~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Reda/Tackett/Clark Redevelopment Ordinace 11-020 was on the agenda for NCC Council Land Use Committee today and slated for a vote next week but was suddenly pulled this morning. Most of the comments below stem from the PLUS comments for 11-020. http://stateplanning.delaware.gov/plus/comments/2011-03-02_response.pdf The NCC Planning Board also has minutes posted from their decision to reject 11-020
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the PLUS comments, DelDOT says it has problems with changes Reda's Ordinance, 11-020 makes to section 40.08.130.B(6)(e)(vii) including where: "TOA or TIS shall only be required if requested by DelDOT". I don't know how this rewrite fundamentally differs from the current law but DelDOT didn't seem to like being put in this position.
These are four of DelDOT's questions for Mr. Culver in the PLUS comments for 11-020:
- Without a TOA or TIS study, how will NCC measure LOS?
- Doesn't NCC even WANT to know the LOS impact for a given record plan?
- LOS changes over time; If NCC uses an old traffic study, how old may that study be?
- Why is there a different standard for areas that have not been studied?
DelDOT also suggested that is would be prudent for NCC to clarify the phrase "below LOS D" such that if LOS is at D than the plan shall not cause LOS to fall to F. And if LOS is at F then language is needed to ensure that the measurement of F is not allowed to worsen by an unlimited amount (LOS being measured by delay at an intersection).
{cough, cough} To my knowledge, neither Culver, Clark, Tackett nor Reda have answered DelDOT's questions above. Maybe that's why they took it off of today's Land Use Committee agenda..but this article by Adam Taylor today is probably the real reason they yanked it: Dueling redevelopment ordinances on table
New Castle County to hear plans to reform law today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My questions regarding 11-020:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Is NCC withdrawing its role in requiring that traffic impact be studied for Redevelopment plans?
- Will this come into play with properties whose plans will suddenly be brought to Land Use as Minor Plans and thus escape all public scrutiny?
- Is even DelDOT out of that loop?
- Is that legal under the 2008 MOU between NCC and DelDOT?I fear that the answer is yes to each of these questions.
I saw David Culver shrug and dismiss what the Planning Board had deliberated in rejecting 11-020 as "nothing important" when a NCC Councilman sponsoring the bill asked "How did it go?" So I piped in to remind Mr. Culver that the Planning Board did, in fact, have something valuable to say - that they strongly felt that all three of the Redevelopment Ordinances should be considered together - not separately.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The hubris in all of the changes to the UDC found in Redevelopment Ordinance 11-020 is unbounded as Bob Weiner has pointed out in several letters and charts. NCC Council must be compelled to really examine how the scope of these changes to the UDC could negatively effect residents (and the state debt) before they vote. They should all do their homework and read the PLUS and PB comments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is interesting to read David Culver's draft "annual" CPU report to the Office of State Planning where he claims that a "careful review of investment dollars" by NCC, State and Federal agencies allows Land Use to assist in directing growth and improvements to promote greater social justice and economic development opportunities for all income levels". I guess that might indicate that Mr. Culver thinks that the fat cat developers deserve their fair share of "social justice" too.....by not having to conform to concurrency - adequate facility law?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My take on 11-020 is that this is much more than simply a way for owners of non-conforming properties to get around the admitted difficulties the UDC presents to them. With all of the focus in 11-020 on unbuiltgross floor area (GFA), it does seem to be written expressly for the Governor's Square property owners. When pressed, Mr. Culver admitted to Mr. Inden at the PLUS meeting that there are only a tiny handful of recorded properties with unbuilt GFA that these changes will apply to. It begs the question of why such an extravagent altering of the UDC was necessary for just a few properties.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The concept of Redevelopment began as a way to bring properties into conformity with a community's Character and soon morphed into a Brownfields abatement program. It is beyond the pale to now use this Ordinance to give the owners of non-conforming properties the same magnitude of give-aways associated with the properties which fit the original intention of the law. During the PLUS meeting, Mr. Culver did agree with DelDOT's idea that --at the very least--there should be a sliding scale for incentives for unbuilt GFA along with the idea written in the Ordinance that there "may" be a greater percentage of "Design Element Improvements" required of such properties.
So, where is the amended 11-020 Ordinance with Culver's agreed upon changes? Are Culver or Reda going to discuss the concerns brought by PLUS and PB? I hope so and I hope that NCC Council is interested in really listening to these concerns and convincing Reda and Tackett to table their version until 11-026 is brought to the table as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Bob Weiner- Weiner Redevelopment Reform legislation shunned by County officials/Come to Tuesday July 5 Planning Board Hearing !
Should the Reda Redevelopment law be enacted, the motivation to re-file the Governor Square application as a redevelopment plan would be fairly overwhelming because the applicant would avoid expensive improvements the TIS would demand. The applicant would also get a break on impact fees. Under the Reda draft as circulated, the word "development" is being changed to "recorded plan". Thus there would no longer be any dispute about whether Governor Square III is qualified for redevelopment status. Additionally, the Reda ordinance does not call for demolition of any existing structures like current law does. In other words, Governor's Square would dodge a possible successful appeal of the plan if were processed as a redevelopment under the Administration’s redevelopment proposal.
Dear friends and civic leaders, I ask for your support to help me demand that our County government enact my proposed common sense reform of the current "redevelopment" plan approval process. The current land use approval process has resulted in irregular preliminary approvals, including the Barley Mill Plaza and Governor's Square proposals, which are exempted from having to pay for critically needed traffic improvements --- simply by being dubbed “redevelopment” by the County Land Use Department!
The current county law is not only poorly written, but excessive unchecked interpretative liberties have been taken by the Land Use Department. You can make a difference! Come to the New Castle County Planning Board/Land Use Department Hearing on Tuesday JULY 5, 2011 at 7 pm at the Gilliam Building Multi-Purpose Room, 77 Reads Way, New Castle, DE. I especially need your personal help because the Department of Land Use has drafted a competing ordinance 11-020, which unbelievably allows even more breaks for redevelopment plans.
Linked here is my legal memo, which was recently published in the League of Women Voters newsletter, containing a comparison of these two competing draft ordinances, along with a comparison matrix. My proposed redevelopment ordinance incorporates specific positive ideas that the Delaware Department of Transportation offered during the State review process to assure that developers pay for needed traffic improvements. The State Planning Office review process is called “PLUS”. The reviewers are State employed professional land use planners and traffic engineers. The PLUS review process endorsed my redevelopment draft ordinance while rejecting the County Land Use Department redevelopment draft. Then the Planning Board voted 8 to 1 against the Land Use Department draft. The Planning Board is scheduled to consider on my draft tonight. The Land Use> Department is also supposed to review and comment upon my draft at the same hearing, but is relying upon flawed legal rationale to avoid its legal responsibility to officially comment on my draft legislation. For details, see my
linked legal analysis and this Community News article.I seek your support for my draft Redevelopment Ordinance 11-026 Sub 2. I also seek your support to protect my legislative prerogative to independently introduce legislation on your behalf. The County Law and Land Use Departments are attempting to deny me this right. This denial attempts to deny YOU an independent voice on County Council. I am prepared to stand up against abuse of power. But I need your help to help restore “checks and balances” in county government. Bottom line: projects like Governor Square III and Barley Mill Plaza should be required to implement government mandated roadway improvements. Under the current Land Use Department draft [officially entitled the Reda/Tackett draft ordinance 11-020], no roadway improvements would be required beyond nominal ingress/egress improvements.
3 comments:
"Excessive unchecked interpretative liberties have been taken by the Land Use Department", in matters as simple as Maximum Building Height and Enclosed Parking Structures, making it seem LU works directly for Developers (Clark's Letter).
Can you believe the quote from Culver in Adam Taylor's article that this ordinance he wrote allegedly for Reda and Tackett does nothing to fundamentally alter the current law. WHAT A LOAD OF TOTAL BULL!!!!!!
Dave Tackett had better get on it and realize that EVERY MAJOR PLAN IN NCC MUST HAVE A TIS for christ's sake man!!
If you take a look at David Tackett's 2007 campaign finance report it becomes damned clear who he is answering to and it is not the residents of his district. UNREAL DAVE. Go accept money from all of the people who come before you, as Land Use Committee co-chair to decide on plans in their favor and come out with statements like you did on Friday afternoon and see how many people vote for you once they "get it".
The two party system does not work in NCC.
We have an executive that wrote an open letter to Developers that he could decimate Gordon's strong UDC protections for the existing Community. He wrote this using his wife's law firm letterhead. The changes have been made at his request in a Council that largely runs unopposed due to the extreme one Party voting habits of the NCC Residents. Coons, the old County head, actually got rewarded after pushing ReDevelopment and no fee double density while doubling Our Taxes!
WE need a Party to run the candidates that will work for Us! The competition would force the major Party to come back to work for Us.
ReZoning is an attempt to buy land that is not Commercial and turn it to an unfit use. This crime against the existing Community is only legal, if WE let them get away with it!
ReZoning attempts must be stopped by using Our influence with our Councilman (a measly 1/12th of the vote), but that is why the entire County should rise up and work together. Council needs to be elected "at large" or this outrage will continue. Call your State Rep and your Council person!
Post a Comment