Sussex residents are fed up with overdevelopment and the foot-dragging by county council in fixing the issue. Here is just another example of county council striking out again.
After months of discussion and significant input from subject experts, citizen groups and individuals, the outgoing county council took a swing and approved an ordinance that could have significantly improved the quality of new subdivisions. It was intended to update the 19 criteria defining how proposed developments deal with everything from floodplains to traffic to schools and more. Developers were previously required to consider these criteria, but now 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 reinforces the status quo of confusion and subjectivity by failing to establish standards that must be satisfied in developing a subdivision. In a typical political sleight of hand, they managed to take credit for clarifying the requirements while keeping them unenforceable. 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 as to why development in the county has been so poor for decades.
Examples of how vague the updated criteria are: No. 14 states: “That the applicant has consulted with the local school district where the proposed subdivision will be.” No. 17: “That the proposed subdivision will be compatible with other area land uses.” No. 18: “That the proposed subdivision will not adversely affect area waterways.” No. 19: “That 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 that determine how criteria are to be met. 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, they force the new council to go back and restart the process. Another classic foot drag.
But the new council 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 built environment, protect the natural environment, integrate with surrounding landscapes, and provide consistency and predictability for developers.
-
A letter to the editor expresses a reader's opinion and, as such, is not reflective of the editorial opinions of this newspaper.
To submit a letter to the editor for publishing, send an email to newsroom@capegazette.com. Letters must be signed and include a telephone number and address for verification. Please keep letters to 500 words or fewer. We reserve the right to edit for content and length. Letters should be responsive to issues addressed in the Cape Gazette rather than content from other publications or media. Only one letter per author will be published every 30 days. Letters restating information and opinions already offered by the same author will not be used. Letters must focus on issues of general, local concern, not personalities or specific businesses.
