The Committee of 100 | FYI Archives

On Tuesday, October 28, 2003, New Castle County Council is scheduled to vote on Ordinance 03-069, the Brownfields Redevelopment Ordinance. This ordinance, introduced by Councilperson Karen Venezky, would remove some of the more onerous conditions of the Unified Development Code (UDC) which add to the difficulty of redeveloping brownfields.

Under the provisions of Ordinance 03-069, sites identified by DNREC (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control) as brownfields would be exempted from conducting a site resource capacity analysis and from paying impact fees. An operational analysis may be required for major plans and a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will be required only if requested by the Department of Transportation (DelDOT). On a recommendation by DelDOT, the County may restrict gross floor area (GFA) and DelDOT may require transportation improvements as a condition of its letter of no objection.

The ordinance also makes two other important changes to the UDC. First, it removes the requirement for a Planning Board public hearing for minor redevelopment plans (it retains the requirement for major redevelopment plans) and, second, it expands uses allowed in Industrial (I) zoning districts to include general office, without limitation, and mixed-use development, subject to the same standards for mixed use in the OR (Office, Regional) zoning district.

Both the Department of Planning and the Planning Board recommended approval of Ordinance 03-069 as amended, although Board President Vic Singer mounted a strenuous opposition and was joined by Mark Weinberg and Arthur Wilson in voting against the recommendation.

One of the greatest impediments to utilization of the redevelopment option has been the Planning Board public hearing requirement. This requirement has scared off potential developers for sites eligible for the redevelopment option. As Ordinance 03-069 removes that requirement for minor redevelopment plans, this is an important improvement in the UDC for all redevelopment, in addition to the provisions it makes for brownfield redevelopment.

Removing Uncertainty in the Planning Process: 3.319

The Committee of 100 has often pointed out that one of the most difficult parts of the regulatory climate is uncertainty. Section 03.319 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) is one of the most blatant examples of uncertainty in the approval process. 3.319 requires that Open Space Planned land development plans, even though they have met all the requirements of the UDC, have public hearings, first, before the Department and Planning Board and, then again, before County Council, prior to preliminary plan approval. At the end of the process, after an applicant has spent all the time and money it takes to get to this point in the planning process, the plan, at the Council hearing, is subject to the last-minute whims of Council, and, of course, anyone who petitions, and convinces, Council to make changes. 3.319 says that, “in making a final decision concerning whether to permit or not permit the specific Open Space Planned development . . . Council may impose limitation or conditions upon its approval of the ordinance.” At this late step in the approval process–even if the plan meets all the requirements of the UDC–Council can change anything. Few businesses can afford such uncertainty.

At the Planning Board Hearing on New Castle County Councilperson Karen Venezky's Conservation Design Ordinance (Ord 03-045), Board President Vic Singer commented that 3.319 has it backwards. Repeating his sentiment in a recent email, Vic wrote that, instead of requiring special permission to cluster, we should “prescribe that the developer needs special permission NOT to cluster.”

New Castle County Councilperson Bob Weiner, on September 23, 2003, introduced an ordinance to eliminate this problematic section from the UDC. Ordinance 03–085 simply replaces Section 40.03.319 with language which makes open-space planned land development, Open Space Subdivision Option 2 land development, or alternative development options permitted “as a matter of right” in the Suburban (S) zoning district, subject to the standard requirements of the UDC.

The Department of Land Use prepared Substitute 1 to Ord 03-085 which deletes not only Section 40.03.319 from the UDC, but also, additional reference to 3.319 to make the Code consistent. In addition, Substitute 1 removes Section 40.03.320 (Special Buffer Requirements) because it duplicates protection now provided by the Conservation Design requirements of Ordinance 03-045. Substitute 1 does not add new language to state that open space planned land development “shall be permitted as a matter of right.” Councilperson Weiner supports the Substitute and intends to introduce it at the October 14th meeting of County Council.

The Planning Board Hearing on Substitute 1 to Ordinance 03-045 is scheduled for Tuesday, November 4, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. There will be opposition from those in the community who continue to want the power to say no to any development, whether or not it meets the requirements of the UDC. It will be important for those who want to see responsible development in New Castle County to express their support for this Ordinance to the Planning Board and to members of Council.

Draft Ordinances to Modify Sewer Impact Fees

New Castle County Councilperson Robert S. Weiner has distributed, for comment, two draft ordinances which would replace sewer impact fees with the collection of capital recovery fees “to offset the cost of new treatment works, sanitary sewer interceptors, and trunk line construction.”

The first ordinance removes the sewer connection fee section from Sec. 40.12 and sewers from among the impact fees in Sec. 40.14 and Sec. 40.22. The second ordinance adds the sewer collection fees, including capital recovery fees, lateral fees, sewer inspection fees, and septic elimination fees, to Sec. 38 of the New Castle County Code. Whereas there are currently sewer impact fees for new construction in the Southern New Castle County Service Area and capital recovery fees for any property owner seeking connection to the public sewer system north of the canal or for those properties south of the canal on which no impact fee had been paid, the draft ordinances eliminate the impact fee and require that a capital recovery fee–to be determined by the Department of Special Services–be paid by “any property owner seeking connection to the public sewer system.” In addition, whereas the lateral fee is currently paid “at the time of connection permit application,” the draft ordinances require payment “at building permit application” unless no building permit is required. The draft ordinances also protect septic elimination project participants by limiting the connection fee to $6,500 or the actual cost of construction, whichever is less. Councilperson Weiner is inviting comments on these two draft ordinances.