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 (TIS) 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.
Plus, (News Journal) Harry Themal writes ~ New Castle County residents must scrutinize county's development plans
News Journal once again demonstrated the real and possible friction between state
government and the counties.
A story detailed how the State Supreme Court is trying to decide whether Sussex
County or the state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
can fix the width of buffers along the inland waterways ['Zoning' at issue in court hearing].
In an op-ed column, Victor Singer, former chairman of the New Castle County Planning Board, said the county violated its own Unified Development Code in approving the massive rezoning of DuPont's former Barley Mill Plaza -- in part
because it did not get a new appraisal from the state on the transportation effect.
Readers of this column might be aware of my strong feelings that Delaware has
too many layers of bureaucracy, and that, as small as our state is, we may not
need the three county governments. But I know that nothing will ever change that
constitutional order, which makes it even more important that residents of the
counties pay close attention to what's happening on that level.
Perhaps nothing is more important to our way of life than the provisions of the New Castle County Development Plan.
Exactly a year ago the county started a series of steps, including many public hearings, which have now produced a blueprint due to be debated and adopted next year.
The challenges faced in drafting this plan are far different from the last time revisions were made five years ago.
Especially crucial is that the economy has largely tanked, resulting in crisis in the
housing market and a sharp drop in much needed revenue for the county and the state.
One result is that planning for the next 10 years is not only difficult but also more vital to the future of New Castle County. Land use manager David Culver believes the document does that planning more smartly than the similar work in the past.
Among the changes Culver and the draft see is a lesser need for suburban developments on large lots, which in this economic climate has resulted in what
are often called zombie subdivisions, where infrastructure exists but few houses are occupied. The plan sees a demand for more smaller lots with houses that young families can afford and older ones desire.
Then there are older houses and businesses, an aging stock in real estate terms
that had to be grandfathered because the present zoning laws would not have
permitted them. These aging communities, urban transition zones, need special
attention and could be redeveloped into sustainable walking communities.
The plan calls for a new commercial zoning designation, between regional and local zoning, where people could live, work, shop and send kids to school without requiring cars or even public transportation. Such a community is now being developed just below the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.
That southern part of the county, mostly between Routes 1 and 896, is the new
community development area, which should include low-density suburban
neighborhoods but also more innovative development, including building mixed-use communities, building more densely to allow for small lot sizes and more flexibility to meet the need of an aging, changing population.
Today about one-eighth of the population is over 65; by 2030, more than a quarter will be over 60.
Culver says care must be taken to protect the 300 active working farms with increased rural preservation steps.
Then there are all the other varied factors that impact any planning, many of
which have to be coordinated with the Office of State Planning Coordination,
particularly adequate highways and public transportation, and new schools. So
that thin line between the county and state is seen again. This column has not
even touched on planning for businesses, industry and economic growth.
If you are an involved New Castle County resident, you will go to a county
library to see all the details and accompanying maps or see them by logging on to nccde.org.
Then you may want to attend the first public hearing Jan. 3 at 7 p.m. in the
county's Gilliam Building, at 77 Reads Way in New Castle Corporate Commons.
With Charlie's comment and letter from Saturday: I usually agree with Harry Themal, but he is a defeatist on the belief a Constitutional change could not occur on land use. Moreover, the Coastal Zone Act did not require a Constitutional change. Correct me if I am wrong. The only impediment to County change is ourselves----resistence to such needed change must be coming from the quarters that have been accepting Federal and State money for local/parochial desires for over a half a Century---with change, the County direct avenue to such funds could then be denied
Many parties involved in land use battle
In regards to the recent article "Fight for control of land use heads to Supreme
Court," the issue before the court is major. Clearly, the state, having earlier delegated such land use control to the individual counties and incorporated jurisdictions, must now reassert its prerogative, whether through judicial mandate or new legislative change.
For Sussex County, land owners, including the chicken/dairy/crop farmer, could
earlier rule the day, in being a prime economic generator -- whether or no, the seasonal, vacationing resident might bellyache about nearby stench or reported pollution to recreational waters. Meanwhile, those latter visiting dissidents were, in turn, churning up the bay with their "stink pots" and ignored their
sewer overflow during storms.
"The overpopulated geese were the problem." Few were thinking of the fishing economy. Despite earlier court decisions upholding local, political subjective decisions in land use, the Coastal Zone Act has interceded within its boundaries, such law a basis for counterargument.
Beyond the immediate issue, what entity pays for this residential growth and the requisite roads, schools, etc.? Not the county government. It is time to stop this land use dalliance and place such direction strongly to a professional,
nonpartisan group, one well-grounded in econometrics -- purpose being long-term [planning], the environment and a prerequisite, viable economy.
Let's hope DNREC has their facts straight to every detail. We're now beyond just tree-hugging.
Charles M. Weymouth,
Wilmington
~*~




