greenville Overlook 1) and the extent of the study done on the northern border adjacent to the Aqualon LLC property (a wholly owned subsidiary of Hercules Inc.), where agricultural product testing was done by Hercules for many years.  A member of the MLCA that lives in Brandywine Springs Manor and who’s home backed up to the first property developed, spoke about the dust issues they experienced and how better oversight was necessary.  Having worked in chemical research for more than 25 years, I spoke about dioxins and testing.

Despite DNREC being aware of dioxins being present in some areas of the property, they appeared to not to be very concerned in about the area I was emphasizing.    The term “Dioxin” is a generic term that is used to refer to a family of chemical compounds that are very toxic (one specific compound, by EPA standards, is only tolerated to 3 parts per TRILLION).   I commented on what and how research compounds may have been handled, applied and disposed of after basic lab testing in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.  Also noteworthy, is the rain water from this testing field on the Aqualon property, flows into two negative swales eventually converging and flowing down on to the property where they want to build new homes.  I felt that this issue should have prompted DNREC to call for additional test bores in this area of the property and a follow-up review before moving forward.  There were a few more brief comments and the meeting was closed.

DNREC’s Secretary’s Approval
Four or five weeks after the meeting, I contacted DNREC to see where the Remedial Action Plan stood.  I was told that the Hearing Officer, Robert Haines, determined that all issues brought forward at the Hearing were addressed by Brightfield and DNREC and that no further action was necessary, completely contrary to what our comments emphasized.  The Secretary, relaying on his staff and the Hearing Officer, went ahead and signed the Plan, allowing the Plan to move forward, barring any challenge of that decision.

Call for Environmental Appeal Board Hearing is filed
In a situation such as this, the public has an opportunity to challenge the Secretary’s decision by calling for an Environmental Appeals Board Hearing, which we did.  The Board is a State body, of technically competent people whom have the appropriate backgrounds, to determine if the Secretary made the proper decision.  With the Appeal being filed, DNREC notifies the AG’s office and an attorney is assigned to handle the case. 
Seeing the items brought forward by a specific community member, four neighbors in Westminster and a recognized community group that had a history of involvement in the overall property (i.e. Hercules C.C.) their initial consideration to challenge our “Standing” regarding the Plan was quickly dismissed.  The next issue was legal representation in the matter, which the community must obtain.  Without going into detail, we had a lawyer willing to support our effort.  And, Toll Brothers having a stake in the outcome, they interacted in the process.

Negotiated deal to avoid EAB Hearing
After roughly a year of negotiations with DNREC’s attorney and Toll Bros. attorney, we agreed to withdrawn our call for an EAB Hearing, IF three requirements were met:
1)      A community-approved, revised dust control plan was addended to the legally binding plan, and
2)      Two additional test bores would be collected (3 depths/bore) from very specific locations, which we designated, on the Aqualon property where water would run-off of and on to the property where they wanted to build homes.  Each one of the six samples would be divided in half.  Before the samples were taken, DNREC provided the MLCA with a list of Soil Analysis’s firms which we could choose to contract with for our analysis.  We sent our six samples off, under tightly controlled standards, to an approved firm for a detailed seventeen-analyte analysis for both Furans and Dioxins.  The other halves, were sent off by Brightfield or Toll or Ashland for their chosen analysis.
3)      Finally, both sides would disclose their results to the other and the Secretary AND, the Secretary would be obligated to review the results of both analysis’s and make a final decision based on those results.

MLCA’s Interpretation of their Sample Results sent to Colin O’Mara & others
The MLCA is providing, as agreed upon, the results of the analysis that we have had done on two of six samples we were provided at the end of May by DNREC and Ashland Inc.  The remainders of the samples tested, as well as the other samples not yet tested, are being held by our DNREC-approved Analytical firm (in a controlled environment) for possible additional analysis. 
Members of our MLCA-Hercules Technical Group have looked at the data attached and find some aspects quite concerning.  I believe Dr. (Prof.) Detra's comments back to me and others in the Technical group, touches on some issues that have been discussed so far:

=============
Assessment of the polychlorinated diphenyl dioxins and furans.
Submitted 15 June 2013
Summary
Six samples were collected. According to the chain of custody they all required PCDD and PCDF analysis by EPA SW846method 8290. However only samples 1 and 4 were analyzed in this way. All samples were subjected to percent solids determination.
Sample 1 had apparent measurable residues of all PCDD and PCDF analytes. Specific analytes were converted to TEQs or “Toxic Equivalents” to 2,3,7,8-TCDD per the method using TEFs or “Toxic Equivalency Factors.” They were all added together and a final Toxic equivalent to 2,3,7,8-TCDD was determined to be 18 ppt (parts per trillion).
Sample 2 had apparent measurable residues of all PCDD and PCDF analytes except for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF. The data were treated in the same manner as required by the method and the toxic equivalency to 2,3,7,8-TCDDwas 19 ppt.
The method blank had some sort of contamination for most of the furans. Although there was background for total TCDD it was somehow overlooked and was not included in the reports of the samples. However, 2,3,7,8-TCDD itself did not have background interference.
The laboratory control spike performed well for all analytes. even with the background interference.

Assessment
I am concerned that in sample 1 there were ten analytes reports which were qualified with Q, meaning there was some sort of quality control failure in their measurement. In sample 2 there were eleven quality control failures. The background interference is bothersome but they seem to have had little impact on the final values. Both samples had such high values of OCDD that it exceeded the upper limit of the standard curve so it had to be estimated. Often laboratories would dilute and reanalyze. However, the TEQ for OCDD is only 0.001 so it would not have much impact on the final values.
It appears the data are valid. The report does not assign any significance to the final reported TEQs. This may vary from state to state and it does vary according to the planed use for the site or how it is currently being used. I did check to see what URS (Uniform Risk Standard) regulations are for PCDD and PCDF toxic equivalents with DNREC. I did find conditions for surface soil under the category: “Protection of the Environment.” There was no limit based on toxic equivalents. However, if we do hold faith in the principles of the TEQs, we should be able to use the URS limits for 2,3,7,8-TCDD as the same as TEQS.  The TEQs are supposed to express the total risk based on that form of TCDD. The DNREC URS limit is 3 ppt.
So based on the “Protection of the Environment” criterion, the residues in this soil greatly exceed the DNREC version of URS limits. Some might complain that many of the analytes used for this determination are estimated because they were below the lower standard curve limit or above the highest limit. But this is what we have to work with now. It appears some remediation for PCDDs and PCDFs is necessary.
Sincerely,
Randall L. Detra, Ph.D.
=======================

In my assessment, 4 of the 17 analytes (2-furan & 2-dioxin ) in Sample 1 and similarly, 4 of the 17 analytes (2-furan & 2-dioxin ) in Sample 2, were reported at or above the instrument's calibration standards and EPA 1989 TEF, with an additional 5 and 4 analytes respectively, showing values above tolerable levels, but below the lowest calibration standard (i.e. a "fitted" value based on extrapolating confirmed standards).  Not being an expert, yet having had numerous discussions with others of similar backgrounds and knowledge as Dr. Detra, I and others in the MLCA have a great deal of concern.

The locations where the samples were taken, were specifically chosen because of the possibility that those locations would highlight how these types of chemical could have possibly migrated to where residential development is proposed to occur.

Again, not being an expert, yet having a reasonable degree of understanding of approaches applied in research and chemistry in general, this information should support the supposition that DNREC needs to reevaluate the Remedial Action Plan for the Hercules Golf Course (DE-1492), as well as start/continue a Remedial Action Plan for the now confirmed issues that exist on the Aqualon property.

Regrettably and to my surprise, after a discussion with our legal representation, it can be interpreted, that regardless of what DNREC chooses to do with this information and all other information being equally shared by all parties involved, we have agreed to withdrawal our EAB appeal/hearing.  I would hate to think my confusion in the stipulation set forth before the sampling could have a long-term negative effect on the present and future residents in this area.  We at the MLCA continue to be firmly committed to supporting and protecting all the residents and property owners in the area. 

We request that this note and attached data, as well as all other information regarding the recent sampling analysis, be provided to all members of the EAB. 

We look forward to seeing the other sets of results which we expect will include data from all six samples to the same level of detail and precision that we applied with the community's limited funding and what the Secretary and DNREC staff is willing to do to rectify any shortcomings that may exist in their earlier decision.  
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four Pages of MLCA’s Data

The Analysis done on the sister samples
I believe that Ashland/Toll/DNREC expected the MLCA to do a general, total concentration analysis of our samples.  The State has a “total concentration” permissible limit that is roughly 20 ppm.  Knowing that some specific Dioxins have limits of 3 parts/trillion, we thought it was important to do the detailed analysis, despite the additional expense.
Not wanting to provide any more detail than was necessary, Ashland/Toll/DNREC chose to do the total concentration analysis, which provided data results just under the 20 ppm limit. [DETAILS are IMPORTANT!]

The Secretary’s Decision
Despite the MLCA’s Dr. Detra acknowledgement of short coming in some of the data results, DNREC and/or the Secretary, chose to completely disregard the results and NOT call for additional analysis.
                                                                                                     
STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
& ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
DIVISION OF WASTE AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
391 LUKENS DRIVE
NEW CASTLE, DELAWARE 19720-2774

      SITE  INVESTIGATION


August 14, 2013

Mr. William Dunn
Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance

RE:       Aqualon Sampling Results – May 2013
              Hercules Road and Lancaster Pike Site, DE-1492

Dear Mr. Dunn,
Thank you for your comments and those of Dr. Detra concerning the results of the May 2013 sampling event at the Aqualon property.  The purpose of this letter is to review all of the data now available and inform you of the Department’s path forward on the Hercules Rd & Lancaster Pike Site.  There are three sets of dioxin analysis data available now for the Aqualon site: the May 2013 Ashland samples (3), the split samples from that sampling event (2), and the May 2012 Ashland samples (3).  
With regard to the 2013 split sample results, there is an error on the Test America results summary pages for the two samples, pages 11 and 13 (highlighted copies are attached), which affects Dr. Detra’s evaluation of the results.  The next-to-the-last column is headed “EPA 1989 Toxicity Equivalence Factor (TEF) ”.  The value given for octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) is 0.001.  This value was adopted by the US EPA in 1989.  In December 2010, the US EPA issued an update in a document titled:   “Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments of  2,3,7,8-Tetrachorodibenzo-pdioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds” (www.epa.gov/raf/files/tefs-for-dioxin-epa-00-r-10-005-final.pdf ).   The TEF given for OCDD in Table 2 of this document (attached)  is 0.0003.  The toxic equivalent (TEQ) concentration given in the lab report for the split samples is thus inflated by a factor of three. 
It should be further noted that the predominant parameter contributing to the TEQ  concentration in the split samples is OCDD.  The OCDD results for the split samples are qualified and would not be considered valid by DNREC for decision making purposes.   Note that the results reported for the split samples are all qualified as “B” meaning that the analyte was detected in the method blanks or “J” meaning that the value is estimated.  (These qualifiers appear in a foot note on the second page of each result summary.)
The split sample results are consistent with the three samples analyzed by Ashland in 2013 when 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) was not detected in any of the samples.  There was no congener analysis reported for the Ashland 2013 samples.  This result is also consistent with the previous three soil samples taken at the site by Ashland in May 2012.  Those samples did receive congener analysis and results were similar to the 2013 split samples including the qualifiers for OCDD.
In summary, six soil samples from the Aqualon site have been analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.  Two of those samples were split and analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.  All eight results were the same:  2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected.
Since there is no evidence indicating that dioxin contamination is present in soil at the Aqualon property, the Department will not alter the current Final Plan of Remedial Action (“Final Plan”) for the adjacent Hercules Road and Lancaster Pike Site.  The Department will require the Final Plan to be implemented at that Site in accordance with the Secretary’s Order of March 22, 2012.
Please call me with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Stephen F. Johnson, PE




Site Investigation and Restoration Section
In our interpretation, essentially, because the instrumentation standards samples that are used to calibrate the instrument, in the case of 5 of 17 analytes analyzed, did not go to a low enough in concentration to guarantee accuracy.  Because of that, they through-out ALL the 17 analytes detected.

MLCA’s Conclusion
We have very little doubt, that there is a significant danger not only on the Aqualon property, but where rainwater has ran off that property and onto the areas proposed for residential development.  Our position IS NOT based on conjecture and speculation, but scientific and engineering principles.
It is our belief that DNREC has been negligent in, if nothing else, not calling for additional sampling based on the  result of our independent laboratory’s findings and analysis by our chemical expert.

As previously stated in other forums, the MLCA is NOT opposed to the development of the property in general.   If environmental and transportation requirements and responsibilities are met and all other requirements under today’s UDC are responsibly addressed, we are more than willing to not oppose the proposes development of this land. However, until  our concerns are properly addressed by DNREC and Petinaro,  we remain opposed  to any development of the property.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Community Meeting On Delaware National Country Club Redevelopment 7PM Thursday In Wilmington


Community Meeting To Discuss Redevelopment of the Delaware National Country Club (former Hercules C.C.)
Thursday, April 20, 2017
7:00 pm.
Location: A. I. DuPont High School Auditorium
50 Hillside Rd, Wilmington, DE 19807


A developer's proposal to build a 262-unit residential development at the site of the former Hercules Country Club is moving quickly through the County approval process.   
Serious concerns have been raised about - its compatibility with the existing community- the deeply flawed traffic study now underway- its visual impact on this beautiful areaNone of these concerns have been addressed by the County to date.   
Please come to the public meeting at 7pm on Thursday April 20 at A. I. duPont High School to hear about this proposal and to share your thoughts.  This is 1 of only 2 opportunities to have your voice heard.

From Bob Weiner ~

Dear Neighbor,

Please share this important information with your neighbors and friends.

I am pleased to facilitate a community meeting at the A.I. DuPont High School Auditorium April 20th community meeting (beginning at 7:00pm) to discuss the Delaware National Country Club (Hercules Country Club).  Our County Land Use Department will be in attendance and will carefully consider community comments.

(Directions to highschool  - Take DE-52 N to Hillside Rd in Greenville. Turn left onto Hillside Rd)

The applicant’s attorney, Larry Tarabicos, provided the information below…
This site is zoned S (Open Space Planned Subdivision Option) and contains 205.27 acres.  The site is separated into the four parcels by Hercules Road, the Red Clay Creek and Penn Oak Drive.  It is generally bounded by Lancaster Pike (Route 48) to the north, the Hercules Research Center to the South, office uses to the far East and Residential areas to the far West and Southeast.  The site was formerly known as, and occupied by, the Delaware National Country Club.  The current owner, Golf Course Associates, LLC of Newport, Delaware, proposes to develop the site into 262 residential lots.  Per Unified Development Code (UDC) requirements, the project will encompass four different styles of homes. 
The unit mix will contain 27 Estate Homes (12,000 square foot minimum), 27 Executive Homes (10,000 square foot minimum), 104 Village Style single family homes (6000 square foot minimum) and 104 24 foot wide Townhouses (2200 square foot minimum).  The total subdivision proposes 262 housing lots.  The open space will incorporate the remaining golf cart paths as part of the walking path system for use by the public.  Parking required is 2.25 spaces per dwelling unit in this zoning district. 
For additional information, please click this link - http://www3.nccde.org/project/details/default.aspx?ProjectKey=552426 
It is important to note that this plan is a “MAJOR RECORD PLAN”; but not a rezoning. A major record plan submission will afford public comment along the application process.

There is a key difference between a major record plan and a rezoning with a major record plan.  If a major plan is in general compliance with the standards of the Unified Development Code, those plans may advance to the Planning Board public hearing.  

The public is invited to make comments at the Department of Land Use Planning Board hearing. The County Land Use Department carefully considers community input during this process.  This is always a key opportunity for the public to work with the developer and Land Use to influence the plan if needed.

If the record plan and all supporting documents comply with this Chapter and any other applicable regulations, the General Manager of the Department shall approve the record plan and the Department will issue an approval letter. Supporting documents shall include, but are not limited to:
1. Letter of approval from DelDOT regarding transportation matters.
A.    Traffic impact study (TIS). For all major plans and plans with rezonings where the Department has not waived traffic analysis requirements, the applicant shall submit traffic information pursuant to Article 11. If a traffic impact study is required, a scoping meeting shall be scheduled pursuant to Article 11 to identify concurrency issues. No record plan submission shall occur until such time that the TIS is approved and the plan meets the concurrency requirements of Article 11.
 
Since this is a major plan and the Land Use Department has not waived traffic analysis requirements, a Traffic Impact Study is currently underway for this project. 
A traffic impact study (TIS) is defined in our New Castle County Code under ARTICLE 11. - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT[7], Division 40.11.000. - Purpose.
The purpose of this Article is to ensure that development occurs only where there are adequate transportation facilities in place, or programmed for construction. Transportation capacity is allocated to proposed land developments on a first come-first serve basis. The highway capacity shall be determined by a traffic impact study. No major land development or any rezoning shall be permitted if the proposed development exceeds the level of service standards set forth in this Article unless the traffic mitigation or the waiver provisions of this Article can be satisfied. (For added information, click this hypertext link) - 
https://www.municode.com/library/de/new_castle_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH40UNDECO_ART11TRIM_DIV40.11.100TRCA 
The plan is then sent to County Council.  The public is again invited to comment on the plan.  However, if the plan is code compliant, then Council is required by code to provide approval of the plan. (UDC 40.31.100)
D.  Council consent.
1.  For major plans, the record plan shall be forwarded to County Council for its consent. Upon receipt of the plan, County Council shall schedule the matter for its next public hearing, and may take one (1) of the following actions:
a. Adopt a resolution approving the record major plan; or
b. Table and refer the plan back to the Department, no more than twice, with specific questions relating to technical compliance with this Chapter, State or federal constitutional requirements or any other statute or ordinance for which compliance is required. Upon receipt of a Department recommendation reaffirming approval of the plan, County Council shall adopt the resolution of approval, unless a second referral is made because of additional questions or concerns. Upon receipt of the Department's recommendation reaffirming approval of the plan after review of any additional concerns raised by County Council, Council shall adopt the resolution of approval.
2. County Council may use any one (1) or more of the above options subject to the limitations contained in each subparagraph.
E. Action upon receipt of County Council referral. Upon receipt of specific questions from County Council, the Department shall respond with its findings and a recommendation. The recommendation shall be one (1) of the following:
1. That the plan be approved, in which case County Council shall adopt the resolution of plan approval at its next scheduled meeting unless a second referral is made, in which case Council shall adopt the resolution of plan approval at its next scheduled meeting following the second approval.
2. That the Department has rescinded its previous approval of the plan for noncompliance, in which case County Council shall withdraw the resolution of plan approval.   (Ord. No. 09-066, § 18, 10-13-2009; Ord. No. 10-113, § 1(Exh. A), 1-18-2011)
Sec. 40.31.114. - Record plan review stage.
A. Record plan requirements. Upon approval of the construction plans, the applicant may submit a record plan pursuant to the requirements in Appendix 1 of this Chapter, including the applicable fee. Any agreements, surety, maintenance declarations or any other legal documents required by this Code shall also be submitted. The record plan must be in general conformance with the approved exploratory plan.
B. Record plan review report. The Department will issue a written report that identifies any concerns relating to compliance with this Chapter, record plan submission requirements or other factors the applicant shall consider.
C. Department review/approval. If the record plan and all supporting documents comply with this Chapter and any other applicable regulations, the General Manager of the Department shall approve the record plan and the Department will issue an approval letter. The General Manager of the Department shall also have the ability to approve all minor land development plans on behalf of County Council. Supporting documents shall include, but are not limited to:
1. Letter of approval from DelDOT regarding transportation matters.
A.    Traffic impact study (TIS). For all major plans and plans with rezonings where the Department has not waived traffic analysis requirements, the applicant shall submit traffic information pursuant to Article 11. If a traffic impact study is required, a scoping meeting shall be scheduled pursuant to Article 11 to identify concurrency issues. No record plan submission shall occur until such time that the TIS is approved and the plan meets the concurrency requirements of Article 11.
2. Letter of approval from the State Fire Marshal.
3. Approval from the Engineering Section of the Department regarding drainage and storm water matters.
D. Planning Board Public Hearing - For all major plans and rezonings, the Department initial report and PLUS report is required prior to Planning Board public hearing. For major plans and rezonings where the Department finds the exploratory plan to be in general compliance with the standards of this Chapter and after the PLUS report is issued, those plans may advance to the Planning Board public hearing. Upon a finding by the Department that the major plan or rezoning is in general compliance with this Chapter and, upon receipt of the written PLUS report, the exploratory plan shall be scheduled for a Planning Board public hearing on the next available hearing date.
E. Council consent. 1. For major plans, the record plan shall be forwarded to County Council for its consent. Upon receipt of the plan, County Council shall schedule the matter for its next public hearing, and may take one (1) of the following actions:
a. Adopt a resolution approving the record major plan; or
b. Table and refer the plan back to the Department, no more than twice, with specific questions relating to technical compliance with this Chapter, State or federal constitutional requirements or any other statute or ordinance for which compliance is required. Upon receipt of a Department recommendation reaffirming approval of the plan, County Council shall adopt the resolution of approval, unless a second referral is made because of additional questions or concerns. Upon receipt of the Department's recommendation reaffirming approval of the plan after review of any additional concerns raised by County Council, Council shall adopt the resolution of approval.
2. County Council may use any one (1) or more of the above options subject to the limitations contained in each subparagraph.
F. Action upon receipt of County Council referral. Upon receipt of specific questions from County Council, the Department shall respond with its findings and a recommendation. The recommendation shall be one (1) of the following:
1. That the plan be approved, in which case County Council shall adopt the resolution of plan approval at its next scheduled meeting unless a second referral is made, in which case Council shall adopt the resolution of plan approval at its next scheduled meeting following the second approval.
2. That the Department has rescinded its previous approval of the plan for noncompliance 


The following link is to the Exploratory Plan for a Major Subdivision Plan for Delaware National:
http://www3.nccde.org/PDFDocument/default.aspx?DocumentID=80:5538A80CA926BC49834398A8F3E7191F81E7F6B1E9E8FA059BB19DC259C7CC052671EB66C3BFEB57&x=temp.pdf
Also see ~

2009 Lawsuits against Toll Brothers’ Greenville Overlook development dismissed

2016 Ruling affirms New Castle County power to block sprawl

2016 Mill Creek developer takes county traffic rules to court

2016 Push to redevelop old Hercules golf course begins anew

2016 Supreme Court: County can make developers improve traffic




2016 Superior Court Toll Brothers Fight Traffic Mitigation Liability For Overlook Plan FAIL




Saturday, April 8, 2017

County Executive And Land Use GM Are CLNCC Guest Speakers 7PM Tuesday, April 18th In Christiana



Date: Tuesday, April 18th, 2017 


Guest: County Executive Matthew Meyer

Land Use General Manager Rich Hall



Time:   7:00 - 9:00 p.m.



Location: Christiana Presbyterian Church 

15 North Old Baltimore Pike

Christiana, DE 19702