Governor’s Gun Control Legislation Debate Tomorrow Night at 7PM in New Castle

http://www.civicleagueforncc.org/

The Civic League for New Castle County is proud to present the


Governor’s Gun Control Legislation Debate
Legislative proposals for the Delaware State Assembly:

• Requiring Background Checks for Private Firearm Sales
• Requiring the Reporting of Lost and Stolen Firearms
• Banning the Sale, Manufacture, Delivery and Unlawful Possession of Large-Capacity Magazines
• Banning the Manufacture, Sale, Delivery and Unlawful Possession of Military Weapons
• Banning Possession of a Firearm Within 1,000 Feet of a School

Panelists:

• Andrew Lippstone, Esq., Governor Markell’s Chief Legal Counsel 
• Brenda Mayrack, Esq., Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence 
• Anthony N. Delcollo, Esq., President, Delaware Association of Second Amendment Lawyers 
• Mark Blake, Civic Leader and NRA lifetime member

Tuesday

March. 19, 2013

at 7:00 PM

Paul J. Sweeney

Public Safety Building

3601 N. DuPont Hwy

(Route 13)

New Castle, DE

Get Map

Light refreshments will be served.

Newark Town Center - Stopyra Tract Rezoning Update

From Delaware Way - Stopyra Tract Update - 2/3 Majority Vote Of New Castle County Council Tuesday Night Would Green Light The Regional Newark Town Center Project

(image from Bike Delaware's most excellent report)

For background, read CAPPA's 2011 NCC Planning Board Meeting report.

Read more about the plan and civic umbrella group, CAPPA, in the October 2010 Civic League for New Castle County Comments HERE.

And here's an oldie but goodie from 2007 when Newark was considering annexation of the property.

I was able to speak in front of the New Castle County Council's Land Use Committee about Frank Acierno's Stopyra tract plan Tuesday after waiting for more than three hours. I mentioned that John Kowalko had called me earlier in the day to say that he and other area legislators were opposed to this rezoning. I noted that in the developer's exhibit - scope of the traffic impact study aerial view (as depicted in the image above) - showed the actual character of the community as residential, low impact shopping, churches and open space. The developer's attorney, Rich Abbott, cajoled that the text of the Comprehensive Plan allowed them to extrapolate the site's character as commercial by showing a diagram of miles and miles of the Kirkwood Highway transit corridor clear to Elsmere. Community character is one of the five criteria that must be met for approval of a rezoing in NCC. Recommendation was denied by both the Department of Land Use and the NCC Planning Board - thus the 2/3 majority council vote threshold for approval.

The CAPPA group was asked to make only a brief presentation to Council because of the lengthy agenda and so they gave a five minute talk in anticipation of having more time next Tuesday night. One other person got up to discuss the negative consequences of the intense use of the site on the natural areas nearby.

Here's the presser from the Delaware State House ~

Legislators ask new castle county council

to vote against rezoning

Six Newark-area legislators sign letter requesting zoning remain as-is

for Stopyra tract off Kirkwood Highway

NEWARK – 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.

Plus, (WDEL) Amy Cherry reports ~ Newark lawmakers say no to shopping center on Kirkwood Highway

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."

February Monthly Meeting To Feature State Rep. Mike Ramone

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
House Economic Development/Banking/Insurance/Commerce
House Gaming & Parimutuels
House Housing & Community Affairs
House Revenue & Finance
House Telecommunication Internet & Technology
House Veterans Affairs

...there should be some informative dialogue.

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 

http://www.civicleagueforncc.org/

Upcoming New Castle County Land Use Meetings

 

Feb. 4th 7PM Delaware City Fire Hall, the Second Historic Fort DuPont Complex meeting Feb. 4 will feature concepts and ideas The second of three planned community meetings on the future of the Historic Fort DuPont Complex

Feb. 5th 3PM NCC Council Land Use Committee Public Hearing Frank Acierno's Newark Town Center (just outside the city limits on Possom Park Road. See: http://cappade.org/). 8th Floor, City/County Building.

Feb 5th 7PM Newark Planning Commission, the Newark Shopping Center Expansion was removed from the agenda and is tentatively scheduled for March.

Proof On Video: Tom Gordon Acknowledged The Bad Law Underlying the Stoltz Rezoning Back In August?

Reposted from DE Way blog

Proof On Video That Tom Gordon Acknowledged The Bad Law Underlying the Stoltz Rezoning Back In August?

Gordon's reversal of NCC's position on the Stoltz Barley Mill Plaza rezoning is not just a political ruse. Back in August, at a CLNCC candidate's forum, Gordon, Bullock and Shahan all answered yes to Vic Singer's questions about their oath and the legality of Council's vote and the UDC Redevelopment Ordinance that eliminated the requirement for a traffic study under state statute. Does it tell you something that Clark, Taschner and Husband all answered no to the latter?

Since leaving the NCC Planning Board, Vic Singer's been circulating legal analysis showing that NCC Executive Coons, DLU and Council violated the Delaware. Code when writing and enacting the 06-007 Redevelopment Ordinance revision and accompanying 2008 Memorandum of Agreement with DelDOT. These acts circumvented their duties under the law in county and state code that mandates when traffic studies shall be warranted (citations are contained within the 12/1/2011 letter below).

Vic's position is that NCC's acts were essentially a veto of acts of the General Assembly and were therefore impermissible. As for the ever-helpful county Law Department, remember, lawyers are bound by a different code - their cannons under the American Bar Association instruct attorneys to first protect the acts of their clients, right or wrong.

Gordon's reversal was not about the inadvisability of the Barley Mill project based on political promises but on the understanding of points of law that the vote on the BMP LLC rezoning was not procedurally sound since it was based on a Redevelopment Ordinance and MOA which violated state statute:

"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.

Vic has urged each member of County Council to consider entering a "No Contest" plea immediately.  

Click on the video of the August 21st, 2012 Civic League for New Castle County's DEM Primary forum http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mm7xNWHBJ4

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.

Here are Vic's three questions ~ 

THE BARLEY MILL PLAZA CONTINUING SAGA

Subj:  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   

And here is Vic's letter published 1/24/13 ~ Court, Council should follow law in Barley Mill case

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.

And Vic's letter published in the News Journal on 12/01/11, complete with citations ~

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.

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.

County Executive Gordon And COS Dave Grimaldi Set For CLNCC January Meeting, 7PM In New Castle

CIVIC LEAGUE FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

Monthly meeting, January 15th at 7PM - all are welcome!

Chuck Mulholland, President

Location:
Paul J. Sweeney Public Safety Building
3601 N. DuPont Hwy
(Route 13)
New Castle, DE

Get Map

AGENDA

 

Guest Speakers
County Executive: Thomas P. Gordon
Chief Administrative Officer: David Grimaldi 

Come out and speak with the new Executive and his Chief of Staff and campaign manager Dave Grimaldi. Find out what is on the table for New Castle County in 2013!

Big news in just today -

Barley Mill Plaza - County Executive Gordon Supports Relief Sought by Save Our County 

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.  

Update: Adam Taylor has the story ~ 

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.  

DelDOT Traffic Study Regulation Changes Face Public Scrutiny

Traffic congestion and concurrency law is the last stand against By-Right land use system forcing development into areas where it doesn't fit. DelDOT is taking a stand that traffic impact analysis is purely political and should not exist (SEE Adam Taylor story below)


Amendment to Standards and Regulations for Subdivision Streets and State Highway Access (Based upon comments received) Comments and Responses - 11/15/12 

RE: DelDOT's Changes to Traffic Study Regulations - 
Submission by New Castle County Civic Umbrella Associations

December 31, 2012

Delaware Department of Transportation

PO Box 778

Dover, DE 19903

Re: Public Comment – Dec 14 Draft Amendment to Traffic Study Regulations

This 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 2^nd 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 1^st 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 Rejected

1. 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 Regulations

We 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, Inc

     Joseph C. Kelly, Esq.

     Walter P. McEvilly, Jr., Esq.

     Tom Dewson

Chuck Mulholland, President-Civic League for New Castle County & Southern New Castle County Alliance

Fran Swift, President-Greater Hockessin Area Development Association

Bill Dunn, President-Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance

From the News Journal's December 20th story ~

Tom Dewson, a member of the Save Our County Coalition that is suing New Castle County for rezoning Barley Mill without sufficient traffic data, said DelDOT should have incorporated more of the public’s comments.

Dewson’s concerns include potential shortcomings of the proposed Transportation Improvement Districts and how developers will pay for road improvements. “On first read, DelDOT appears to have rejected important suggestions intended to protect the public interest while adding new language to further benefit the development community,” he said. “Citizens should be very concerned.”

Minor changes were made in response to public hearings held in each county and to written comments from the public include changing the word “may” to “shall” in one section and “must” to “may” in other. Those modifications were designed to address concerns by builders and residents alike that DelDOT was overreaching in the proposed reforms.

........New Castle County has a redevelopment program that is controversial because it allows developers to skip traffic-impact studies in exchange for building in already developed areas, rather than on farmland. That would be curtailed somewhat by the proposed changes, but not entirely, because not all areas will be within a Transportation Improvement District, acting Land Use General Manager David Culver said.

........Better land-use strategies by all three counties that don't rely on state traffic regulations as a primary way to derail major development projects. “Community activists and legislators have sought to use DelDOT’s traffic regulations as a last-ditch attempt to block a project, which is essentially a political goal,” [DelDOT's Goeff] Sundstrom said. “We think this new approach will better allow members of the community and developers to work with county officials to come up with reasonable land-use decisions.”

........DelDOT Planning Coordinator Bill Brokenbrough agreed. “You shouldn’t base your land-use planning on the outcome of a traffic-impact study,” he said. “The larger question of what you want your neighborhood to look like as it grows ought to be looked at in a more holistic manner. We hope these new regulations foster that kind of a dialogue.”........Brokenbrough said it will likely take six months to set the boundaries for the new districts, then at least two years to conduct traffic-impact studies for all of them.

Odyssey Charter Expansion Update For GHADA Tonight - 7PM Hockessin Fire Hall

Westgate Farms Land Use Committee - 

GHADA Meeting TONIGHT (Greater Hockessin Area Development Association Meeting)

Monday, December 17, 7:00 pm

Hockessin Fire Hall --1225 Old Lancaster Pike, Hockessin, DE 19707

Join us for a brief update of Odyssey Charter School Community Concerns.  On December 6th, the “Odyssey Charter School Working Group” composed of OCS leaders and community members met to negotiate a resolution.  Several OCS working group members provided a feedback statement which OCS is currently evaluating

12/6/12 “Odyssey Work Group” Meeting Response ~

December 12, 2012
Good Morning Dr. Manolakos,
As discussed on MON 12/10, eleven people met on Monday evening to discuss and provide OCS some feedback regarding your presentation on THU 12/6 to the “Odyssey Working Group” (members listed below).
The OCS team presented their ideas in four major areas followed by some discussions related to alternatives. We will provide feedback on each separately. Note, both OCS plans continue to include a K-12 school with 1700 students and three 3-story buildings at 225,000 square feet on a 16 acre parcel.

• Storm Water and Sanitary Sewer: We believe that OCS and their engineering team have used the available charts as discussed to determine the needs to address storm water management. The need to use underground systems was explained. We have concluded that without core samples and an independent study of the actual conditions here and downstream we would not be able to make an informed decision on this topic. We recommend engaging the Army Corps of Engineers to study actual stream configuration, slope and flow and determine impact downstream of the plan. We believe that the preliminary sampling of top level soil is not adequate to determine if a sub aqueous system is even applicable. Problems with the surrounding infrastructure related to the sanitary sewer is well documented. It also seems well accepted that the system is slated to be replaced. The idea to install temporary below grade tanks that require daily maintenance is not acceptable. Overall, our opinion is that the storm water and sanitary concerns have not been adequately addressed.
• Historic: The current plan and the revised plan do not address one of the core issues which is the historic buffer. Previous land use requests have been rejected on this issue and plans shown so far have not provided any reasonable buffer to the historic content in the site. Direct questions regarding historic buffer remain unanswered. Additionally the GPR scan which will not provide data until well after all of the pertinent meetings give our committee great concern. Research into this technology deems it a very good noninvasive tool which provides very quick results. Our requests to allow an independent study performed at the cost of the 'friends of the cemetery' have not been responded to. Additionally, we have checked with the Catholic Cemetery folks and reports that they are engaged do not appear to be accurate. Collaboration on the historic piece has been less than acceptable. While the promise of working together on this issue is made time and time again, actual events do not match this promise.
• Density: Movement of the High School to the Lancaster side of the parcel is a positive gesture on the part of OCS. It is very unlikely that the Catholic Cemeteries will agree to such a plan and the idea that this unsafe entrance must be eliminated due to safety pales in comparison to the overall internal and external traffic impact the staff, student, parents and local residents will endure. The movement of the High School does not address the core issue which is density.
• Traffic: We appreciate the offer to invest in local infrastructure. OCS has offered total spending as high as 2 million. Since only work recommended by DelDOT can be performed it is not clear what recommendations they would make or what investment from OCS they would require. We do not believe anything short of a full reconstruction of the area including Loveville and Lancaster would result in an acceptable traffic plan. That idea would takes years of planning and would exceed the described investment.

Regarding density and traffic, we do not feel the discussed alternatives meet the needs of the community.
Alternate Plans: We encourage OCS to continue to investigate and vet other locations for their school. While we agree this should be pursued our Land Use committee has agreed that we would not participate in making such recommendations to OCS. We have determined any such action could be perceived by another community as our group transferring our problems to them. We know other members of other group have opened this discussion and we are pleased to hear that OCS would consider them. We would recommend very strongly that any alternative plan be discussed BEFORE attempting to engage the Exploratory Process.
Insofar as the Mundy site is concerned, nothing short of a revised plan that significantly lowers the density, and respects the historical integrity of the cemetery by creating a meaningful buffer zone around it would be acceptable, provided that it also addresses the other generic concerns relating to stormwater management, sanitary sewer and traffic. The stormwater management, sanitary sewer and traffic issues need to be met with a coordinated, unified approach because those issues affect many downstream residents and businesses located along the streams and tributaries that feed into the Red Clay Creek and the creek itself, and the many commuters who travel every day to and from Wilmington along Lancaster Pike.
We look forward to a continued dialog. We hope that through collaboration and best good neighbor practices, both the needs of the community proper and Odyssey Charter can be met.
Thank you,
Westgate Farms Civic Association

New Castle County Odyssey Charter School: Exploratory Plan Report - 12/12/2012 ~

December 11, 2012
Mark Ziegler
McBride & Ziegler, Inc.
2607 Eastburn Center
Newark, DE 19711
Re: Odyssey School – Application Number 2012-0631
Dear Mr. Ziegler:
Pursuant to your conversation with David Culver, Acting General Manager, on December
7, 2012, please accept this letter as follow-up correspondence to the Department of Land
Use’s Exploratory Plan review report, dated October 16, 2012.
During the first review of the above-referenced project, the Department processed the
plan as being subject to the exemptions outlined in Section 40.05.050.H of the New
Castle County Code (NCCC). Note this section grants exemptions to proposed public
facilities that are “needed to support development.” In order for the exemption to apply,
the charter school must satisfy the requirement that the “[p]roposed public facility[y] [is]
needed to support development.”
If it is determined that the school is not “needed to support development”, a revised
exploratory plan must be submitted for review. That plan will be subject to the
applicable comments that were previously issued and all code requirements; including,
but not limited to:

• Table 40.04.111 – A landscape plan must be submitted to show the required street trees, bufferyards and on-lot landscaping;
• Article 5 – The plan must document compliance with the minimum landscape surface ratio (LSR) and the maximum floor area ratio (FAR);
• Article 10 – The plan must document compliance with the minimum protection levels for the floodplain, wetlands, riparian buffer, steep slopes and young/mature forest;
• Article 14 (impact fees).

If it is determined the school is “needed to support development” and eligible for the
exemptions outlined in Section 40.05.050.H of the NCCC, please note that the plan is
subject to the maximum gross FAR that is required by Table 40.04.110.A of the NCCC.
Please verify the acreage of the parcel and document compliance with the gross FAR.
Note that any proposed gross floor area (GFA) in excess of the maximum FAR will be
subject to a variance request from the Board of Adjustment.
Further, please note that the plan will be heard by the New Castle County Historic
Review Board (HRB) on December 18, 2012, and must document compliance with
Article 15 of the NCCC prior to the record plan submission.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Do not hesitate to contact this office with
any questions.
Regards,
Bradford S. Shockley
Planner III
cc: David Culver, Acting General Manager
George Haggerty, Assistant General Manager
Michael Bennett, Planner III
Brian Merritt, Assistant County Attorney
Marlaine White, Assistant County Attorney
File

Janet Kilpatrick’s statement read by Nellie Manlove at the
11/13/12 Odyssey Charter School Public Meeting

I regret that I am not able to attend tonight's meeting, but this re-scheduled meeting coincides with a County Council meeting.
I want to thank the Odyssey School and Harvey Hanna for taking time to meet with the public to explain the school's plan for the 16 acre Mundy Farm.
While Schools are under State jurisdiction, the local municipality oversees the use of the land - which makes County participation in this process mandatory.
As many of you know, under the UDC which began in 1997, there are exemptions for Public buildings that are needed to support development, such as schools.
While there are exemptions for the more stringent local environmental standards in Article 10, there must be adherence to the floodplain, or federal or State wetland regulations.
Schools are exempt from Table 40.03.210 and 40.04.11, which address buffering and landscaping, but they are not exempt from the County lighting regulations addressed in these sections.
They are exempt from Section 40.04.240 regarding building within the scenic corridor.
Schools are not exempt from the transportation regulations in Article 11; however the Department of Land Use and DelDOT determine the time frame by which any mitigation must be completed. This mitigation will be determined by the results of the Traffic Impact Study.
Schools are allowed within most zoning categories; therefore this is a by-right plan, meaning that the developer has a right to build a school on this property. The State offers guidelines as to the optimum land size for elementary and secondary schools. However, those are only guidelines with suggestions for cases where those guidelines cannot be met. In looking at other local schools, it becomes obvious that traditional state schools are mostly within those guidelines. While there are no existing local Charter Schools that are comparable to the build-out numbers proposed by Odyssey, it should be noted that Newark Charter comes the closest and their proposed build-out will be on 27 acres of property.
If this plan progresses through the Land Use process and is deemed code compliant, per today's UDC standards, New Castle County Council will have an administerial-only (not a discretionary) vote. This vote would allow the Odyssey School to continue through the process of applying for building permits.
I would caution Odyssey School to look carefully at all of their options and to make determinations that are based on the safety and welfare of their students. This is a very dense plan, placing pedestrians and traffic together in a very tight space. The School's internal roadways with high school drivers and parental drop offs will quickly be overburdened. If you would like to see the overburdening of a roadway - spend a morning or afternoon in the Village of Linden Hill through the drop off or pick up time for the Linden Hill Elementary School. Or go to a High School football game when the excited or frustrated fans, players and bands from both teams are exiting the school parking lot after a game. And then imagine it in your world - on your site - on Lancaster Pike.
Think about the beautiful conceptual plan that is being drawn up for this project, and then think about this project in reality. Envision the parking lot of a local high school and the playground of the elementary school and ask yourself if you were making a decision to send your child to a Charter School, if this combination, with this limited amount of land would give you, as a parent, a safe and secure feeling.

January Meetings ~

NEW DATE -- Historic Review Board Public Hearing for Odyssey Charter School

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 @ 5:00 p.m.
NCC Government Center, 87 Reads Way, New Castle Corporate Commons

WITHDRAWN from Meeting Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 @ 5 p.m.

http://www2.nccde.org/landuse/HistoricReviewBoard/PublicHearingAgenda/Default.aspx?MeetingDate=2012-12-18T05:00:00Z

WITHDRAWN Planning Board Public Hearing for Odyssey Charter School

Thursday, January 03, 2013  @ 7:00 p.m.

WITHDRAWN FROM THIS AGENDA AND NOT YET RESCHEDULED FOR HEARING. 

http://www2.nccde.org/landuse/PlanningBoard/PublicHearingAgenda/Default.aspx?MeetingDate=2013-01-03T05:00:00Z

There Is Always A Civic Association That Needs Your Help! Come To The HRB Meeting 7PM Dec. 18th And Support Westgate Farms And Friends

 Catch up with what's been happening with the historic Coffee Run Mission Farm in Hockessin and the Odyssey Charter School's land development plans:

Odyssey Charter School Plan Goes To The NCC Historic Review Board 7PM Dec. 18th