GEORGETOWN — Countywide uniformity has come to Sussex County, as similar standards now apply to all new cluster subdivisions.

On Tuesday, Sussex County Council cast unanimous support behind an ordinance amendment encompassing all cluster subdivisions in AR-1 (agricultural/residential) districts, including the county’s coastal area, previously known as the “environmentally sensitive developing area.”

Prior to council’s 5-0 approval, cluster subdivisions in AR-1 zoning districts in the county’s coastal area did not have to meet superior design requirements, as are required in agricultural/residential districts in other portions of the county.

“What we had was probably three-quarters of the county had to comply with the superiority design requirements of the AR-1 clustering portion of the code, and you had the coastal area, which did not have to comply with the design requirements,” said Assistant County Attorney Vince Robertson. “There was a desire to bring those on a more level playing field. So if you are in AR-1 in Sussex County, you (now) have basically the same set of standards that you have to comply with.”

In AR-1 districts, superior design elements include buffers, contiguous open space and several other requirements. Previously, to secure cluster authorization in the coastal area, the only requirement of developers was an environmental assessment and public facility evaluation report.

Developers opting for the cluster option can construct homes on 7,500-square-foot lots instead of 20,000-square-foot parcels in standard subdivisions on lands zoned AR-1.

At its Jan. 21 meeting, the Sussex County Planning & Zoning Commission recommended that council approve the amendment. The public hearing before Planning & Zoning was held Jan. 7.

“I look forward to supporting this ordinance,” said County Councilman Mark Schaeffer, after asking several questions of Mr. Robertson prior to Tuesday’s public hearing in council chambers.

Before approval Tuesday, the ordinance amendment was edited, influenced largely by a request from the Sussex Alliance for Responsible Growth to remove the word “design” from language in a certain section of the ordinance.

“SARG’s concern is that staff, council, commission, council members change over time, and if an ordinance is not written as concisely as possible, interpretations and regulations could change. Land-use attorneys have always been able to provide competing interpretations,” said SARG representative Rich Barasso during the public hearing. “Simply removing the word ‘design’ … ensures that there is no confusion as to what would be required and brings the coastal zone into full and exact conformity. Complexity can lead to inconsistency that obviously needs to be avoided in the application of the land-use law.”

Councilman John Rieley motioned to amend the proposal, citing SARG’s request. The motion also passed 5-0, supported by members Cindy Green, Michael Vincent, Douglas Hudson, Councilman Schaeffer and Councilman Rieley.

Sussex County Planning & Zoning Director Jamie Whitehouse said the county received 141 comments (some of which were duplicates), and they “largely appear to be in support” of the ordinance amendment bringing uniformity countywide.

Speaking on behalf of more than 100 engineering companies in the state with the American Council of Engineering Companies of Delaware, Ring Lardner, an engineer with Davis, Bowen & Friedel, said the ACEC fully supports the proposed ordinance amendment.

“It does bring everything together,” Mr. Lardner said.

Echoing that was Chris Bason, executive director of the Center for the Inland Bays, who said it simply makes common sense.

The superior design requirements “help to protect and restore the water quality, the wildlife habitat of the Inland Bays. They protect the major plants and animals of the watershed. They protect against flooding, and they enhance property values,” said Mr. Bason.

Councilman Rieley said the change is a move in the right environmental direction.

“I notice in a number of those comments, there seems to be an expectation that the adoption of this ordinance is going to have a dramatic effect on improving the environment in the county,” he said. “Where I can see where it may have some positive effect, I don’t know that it is going to be a magic bullet that is going to fix all of our environmental challenges. It is a step.”

Mr. Barasso agreed.

“This legislation is overdue, and it is critically needed to improve the quality of development in the coastal zone,” he said. “It is also needed to eliminate the inequity in developments in different parts of the county. The coastal zone is the fastest growing, highest density, most environmentally sensitive, most heavily trafficked area in the county. The adoption of this ordinance would make superior design elements of the county zoning apply countywide.”

The coastal area encompasses the eastern side of the county, wrapping around the Inland Bays, up to the Delaware Bay and down to Maryland.

Councilman Rieley made note that this is a voluntary program, saying developers still have an option of two units per acre. “It is not mandatory,” he said.

Mr. Robertson clarified.

“That’s correct. This is the voluntary election to go to the smaller lot sizes,” said Mr. Robertson.

Not included in the ordinance adopted was a “yield plan,” which had been previously removed. Under the yield plan, developers would have had to submit a calculation of the maximum number of dwelling units with standard lots.

“We currently have developments that are receiving national awards for their design. They are that good — without this ordinance. My bias is to not overmanage and micromanage,” said Councilman Rieley. “As you know, I was not really in favor of this last year when it came out in that form (yield plan). But without the yield plan, I feel like we are preserving the property rights and the value of the land for the property owner. I think this is a much-improved version of that. I think the discussion has yielded a better product over time.”

Back in time
In his presentation prior to the hearing, Mr. Robertson turned back the clock on the evolution of this issue, dating back to the county’s 2002 comprehensive plan.

“In that plan, there was a desire to establish clustering in the AR-1 area of Sussex County and also in what was called the ‘environmentally sensitive zoning district overlay zone.’ There was also a desire to allow clustering down to (7,500-square-foot) lots in AR-1 subdivisions,” Mr. Robertson said.

In 2003, the environmentally sensitive area ordinance was adopted, and in 2004, the cluster AR-1 was approved.

“Interestingly or questionably or whatever adjective you want to give, there was two different standards for both of those types of subdivisions,” Mr. Robertson said. “They both essentially ended up in the same place, where the density remained the same two units an acre, but, to get to the 7,500-square-foot clustering in the AR-1 area of the county, the non-environmentally sensitive building area, there was some superiority design requirements that came into play when you went for a subdivision. In the environmentally sensitive area, which is now the coastal area, there wasn’t that requirement. It was 7,500-square-foot lots. You had to do an environmental assessment, but there wasn’t the same design process you had to go through.”

County Council’s vote brings uniformity.

“The main difference I would say is that, by having those design standards, we end up with better designed subdivisions, still two units an acre, but more thoughtfully designed subdivisions,” Mr. Robertson said.