Comments on
Buffer Ordinance Revised Draft
Public Comments from Eul Lee
Notes about colors used:
The portions in burgandy are copied from the ordinance draft.
The red and bold within the burgandy portion is the area of interest.
The green is copied from the current Sussex code.
The black is Eul's specific comments.
In the County's ordinance draft:
The brackets [ ] indicate the part to be deleted from the current code;
The underlined and italicized part is to be inserted into the code.
After reading and listening to both CIB and SARG's expert opinions, I fully support all their points:
The Buffer Option can in effect nullify this new ordinance that is replacing § 115-193. A question comes to mind whether this is added, after the Wetlands/Buffer Working Group's work was done, to provide ways for the developers to sidestep the buffer requirements. Please remove 'Buffer Option' from the ordinance.
And, thank you for removing the 'Selective Tree Cutting.' However, we have to prevent developers from cutting down trees before submitting the application.
Buffer widths proposed are the absolute minimum and must be increased since Sussex is lying very low and the impact of the flooding can be much bigger than in the higher grounds. The fact that the beaches have been replenished with sand regularly to keep the size of those beaches proves that the sea and the bay water are the natural forces that will slowly swallow up Sussex's low-lying areas. I hear the current Riverdale area is about a half of what it used to be before the 1962 Nor'easter. My point is, much of whatever buffer we preserve today may be lost to the water sooner or later. For that reason, we need to preserve wider buffers today.
Now, I will jump to my other issues that I had brought up to P&Z while they were collecting comments for the revision of the ordinance draft. Some may consider them minor, but the minuscule things add up over time and are also the reasons for intensified public's distrust and suspicions on the intentions of the parties drafting the ordinances.
1. I have to ask, why delete '[and]' and add 'in' in line 531 of the draft?
Please read the paragraph of §115-25 F. (3) (a). If anything should be changed, the two seemingly redundant sentences should be combined and the term 'reasonable' should be defined in detail so as not to encourage unnecessary disputes.
We all know by now that the lawyers will pick and tear each word to their advantage while the public has no attorneys to turn to. So, does this change ('in' instead of 'and') give room for the lawyers to argue their points?
Below are the copies of the portion of the draft I quoted above (on the left in burgundy) and the corresponding part of the current code (on the right in green).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Draft (lines 519-537)
§115-25 Height, Area and Bulk
F. Review procedures for cluster development
. . .
(3) The Planning & Zoning Commission shall determine that the following requirements are met before approving any preliminary plan and such application shall be reviewed on an expedited basis.
(a) The cluster development sketch plan and the preliminary plan of the cluster subdivision provides for a total environment and design which are superior, [and] in the reasonable judgment of the Planning Commission, to that which would be allowed under the regulations for the standard option. For the purposes of this subsection a proposed cluster subdivision which provides for a total environment and design which are superior to that allowed under the standard option subdivision is one which, in the reasonable judgment of the Planning Commission meets all of the following criteria:
Current Code:
§ 115-25 Height, area and bulk requirements.
F. Review procedures for cluster development.
. . .
(3) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine that the following requirements are met before approving any preliminary plan and such application shall be reviewed on an expedited basis.
(a) The cluster development sketch plan and the preliminary plan of the cluster subdivision provides for a total environment and design which are superior, and the reasonable judgment of the Planning Commission, to that which would be allowed under the regulations for the standard option. For the purposes of this subsection a proposed cluster subdivision which provides for a total environment and design which are superior to that allowed under the standard option subdivision is one which, in the reasonable judgment of the Planning Commission meets all of the following criteria:
2. Is this ordinance changing the Sizes of Major vs. Minor Subdivisions?
This change was made by inserting (in lines 97-110) the number of lots for Major and Minor Subdivision definitions and removing (in lines 265-267) the number from the §99-7 Preliminary Conference. This way, it takes much scrutiny to find what change is proposed.
In short, this proposal is changing the maximum size of a minor subdivision from '4' to '5'; a major subdivision from '5 and more' to '6 and more.'
Why did this become part of the new Wetlands/Buffer Ordinance? This seemingly unrelated change was never discussed in the introduction of the ordinance.
Why does it matter? This change is a way to shift more authority to the P&Z by skirting the public comments and hearings - per §99-7 (c) below. Stream's Edge on Robinsonville Rd is one example: After the major subdivision was denied due to the brownfield treatment issue, the developer got 4 approved by the P&Z Director in 2020 and another 4 in 2021 without getting any attention from the public!
Please explain the need for this proposed change or remove it.
Below are the copies of the portion of the draft I quoted above (on the left in burgundy) and the corresponding part of the current code (on the right in green).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Ordinance (lines 97-110 and 251-267)
MAJOR SUBDIVISION
Any subdivision of land creating six or more new Lots [involving a proposed new street or the extension of an existing street].
. . .
MINOR SUBDIVISION
Any subdivision creating five or less Lots [fronting on an existing street and not involving any new street] and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property and not in conflict with any provisions or portion of the County Comprehensive Plan, Official Map, Zoning Ordinance, or this chapter. Only one such subdivision shall be approved per year per parcel. The maximum number of lots created in the minor subdivision process shall not exceed four plus one for each 10 acres of original parcel size.
----------------------------
§99-7 Preliminary Conference.
. . .
C. If the Director determines that the proposed subdivision represents a minor subdivision of a parcel, existing as of the effective date of this amended provision, on a street other than a major arterial roadway, and if the Director determines that review by the Commission is not necessary or desirable, he may waive the requirement of preparing a preliminary plat and may authorize the preparation of a record plat for purposes of recordation. He may, however, request review assistance from other concerned agencies prior to authorizing preparation of the plat. Lots in any minor subdivision plat approved by the Director, without review by the Commission, shall have a minimum area of 3/4 of an acre and a minimum width of 150 feet and shall utilize entrances as approved by the Delaware Department of Transportation. [Such a minor subdivision shall be limited to four lots per parcel, as well as one additional lot for each 10 acres of parcel size, with a maximum of four subdivided lots approved for recordation per calendar year.]
Current code:
A subdivision of land involving a proposed new street or the extension of an existing street.
. . .
Any subdivision fronting on an existing street not involving any new street and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property and not in conflict with any provisions or portion of the County Comprehensive Plan, Official Map, Zoning Ordinance or this chapter.
------------------------------
§ 99-7 Preliminary conference.
. . .
C. If the Director determines that the proposed subdivision represents a minor subdivision of a parcel, existing as of the effective date of this amended provision, on a street other than a major arterial roadway, and if the Director determines that review by the Commission is not necessary or desirable, he may waive the requirement of preparing a preliminary plat and may authorize the preparation of a record plat for purposes of recordation. He may, however, request review assistance from other concerned agencies prior to authorizing preparation of the plat. Lots in any minor subdivision plat approved by the Director, without review by the Commission, shall have a minimum area of 3/4 of an acre and a minimum width of 150 feet and shall utilize entrances as approved by the Delaware Department of Transportation. Such a minor subdivision shall be limited to four lots per parcel, as well as one additional lot for each 10 acres of parcel size, with a maximum of four subdivided lots approved for recordation per calendar year.
-----------------------
The future of Sussex is here, NOW!
Has Sussex County ever appreciated its environmental assets? Does Sussex County have any desire to preserve its pristine water and scenic beauty for its residents or are they up for sale for a few who can afford the high prices of the view and the water access at the expense of the destruction of what makes Sussex, Sussex? The time to take action is now! Once gone, we will never be able to reclaim the previous glory days of 'Sussex County, the gem of the Mid-Atlantic.'
More importantly, the wetlands and buffers, along with trees and forests, are Sussex County's lifeline and the frontline defense against natural calamities that will surely visit us one day. I mean this is for Sussex County's survival.
What is Sussex going to look like? Its fate depends on what we do now.
Eul Lee (Lewes)