CLNCC ZOOM Meeting: Inconsistent UDC Implementation Discussion Set For 7PM Tuesday, January 16th

Civic League for New Castle County Meeting 

Time:  Tuesday 7:00 PM January 16th  2024

Topic:  Inconsistent Unsystematic UDC Implementation .What Is the Path Forward ?

Location: Zoom ::  https://bit.ly/3KIt3Uf

NCC Council Meeting Information

NEW CASTLE COUNTY COUNCIL LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING   January 16, 2024 3:00 PM VIRTUAL ZOOM WEBINAR MEETING** & LOUIS L. REDDING CITY/COUNTY BUILDING 1ST FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS 800 N. FRENCH STREET, WILMINGTON, DE 19801 https://zoom.us/j/377322142

CLNCC Contact Info 

President Charles C Stirk Jr  
civicleagueforncc@gmail.com (302) 463-2239

Vice President Bill Dunn 
bill_done@msn.com (302) 994-9334    

Vice President Nancy Willing  
nancyvwilling@yahoo.com (302) 294-1939

Treasurer Scot Sauer 
treasurer@civicleagueforncc.org (302) 996-9075

Secretary Barry Shotwell 
cnb.shotwell@yahoo.com

Civic League for New Castle County   Membership Dues Only $25 * Pay Via Pay Pal :: civicleagueforncc@gmail.com  * Make checks payable to CLNCC & send to  CLNCC PO Box 5562 Marshallton DE 19808

Updated: NCC Comp Plan Update Hybrid Public Meetings: 7PM April 21st And 27th (RSVP) With Scott Run Petition And MOT Alliance

 

Update: FYI Attending via ZOOM precludes participants from joining the Q&A portion of the meetings [Find links to materials HERE] 

New Castle County Deptartment of Land Use:

NCC2050 Meeting with Land Use

7 - 9 p.m. Wednesday, April 27th

NCC Gilliam Building

Multi Purpose Conference Room

67 Reads Way, New Castle, DE 19720

REGISTER HERE

The April 27 Information Session will feature the following topics:

• Historic Preservation
• Conservation
• Open Space and Recreation​
• Climate Change and Hazard Mitigation​
• Utilities, Water, and Sewer

For the best experience, please plan to attend this event in person where you will be able to interact with Land Use Staff who will answer questions and receive your feedback on the specific topics presented.

This event will also be broadcast live on Zoom. The Zoom meeting link will be posted to the Dept. of Land Use website on the day of the event. Those watching online are asked to submit any feedback via email to: NCC2050@newcastlede.gov.  

Also, if you haven't heard about this issue, you will want to. I am posting more on it soon.

READ AND SIGN THIS PETITION: Scott Run Commerce Center Warehouses Petition Letter

CALL TO ACTION! The Scott Run Commerce Center plans for the 301/Jameson Corner Road area now include larger warehousing with more 18-wheeler bays than initially communicated to the public years ago. This will negatively impact pedestrian safety, traffic, and community character in MOT for years to come. BY THE END OF APRIL please submit your concerns to LandUse@newcastlede.gov and members of the NCC Council (https://nccde.org/226/County-Council). Not sure what concerns to write about? You can either watch this 27 minute overview from our neighbors Erin Kaplan Ari Kaplan and Kevin Caneco , or you can read more information about the plans on the NCC website for project #20200066 http://www3.nccde.org/project/details/default.aspx...

Note: this is a separate plan from the logistics center in the same Bayberry vicinity, which is project #20210470 which you can read about http://www3.nccde.org/project/details/default.aspx...

NCC2050 Meeting with Land Use

7 - 9 p.m. Thursday, April 21st

NCC Gilliam Building

Multi Purpose Conference Room

67 Reads Way, New Castle, DE 19720

REGISTER HERE

Join us to learn what's in the NCC2050 Comprehensive Plan!

Tonight's Information Session will feature the following topics:

• Mobility
• Housing​
• Community Planning and Design​
• Economic and Community Development​
• Environmental and Social Justice​
• Intergovernmental Coordination

For the best experience, please plan to attend this event in person where you will be able to interact with Land Use Staff who will answer questions and receive your feedback on the specific topics presented.

This event will also be broadcast live on Zoom. The Zoom meeting link will be posted to the Dept. of Land Use website on the day of the event. Those watching online are asked to submit any feedback via email to: NCC2050@newcastlede.gov.

If you are not able to attend this meeting, no worries! The video recording will be posted on the NCC2050 website.

A second Information Session will be held on April 27 and will feature the following topics:

• Historic Preservation
• Conservation
• Open Space and Recreation
• Climate Change and Hazard Mitigation
• Utilities, Water, and Sewer

Please register for the April 27 event here. 

And from the MOT Alliance, the citizens' group representing the area under NCC's  "future growth zone"  

Dept of Land Use formal response to MOT Alliance requests for change to the NCC2050 comprehensive plan.

From Rich Hall, manager of Dept of Land Use: FYI – we posted a “save the date” notice today for two sessions on the NCC2050. The dates are April 21st and 27th. They will be in the Multipurpose Room at the Gilliam Building and will be in the evening.

Just 3 thoughts (this is Melissa writing her own thoughts, not necessarily representing all 1,100 of us), interested to hear what others think:

(1) They have added a "recommendation" to "consider" changes to S zoning.

Melissa's Response: I would like a plan and a commitment to execute upon it that is more definitive than a recommendation to “consider”. Given our area has been identified as the growth area for the last 20 years, and given that NCC2050 establishes a plan for the next 30 years, any zoning changes should be concurrent with or prior to enacting a 30-year plan that sets policy for such zoned areas.

(2) Our preference for development style (from our 777 person survey representing more than 1% of MOT) is categorized as "growing pains" and assumed that we are "supporting segregation of housing types" which will result in an "exacerbation of existing inequity".

Melissa's Response: MOT Alliance represents RESPONSIBLE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, with our #1 principle being COMMUNITY. I believe community is not only fellowship, but also a physical place where ALL residents can gather that is respectful of ALL residents. Therefore:

1 - Housing for residents that have restricted mobility (e.g. seniors, students, underserved populations) should enable the best ease of access to those places of gathering. I'd like to see that planned (i.e. S zoning changes).

2 - Affordable housing should be proximal to support services to enable underserved populations to have an equitable quality of life. I'd like to see that planned (i.e. S zoning changes).

3 - It is irresponsible to build residential homes – regardless of style – in places with insufficient infrastructure. The Dept of Land Use response on the insufficient infrastructure is that they will continue to “work with” other governing bodies (re: our school concerns), “monitor” (re: our EMS/Fire/Police concerns), and defer to addressing additional concerns legislatively (i.e. not do anything). I believe this approach is contrary to the mission of MOT Alliance, and I'd like to see better planning than "work with" "monitor" and defer.

4 - Lastly, I personally am disheartened that they misinterpreted our survey to mean we want segregation of housing types. I think the fact we prefer single family homes over multifamily could also mean we want more single family homes that are affordable, more mixed use developments with a larger percentage of single family than multifamily, or any other possible interpretation. I encourage the Land Use department to better understand our position before making inflammatory accusations.

(3) Our request to reduce residential growth until infrastructure increases is denied, and misinterpreted as a request to stop development.

Melissa's response: We represent Responsible Growth and Development; even the terms "growth" and "development" are in our mission statement. Some residents may want to stop growth altogether, but we -- the majority of our group, and the MOT Alliance committee -- believe in our unifying mission FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. I'd like Land Use to respond to our request to REDUCE residential growth. 

County Comments: 2022 NCC Comp Plan, S-Zoning, Secret TDRs, Pike Creek Golf Course Update, Board Of Adjustment Mishaps And Civic Engagement

Catch up on the latest County Comments from the Civic League for New Castle County - What is Matt Meyer's Land Use Department up to? It isn't pretty and it is pissing people off.

Communities are organizing to try to impact the trajectory of the Meyer Comprehensive Planning initiative to include zoning category reforms so other neighborhoods won't experience the problems they are facing during the growth projected over the next 30 years for the southern part of the county.

And the evidence points to very much needed reforms for the Board of Adjustment.

Click HERE to Read CLNCC County Comments Summer 2021 

Are Complete Communities The Answer To Sprawl? VIRTUAL Panel Discussion: 3PM Wednesday, January 27th (RSVP)

Live Stream: Are Complete Communities The Answer To Sprawl?

3 p.m.  Wednesday, January 27th

VIRTUAL Program

REGISTER HERE

Join the Delaware Sierra Club and James Wilson (Bike Delaware), Jonathan Kirch (Environmental and Public Health Advocate), and Peggy Schultz (League of Women Voters of Delaware) as we dig deep into the issue of sprawl and how new legislation may (or may not) be the answer!

We will have our first three-way discussion panel on one of our live streams, and boy are you in for a treat with this one. One of the most hotly debated topics in the environmental and land use space, sprawl versus density. Join us for a lively discussion on Zoom where you can participate in the chat and suggest questions to be pulled into the conversation!

Must RSVP to join Zoom! You can also watch live on our Facebook page: Facebook.com/Delawaresierraclub.

Support NCC Ord. 19-120 And A More Transparent Land Use Process for New Castle County Government

(Ken Garver image)

(DelCOG) John Flaherty writes ~ Let me know what you think about the proposed New Castle County Council Ordinance 19-120; 
Email Flaherty at jdf000000@gmail.com and ask to add your name to this support letter !

New Castle County Councilperson David Carter is planning on advocating for a proposed New Castle County Ordinance that deals with government transparency and openness 

Join The Petition Against Extreme Waiver Requests For “Harmony Of Glasgow” Senior Living Facility

Re-posting from the Civic League for New Castle County facebook page ~

Attention Old County Road Community!

Please Put Your Thoughts on the Record About the “Harmony of Glasgow” Senior Living Facility Petition and New Castle County Adjustment Board Meeting 

1. Sign the Petition 

2. Attend the New Castle County Board of Adjustment Meeting
Smith/Packett’s request for suburban code variances will be reviewed and put to a vote in a meeting of the New Castle County Board of Adjustment at 6:00pm on Thursday November, 21st (at The Department of Land Use conference room, NCC Government Center, 87 Reads Way New Castle, Delaware 19720). 

At this meeting Smith/Packett will be requesting that the board approve its plans to build a structure that is:

--- 32% in excess of the New Castle county UDC suburban code limits for maximum building height 

--- 120% in excess of the UDC suburban limits for net floor area ratio 

--- and 157% in excess of the UDC suburban limits for gross floor area ratio 

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

• 19005AmendmentsPreVote.mp3
• 19005CarterPreVote.mp3
• 19005CartierPreVote.mp3
• 19005CouncilVote.mp3
• 19005DurhamPreVote.mp3
• 19005HartleyNagelPreVote1.mp3
• 19005HartleyNagelPreVote2.mp3
• 19005HartleyNagelPreVote3.mp3
• 19005HartleyNagelPreVote4.mp3
• 19005HollinsPreVote.mp3
• 19005KilpatrickPreVote1.mp3
• 19005KilpatrickPreVote2.mp3
• 19005SheldonPreVote.mp3
• 19005SmileyPreVote.mp3
• May28CouncilMeetingandVoteFULL.mp3

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. 

~*~