Bill Mailander is a resident of Lewes.
When Sussex County Council considers a rezoning application, it is performing a legislative function. If an application is approved, it requires an amendment of the zoning map, with potentially broad implications that can affect the use and development of the nearby land and its communities. These rezoning decisions differ significantly from the normal process for updating the comprehensive plan, during which many factors are required to be addressed in a comprehensive fashion. These factors are set forth in Delaware’s Quality of Life Act. A rezoning application, particularly when it concerns a relatively small parcel, occurs in the interim period, before the comprehensive plan is updated and can be more akin to impermissible spot zoning.
A recent decision by the Planning & Zoning Commission, recommending approval of the Belle Mead development, illustrates why changes are needed in how these applications are reviewed. In the request, the applicant is seeking to rezone an approximately 40-acre parcel from AR-1 to C-4 (Planned Commercial District) to build a mixed commercial-residential development. The land fronts Del. 24 and is surrounded by two schools, several neighborhoods and undeveloped land with development-limiting environmental factors. The commission’s recommendation ignored several code compliance issues relating to the project’s location, vis-à-vis the adjacent parcels, and provides little analysis of its compatibility with nearby communities and land uses or whether it would be served by adequate infrastructure based on all the known facts. Instead, its focus was primarily on the perceived benefits to be obtained from the applicant’s offer to provide 10% of Belle Mead as affordable or workforce housing. The proposal is now before County Council for a public hearing and decision.
In many of these rezoning applications, like Belle Mead’s, the location will largely determine the success or failure of the proposed project. For a C-4 district, the zoning code mandates some of the criteria relevant to the site that, if met, will increase its chance of success. The location for Belle Mead is inappropriate for many reasons, as pointed out in the over 170 public comments in opposition. My focus here, however, will be on the applicant’s failure to meet two criteria: interconnectivity and collector or other road access, considering the project’s only access is Del. 24 (an arterial road, according to the Delaware Department of Transportation).
Interconnectivity to adjacent parcels is required by code. This project’s site is adjacent to a school (interconnectivity not permitted), residential parcels (interconnectivity not permitted) and undeveloped land. In its decision, the commission stated that the applicant would be required to connect to the property to the east (undeveloped land), with signage indicating that future connectedness is a possibility there. The zoning code requires interconnectivity (not just the possibility of it) to at least two or more adjacent parcels. Connections are also limited to neighboring parcels that have the following land uses: hotels, motels, motor lodges, business and office buildings, and commercial or industrial buildings. The Belle Mead applicant obviously cannot meet the mandated interconnectivity requirement, thereby making the location inappropriate.
The code also requires that the site be served by adequate existing or planned infrastructure. In this regard, DelDOT’s development manual notes that private, direct access onto an arterial road may only be permitted if there is no other reasonable access from a lower classification road. This limitation is very important — individually and collectively, with respect to other developments with access only onto arterial roads — because direct access onto such streets derogates from the intended function to move traffic efficiently, safely and at speed. Anyone who regularly travels Del. 24 knows that it is already overburdened and cannot handle more development that causes more traffic congestion. Since the Belle Mead location only provides access onto Del. 24, this fact, especially in connection with the lack of proper and required interconnectivity, makes the site inappropriate.
Council should deny this initiative based on the above and on the reasons expressed in the over 170 public comments in opposition. It should also consider making the following changes to improve the rezoning application procedure: (1.) Increase the voting requirement to unanimous or at least a supermajority for approval of rezoning applications, as permitted by Delaware Code; (2.) Develop an ordinance that will minimize direct access to arterial roads; encourage the use of collector roads (including requirements to build or finance them); and prioritize safety and traffic movement; and (3.) Direct the Planning & Zoning Office and the commission to provide a balanced review of rezoning applications, including a discussion and analysis of public comments as they relate to zoning code compliance and projects’ impact on communities’ health, safety and welfare. These changes, and others, will enable council to make informed and better decisions about whether rezoning requests are truly in the best interest of the public.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
