Letter to the Editor: Sussex conditional-use request abuses dwelling density limits
Residential/Agricultural-zoned acreage, which limits development to up to two dwellings per acre, is being rapidly converted to high-density, or up to 12 dwellings per acre.
This alarming rate of conversion is being aided by a loose interpretation of the current county code, and the Planning & Zoning Commission is looking the other way. There is a current application before County Council that no doubt will lead to an onslaught of high-density high-rises throughout all of Sussex County.
The issue at hand here is where an application for rezoning consists of more than one land-use designation. In the application before the county presently, there is a request for a 14.9-acre parcel currently zoned Agricultural/Residential (AR-1) to be rezoned to a 6.4-acre Medium Residential (MR) portion and an 8.5-acre Commercial-3 (C-3) portion. The MR zone allows up to eight dwellings per acre and is for residential multifamily use, i.e., apartments or condos. The C-3 allows for a variety of retail concepts and some residential. Additionally, the county land-use code allows for MR-zoned parcels to apply for additional upzoning, allowing for up to 12 additional dwellings per acre through a process called “conditional use.”
The current applicant is asking for approval for 128 dwellings on the 6.4-acre portion of the parcel, which actually equates to 20 dwellings per acre, far exceeding the allowable density. The applicant’s rationale for the 12-dwelling maximum allowable density is that they are basing the calculation on the combined 6.4 acreage of the MR rezone and the 8.5 acreage of the C-3 rezone. This is despite the fact that their plan calls for 40,000 square feet of retail outlets and an additional 28 apartments to be built on the same C-3 portion of the parcel.
The current code 115-15.1, calculating permitted density or the number of dwellings that could be built per acre, states, “For purposes of calculating the permitted density or allowable density in all districts, the gross area, as defined herein, shall be divided by the applicable lot area stated in each district, unless otherwise specifically set forth therein. ‘Gross area’ shall include the lot areas and the area of land set aside for common open space or recreational use.”
In County Code 115-4, the word “district” refers to zone districts and is defined as “any section of Sussex County in which the zoning regulations are uniform.” In the same aforementioned code, the word “lot” is defined as “a fractional portion of a subdivision, measured, surveyed and platted and set apart, for separate use and occupancy, from contiguous parcels of land and having its principal frontage upon a street.”
Clearly, the MR and C-3 zones or districts in the context of the definition do not have uniformity in regulations, meaning each has distinct and separate regulations.
The two separate and disparate zones or districts in the context of the definition relating to “lot” have “separate use and occupancy.”
The application at issue here should be approved for MR rezoning with the maximum allowable density to be calculated based on 6.4 acres, multiplied by 12 dwellings per acre, for a total of up to 76.8 dwellings, and approval should be granted for the C-3. However, the conditional use must be denied.
The applicant is not entitled by right to this rezoning and conditional-use approval. Sussex County Council has the authority to exercise its will to enforce the proper intent of Code 115-15.1 and should enforce it accordingly. Allowing this misuse of the code on this application will lead to future abuse and loss of integrity in the land-use map and the county comprehensive plan. The use of mixed zoning districts in the density calculation encourages the proliferation of such uses in the future. The methodology of calculating density and its enforcement need to be more fully defined and understood by all stakeholders for uniform future development.
Rich Borrasso
Sussex Alliance for Responsible Growth
Milton
