The Committee of 100 | FYI Archives

On January 10, 2002 the Planning Board Hearing Agenda will include a second hearing on the Redevelopment Ordinance, this time on a Substitute. It is important that those who support the intent of this Ordinance attend and express their support.

As FYI readers know (see October and November FYI), the proposed Redevelopment Ordinance (01-098) is the best thing to happen since passage of the Unified Development Code (UDC). It is good for the business community, as it would allow redevelopment of property that otherwise could not be developed because of the constraints of the UDC, and it's good for the residents of New Castle County, as it facilitates upgrading of properties in our community which would otherwise continue to deteriorate and/or be abandoned.

You would think that everyone–business and civic organizations alike–would be clamoring for quick passage of this Ordinance. Not so. We, in the business community, for the most part, live in New Castle County and want this to be a great place to live as well as to work. You'd never guess that from those civic activists who believe that if members of the business community support something it must be bad for the community. This is a case where an Ordinance which is a win/win for the civic/business community has run into trouble because of perception rather than reality.

As everyone who has attempted redevelopment under the UDC knows, the Unified Development Code was written for greenfields (open, undeveloped land) and its requirements don't fit most already-developed parcels. Most already-developed sites simply cannot meet the requirements of the UDC. While it might be economically viable for companies with deeper pockets to redevelop larger parcels by making their way through the variance process with the Board of Adjustment, that is not the case with smaller parcels or for small businesses. The result is that many of these older properties are becoming increasingly run down or abandoned. Where Ordinance 01-098 facilitates the upgrading of these properties, it is positive for the community.

As written, the Ordinance includes an objective process that requires an 100% improvement to the parcel being redeveloped in such quantifiable areas as, "parking, buffers, landscaping, access, stormwater management, impervious cover, off-site transportation improvements/capacity, and mitigation of damage to or enhanced protection for existing natural-environmental resources." Every parcel that is redeveloped will become better. Every parcel that is redeveloped will come closer to meeting the requirements of the UDC. Every pre-UDC parcel left unredeveloped will remain further out of compliance with the UDC than if redeveloped. This Ordinance makes sense. Maybe that's its problem!

A limited, but very vocal, number of civic activists are calling for changes in the Redevelopment Ordinance which would destroy its intended effect. If, as some are demanding, the Ordinance is amended to require Council approval of minor plans, it will gut the Ordinance. It will make no sense. The very businesses which could afford to utilize the provisions of the Redevelopment Ordinance could not afford the political and uncertain process this amendment would produce.

At the Planning Board's December 18th Business Meeting, the Department of Land Use expects to make available a Substitute to Ordinance 01-098. If this Substitute remains faithful to the original intent and is passed intact, it will not only open up new opportunities to rejuvenate properties in New Castle County, but also, provide an opportunity to blunt the message that New Castle County is anti-business.

The good news is that Tom Gordon, the convener of the Redevelopment Task Force from which Ordinance 01-098 emanated, as well as County Council President Chris Coons and Councilpersons Bob Weiner and Karen Venezky, the Ordinance sponsors, remain committed to the spirit of the original Ordinance. They understand the value to both the community at large and to the business community, especially small businesses. The bad news is that some members of the Planning Board may have reservations and civic activists will probably express their opposition at the January 10th Planning Board Hearing. It is important that people from the business community address the Planning Board on January 10th.

Delaware Scenic & Historic Highways

After several years in the making, the Delaware Department of Transportation has finalized the Delaware Scenic & Historic Highways program and unveiled its Program Guide. Nominations can now be submitted to DelDOT to designate a section of roadway in Delaware a Scenic and Historic Highway.

In April 2000 Senator McBride introduced Senate Bill 320, which the General Assembly passed and the Governor signed in July 2000. The bill called for creation of State Scenic and Historic Highway Advisory Board and the Board was established under then-Secretary of Transportation Anne Canby. The Delaware Scenic & Historic Highways Program Guide, which contains the "Vision, Goals and Objectives" as well as the nomination procedure and designation process, was finalized and distributed by Secretary of Transportation Nathan Hayward in November 2001.

According to the Program Guide, a Scenic & Historic Highway is "a transportation route which is adjacent to or travels through an area that has particular intrinsic scenic, historic, natural, cultural, recreational or archeological qualities. It is a road corridor that offers an alternative travel route to our major highways, while telling a story about Delaware's heritage, recreational activities or beauty. It is a route that is managed in order to protect its special intrinsic qualities and to encourage appreciation and/or development of tourism and recreational resources."

Any individual, group, or government entity can nominate a route. The nomination form, available from DelDOT, requires only a physical description of the route, representative photos, a map indicating the boundaries and locating the intrinsic qualities, a resource inventory, a written summary of its significance, a description of what a traveler would see, and a description of public involvement. Following acceptance of the nomination by the Evaluation Committee, Director of Planning, and State Scenic & Historic Highways Advisory Board, the designation is made by the Secretary of Transportation.

There are two principal impacts of State designation of a route as a Scenic and Historic Highway: first, the sponsor becomes eligible for Federal grant funds for preparing a Corridor Plan; second, all new off-site signs are prohibited, that is, no organization or company can have signage or advertising for anything except on land it owns. Other impacts flow from the Corridor Plan in which the sponsor "lays out the vision, goals and responsibilities for conserving and enhancing the corridor's most valuable qualities and describes how this will benefit economic development through tourism and recreational opportunities."