Master Planning Zoning Districty (MPZ) - Questions/Comments

Can these be in TID?

It's clear that this proposal is to add a new zoning category intended to focus on large-scale multi-use developments that are well-thought out in advance [as opposed to the current piecemeal subdivision approach]. The primary benefits sought are ensuring up front a more unified, integrated approach to large multi-use parcels, to promote interconnectivity, and to streamline the application process . All done at the parcel level. As a zoning category, it seems to me that it can only be developer-driven since the county does not advocate for zoning changes on private land. 

It's unfortunate that the ordinance proposal uses the term master planning since what many of us want to hear about is master planning at a much broader scale [area context and character] - planning that operates as umbrella guidance for individual zoning decisions. But that is not what this is. In fact, if you look through the Comp Plan, you'll find numerous/repeated references worded similar to this ==>  "master planning should be encouraged especially for large-scale developments on large parcels or groups of parcels, higher density and mixed-use developments to provide flexibility in site design". The kind of master planning referenced in the majority of these Comp Plan excerpts deals with how specific acreage is developed - which is what this proposed ordinance will be targeting.

A few other thoughts on the presentation content:

• No minimum acreage has been decided [as yet].

• The MPZ classification can carry conditions of approval.

• The first process step is collaboration with P&Z [and DelDOT] to develop a Master Plan, Master Manual, and Spatial Distribution Plan.

  • the Spatial Distribution Plan is a visualization of planned density and land use type [residential, commercial, civic, open space]

  • however, these would be conceptual in character and not at a granular level of detail

• The public hearing would follow and be based on the work product of this first step - a conceptual understanding of what is planned; there is no public involvement beyond this stage.

• Development of detailed specs and drawings [Implementation Plan and Manual] and Final Site Development would be subject to P&Z review and approval.

• No discussion yet about a process for handling substantive changes in the approved plan, or whether/when re-involvement of County Council and/or the public would be triggered. 

• I'm still not clear on any incentive for a developer to pursue MPZ in lieu of subdivision.

FYI - section 12.2.1 talks about RPCs [Residential Planned Communities].

My questions for Jaime if you have time in your call with him:

1. Can a C-4 carry conditions of approval?

2. Why would an MPZ classification be needed? Wasn't this the goal/purpose of the new C-4 zoning classification? If C-4 doesn't get you where you want to go, why not amend that instead of creating a new zoning classification?

3. What incentive[s] would there be for a developer to seek a change to MPZ instead of sticking with the tried & true flexibility that subdivision has allowed? 

4. Tourism, agriculture, retirement living, and recreation have emerged as defining aspects of Sussex creating a unique [and desirable] sense of place. That sense of place in turn keeps those economic drivers strong. What tools does the county have in its arsenal to proactively manage the pace, breadth, and types of development at an aggregate level in a way that ensures beneficial integration with these aspects and sense of place? [Tipping points don't usually announce themselves.] 

• 'Land Use Master Planning' in the discussion was an introduction of a new zoning class called 'Master Planned Zone (MPZ),' not the Countywide planning that some of us, including Councilman Rieley, seemed to be thinking of.

• We kept hearing of the term 'RPC (Residential Planned Community)' - that MPZ is supposed to be bigger than RPC and it is more than residential, which RPC is; RPC is an overlay, but MPZ is a zoning by itself. So, what is RPC? What makes the Windswept at Lewes workforce housing of which they just approved the final site plan an RPC? Windswept is just the rows of 201 single homes on 60 acres of land with a small pool and a pool house, but nothing else and not much open or green space. And, MPZ is like RPC on a bigger scale, and commercial spaces are thrown in?

• If the public is to comment on the MPZ, it is for the land use of the whole hundreds of acres of land all at once, without detailed preliminary plans. So, after the MPZ is approved, the public is out of the chance to make any more comments.

• MPZ sounds like a dream-come-true for developers who want to get the process sped up by combining many applications into one (with one application fee) and also removing the public in the process.

• DelDOT's involvement has to be up-front in the MPZ approval process as Councilman Burton pointed out, unlike other subdivision or zoning approvals.

It sounded like removing an inconvenience for developers and streamlining development permits, rather than planned land use. 

I wasn't sure if I heard anything about identifying the commercial aspects of the community? Are there certain commercial uses banned? Can it be anything: gas station, medical office, hair salon, 24-7 store, restaurant, department store, autoshop/mechanic? 

All public roads?

No HOAs?

Open Community?

Any common facilities, such as a pool or play grounds?

• Two kinds of Master Planning?  This isn't the kind I was expecting.  This sounds like a Mega Bayside.

• I'm disappointed.

• Requirements "won't be as strict" as it was when Bayside was built?

• Are they pushing this idea b/c there is a developer/landowner looking at the Rt. 54/Johnson Rd. area that JR suggested?

• Why was DelDOT (deliberately?) left out of the plan?  Hello???

This will remove the public largely out of the approval process of preliminary site plans.

This seems like a new zoning designed for the convenience of the developers and large landowners.

I listened to the presentation by the developer and I.G. Burton's questions about coordinating with DELDOT which seemed almost an ofter thought to the developer!  I think we're going to miss Secretary Cohen.....

I listened in to the SCC Land Use Master Planning presentation this morning presented by Todd Lawson and Jamie Whitehouse.  It sounds exactly like what is needed for the Kings Highway corridor. 

The issues I heard are the time it will take to implement the new ordinance, coordination with DelDOT and desired parcel size to participate.  Mitchell Farm at 48 acres would be near minimum.  If the vacant Townsend lands were included it would be a perfect master planning application for the entire corridor.

Any recommendation as to what we should do with this information?  Todd Lawson referenced that the use would be similar to a master planned development in Dover, Eden Hill.

It does sound like this is a benefit to Developers but for Kings Highway, if we could 1) get land owners Mitchell and Townsend together and 2} implement the Kings Highway-Gills Neck Road Master Plan, it might solve our 2 mile corridor problem?  

The devil will be in the details of whatever ordinance comes out of the process.  It could be a while for that to emerge.  Is there a way to get a seat at the table?  I'm afraid that due to the tradition of property rights in the county, the orcibance at best will be optional and the underlying zoning will control.  A part of the devil is the county rezones based upon the vague permissible land use list in given zones outlined in the comprehensive plan; see the justification in the Mitchell Farm application. 

I may have come across many items I didn't have an understanding about since this is not my "wheelhouse." But, I noted that the Master Plan proposed Did NOT indicate use of wetlands within a proposed development. And how that would impact the development. I was also put off by Architectural Development Themes? Any theme is o.k. as long as it is a theme? So, does this mean homes with red stripes and circus tops will be approved as a circus theme?  Also, what is meant by main thoroughfares (plural) though the developments of the master plan? How wide? 30 feet is street wide. 60 feet is major road wide. I got lost with NRPC- commercial zoning approval of 1 acre per every 100 homes. (Not houses. HOMES). So, what are homes? Condos could be 100 easily. That would mean  someone can build a steak shop or dentist office or nail salon in or in front of the development? Did they consider the parking lot and the extensive lighting that would affect the other surrounding structures? And I don't like Land Owner Driven development.  

Sun City + 5 Points in one easy step? 

It's clear that this proposal is to add a new zoning category intended to focus on large-scale multi-use developments that are well-thought out in advance [as opposed to the current piecemeal subdivision approach]. The primary benefits sought are ensuring up front a more unified, integrated approach to large multi-use parcels, to promote interconnectivity, and to streamline the application process . All done at the parcel level. As a zoning category, it seems to me that it can only be developer-driven since the county does not advocate for zoning changes on private land. 

It's unfortunate that the ordinance proposal uses the term master planning since what many of us want to hear about is master planning at a much broader scale [area context and character] - planning that operates as umbrella guidance for individual zoning decisions. But that is not what this is. In fact, if you look through the Comp Plan, you'll find numerous/repeated references worded similar to this ==>  "master planning should be encouraged especially for large-scale developments on large parcels or groups of parcels, higher density and mixed-use developments to provide flexibility in site design". The kind of master planning referenced in the majority of these Comp Plan excerpts deals with how specific acreage is developed - which is what this proposed ordinance will be targeting.

A few other thoughts on the presentation content:

• No minimum acreage has been decided [as yet].

• The MPZ classification can carry conditions of approval.

• The first process step is collaboration with P&Z [and DelDOT] to develop a Master Plan, Master Manual, and Spatial Distribution Plan.

  • the Spatial Distribution Plan is a visualization of planned density and land use type [residential, commercial, civic, open space]

  • however, these would be conceptual in character and not at a granular level of detail

• The public hearing would follow and be based on the work product of this first step - a conceptual understanding of what is planned; there is no public involvement beyond this stage.

• Development of detailed specs and drawings [Implementation Plan and Manual] and Final Site Development would be subject to P&Z review and approval.

• No discussion yet about a process for handling substantive changes in the approved plan, or whether/when re-involvement of County Council and/or the public would be triggered. 

• I'm still not clear on any incentive for a developer to pursue MPZ in lieu of subdivision.

FYI - section 12.2.1 talks about RPCs [Residential Planned Communities].

My questions for Jaime if you have time in your call with him:

1. Can a C-4 carry conditions of approval?

2. Why would an MPZ classification be needed? Wasn't this the goal/purpose of the new C-4 zoning classification? If C-4 doesn't get you where you want to go, why not amend that instead of creating a new zoning classification?

3. What incentive[s] would there be for a developer to seek a change to MPZ instead of sticking with the tried & true flexibility that subdivision has allowed? 

4. Tourism, agriculture, retirement living, and recreation have emerged as defining aspects of Sussex creating a unique [and desirable] sense of place. That sense of place in turn keeps those economic drivers strong. What tools does the county have in its arsenal to proactively manage the pace, breadth, and types of development at an aggregate level in a way that ensures beneficial integration with these aspects and sense of place? [Tipping points don't usually announce themselves.]