Letter to the Editor: Planners got Coral Lakes decision right the first time

As the Planning & Zoning commissioners and the assistant attorney have explained, Sussex County land-use decisions must be made according to the law and enforced according to the Sussex County Code.

According to Paragraph 115.25F(3)(a) of the Sussex County Code, it is the Planning & Zoning Commission that determines if the requirements have been met before approving any preliminary plan, and it is the “reasonable judgment of the Planning Commission” as to whether the proposed subdivision meets all of the criteria. The commission determined, correctly, that Coral Lakes did not meet all of the required criteria. The following points were addressed by the public at the hearing on Jan. 27, 2022, and, therefore, are part of the record.

Paragraph 115.25E(6) of the Sussex County Code for cluster subdivisions states that “all lots shall be configured to be contained completely outside of all wetlands.” At the hearing, however, the developer’s attorney added the word “regulated.” The code, however, clearly refers to all wetlands, not regulated wetlands. Even the developer stated in their application that there are 76.31 acres of “non-tidal forested wetlands” on the site.

Paragraph 115.25F(3)(a)(1) of the code states that “homes shall be clustered on the environmentally suitable portions of the tract, specifically those portions of the tract least encumbered by sensitive environmental features, including but not limited to wetlands, mature woodlands, waterways and other water bodies. This does not inhibit the development of wooded parcels.” The site plan fails to cluster in any meaningful way, thus ignoring the intent of the above-referenced design requirement by clear-cutting 110 acres of mature forest and filling upwards of 30 acres of wetlands.

Paragraph 115.25F(3)(a)(6) of the code states that “removal of healthy mature trees shall be limited.” Removing 110 acres, or almost 80%, of mature trees on the property does not fall under the definition of “limited.”

Coral Lakes is inconsistent with the code provision on the health, safety, welfare (115.3) of the residents and the surrounding area due to the adverse impacts of this proposed development:

1. If approved, approximately 1,000 units (2,000+/- residents) and associated service vehicles will be accessing Robinsonville Road within a quarter-mile.
2. If approved, 315 units (630+/- residents) of Coral Lakes and associated service vehicles will only have one ingress/egress on to Robinsonville Road.
3. Robinsonville Road is a two-lane country road with a dangerous curve where it crosses Love Creek.
4. The Fallsington soil type found across a large percentage of the tract is known for poor drainage characteristics and will create future flooding problems on the site, as well as downstream areas.

The County Council has remanded the application back to the P&Z Commission. Given the above, we are hopeful they will make the right decision and uphold their denial and cite the many codified reasons this application does not meet the code and, therefore, cannot be approved.

Susan Petze-Rosenblum

The Sussex Preservation Group

Lewes