Jeff Stone is a resident of Milton.
November’s election results — and the unprecedented ousting of three incumbents from Sussex County Council — sent a clear message: Residents are fed up with overdevelopment and the foot-dragging by council to fix the issue. Here is just another example of this chronic problem.
After months of discussion and significant input from subject experts, citizen groups and individuals, on Dec. 10, the outgoing County Council took a swing and approved an ordinance that could significantly improve the quality of new subdivisions. The ordinance was intended to update the 19 approval criteria defining how proposed developments deal with everything from floodplains to traffic to schools and more. Developers were previously required to just “consider” these criteria, but now, they must “satisfy” them, supposedly a step toward making the existing code enforceable. They missed!
Council dismissed thoughtful, credible science and best practice-based public input, and approved an ordinance that, instead of providing clarity and objective standards to be met by developers, reinforces the status quo of confusion and subjectivity by failing to state clearly what standards must be satisfied in developing a subdivision. In a typical political sleight of hand, they found a way to take credit for “clarifying” the requirements, while keeping them unenforceable. The ordinance as approved doesn’t provide standards as to how to satisfy the criteria. Residents and developers need explicit, measurable and enforceable standards to ensure effective and consistent implementation of the code in all cases. The lack of standards is a key factor why development in the county has had such negative impacts for the past several decades.
Some examples of how vague the updated criteria are: No. 5 states that “the design of the proposed subdivision, including the stormwater management and drainage design minimizes the removal of trees, vegetation and soil.” No. 14 states that “the Applicant has consulted with the local school district where the proposed subdivision will be.” No. 17: “The proposed subdivision will be compatible with other area land uses.” No. 18: “The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect area waterways.” No. 19: “There will be safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and to and from adjacent developed properties with interconnectivity.”
There are multiple examples where the exact same words are used, just in a different sequence.
So, what determines whether a subdivision application satisfies these requirements? No definitions or standards are stated or even referenced in the ordinance. Not one modification was made to the subdivision codes, which determine how regulations are to be implemented. Therefore, nothing has changed; whatever the developer says it did to satisfy this criteria is automatically correct and cannot be contested. This applies to virtually all 19 criteria. After months of discussion, testimony and revisions, little has changed from the previous flawed ordinance except a few words. Developers still make their own rules!
The incoming County Council could have had an easy opportunity to finish this work, but because the current council decided to adopt a faulty, ineffective ordinance, it forces the new council to go back and restart the process. Another classic foot-drag.
But the new council members must not be deterred. This is why they were elected, to clean up this mess. They must make it a priority and move quickly to establish clear, measurable standards for these development criteria, thereby ensuring new subdivisions create an attractive, livable environment, protect the natural environment, integrate with surrounding landscapes and provide consistency and predictability for developers.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
