Residents: Don't mess with AR-1 zoning
During a March 8 workshop, several residents issued warnings to the Sussex County Planning and Zoning commissioners as they write the 2018 comprehensive plan – don't change the county's base AR-1 zoning, and don't follow the lead of Kent County officials.
The commission is accepting public comment following its regular meetings as well during its comprehensive plan workshops. See a schedule of meetings at www.sussexplan.com and www.sussexcountyde.gov.
No movement to change base zoning
Several residents with long ties to the county spoke about the potential of changing the county's base zoning of two units to an acre in AR-1 zoning.
Bobby Horsey of Laurel, who employs 160 people through his family's contracting business, said he was in attendance to protect his property rights. “I will not go without a fight if you try to reduce two units to an acre on AR ground,” he said. “The land-use plan should not change that.”
He said he was disappointed that the consultants did not stay for the entire workshop. “They should be here to hear our voices,” he said.
Residents spoke for more than two hours at the end of the workshop.
Wayne Baker, a Milton-area farmer, said he didn't want to see any downzoning of AR land. “It robs me of the value of my land,” he said, adding it's land he chooses to farm and not develop. “I have all the rights to my land, and any government change takes money out of my back pocket.”
“We want development, but we want to make our own decisions,” said Nathan Hudson, a fifth-generation farmer in the Laurel-Delmar area. “If you take that away from us by downzoning, then you will have to compensate me.”
As Hudson spoke, Commission Chairman Bob Wheatley called a halt.
“Have we said there is any interest in downzoning AR land?” he asked. “That hasn't been on my radar screen. I don't know where this is coming from. I'm not aware of any movement to do that at this level.
“This is not Kent County,” he added. “We are a little smarter in Sussex County.”
Attorney: Don't copy Kent County
Other speakers talked about what has occurred in Kent County over the past decade.
John Paradee, a land-use and zoning law attorney, came with a warning for Sussex officials. He said some of the county's goals and objectives in the proposed 2018 plan mirror what has occurred in Kent County. He said ordinances – including an adequate public facilities ordinance – put into place as part of Kent County's 2008 plan have stymied growth. He said there have been only four subdivision applications in the county over the last six years.
“I've seen this movie before, and it has a tragic ending,” he said. “It's almost exactly what Kent County has done.”
An adequate public facility ordinance ensures that necessary infrastructure – such as roads, schools and sewer service – is built concurrently or prior to development.
He said prior to that plan, Kent officials used a carrot approach to development. That changed dramatically to a big stick approach, Paradee said. As the county's base zoning was changed, land values plummeted as much as 10-fold, he said.
And the adequate public facilities ordinance – which was upheld in court – made matters worse, Paradee said. “Developers are skipping over Kent County because it's so difficult to comply with the adequate public facilities ordinance,” he said.
Paradee said a 200-unit development near Dover was withdrawn because the ordinance required road improvements at three intersections beyond the project that would have cost $20 million to $30 million. “Even DelDOT said the improvements were not warranted,” he said.
“Be careful not to use a big stick when a carrot will do the job,” Paradee said. “Kent County overreacted and crushed development.”
Paradee said Kent's plan resulted in about 60 lawsuits.
Frank Kea, CEO of Solutions IPEM in Georgetown, said Kent County has been the victim of its own policies. He added similar land-use decisions in Wicomico and Worcester counties in Maryland have resulted in very limited growth. Kea said smart growth initiatives combined with an adequate public facilities ordinance are a bad combination that create a culture of haves and have nots. “You can't direct growth, and you can't butt the market,” he told commissioners.
“Development is not the problem; it's that the roads are not built around it. Only 17 percent of county land has been developed,” he said.
Look at transfer of development rights
Robert Tunnell, an 11th generation Sussex Countian associated with the Tunnell Companies, said the county should encourage increased density in select areas around the Inland Bays. “Build houses where people want to be where you can concentrate transportation improvements and utilities. That also can lead to affordable housing mixed in,” he said.
Tunnell said the 2018 plan should also include a transfer of development rights ordinance. That's an issue that was discussed as part of the 2008 plan, but it never got traction.
Transfer of development rights is a zoning technique used to permanently protect farmland and other natural and cultural resources by redirecting development that would otherwise occur on these resource lands to areas planned to accommodate growth and development.
Tunnell said the program could work as long as regulations are kept to a minimum and incentives are built in to encourage landowners to use the program.
Wheatley said the commission is interested in getting more information on a model program, and he asked Tunnell to bring one back to the commission for consideration.
“It can't be over burdensome, and there needs to be predictability,” Wheatley said.
“The devil is in the details,” said assistant county attorney Vince Robertson. “Last time we couldn't compare apples to apples and it withered away.”
Tunnell said he would do more research and report back to the commission.
The next workshop is scheduled for 9 a.m., Wednesday, March 29, in the county administration building, 2 The Circle, Georgetown.
