Sussex County amends subdivision, open space rules

Sussex County Council clarified subdivision and open space rules for developments Dec. 10, despite objections from both developers and a preservation group that argued the changes are inadequate.

With both groups calling for a rewrite, council was left to approve code amendments, as drafted, before the end of the year or face the possibility they would be scrapped after a council with three new members is seated in January.

The existing subdivision rules were found to be too vague to give clear direction to developers, landowners or the public. The open space rules were revised to clarify which areas are covered. 

The subdivision rules were vague, stating only that 17 listed issues had to be considered. It did not explain who had to consider them or how, and whether any action was required.

The revisions approved Dec. 10, put the burden on the developer to ensure a project is designed to limit effects on such things as the environment and neighboring properties; water supply; sewage disposal; vehicular and pedestrian movement; area property values; farmland; schools, public buildings and community facilities; roadways and public transportation; waterways and other area land uses.

“One of the biggest initial items to tackle was the use of the word consider in 99-C, as it’s worded today,” said Vince Robertson, assistant county attorney.

“That’s a word that can mean lots of different things to lots of people, and it doesn’t spell out who is supposed to consider it, whether it’s county staff, the planning & zoning commission or the applicant,” Robertson said. “And what does that mean? How far are you supposed to go to consider something? There’s no guidance on that.”

The amendment approved Dec. 10 requires the applicant to prove all criteria have been satisfied and how they have been satisfied. 

Jon Horner, a representative of the Home Builders Association of Delaware, said the proposal was still subjective.

“We need to have that clarity and I think if you pass this as it is, nobody can come in with a project and say, ‘This meets this code,’” Horner said. “You’re basically coming in, crossing your fingers and hoping your interpretation is in line with the planning & zoning commission. That’s not a fair place to put the developers; it’s not a fair place to put the landowners; that’s not a fair place to put the public.”

Rich Borrasso, a member of the Sussex Preservation Coalition, agreed the changes do not go far enough to clarify the requirements.

The proposed open space rule changes dealt with such issues as what areas will be considered in calculations for minimum open space required in developments. The amendments eliminate building footprints, recreational facilities, impervious surfaces and narrow strips of grass from the definition of open spaces.

Borasso called for redrafting the open spaces proposal. He suggested extensive changes beyond those approved by the county, including increasing the required amount of open space.

Horner said smaller lot sizes and other efforts to reduce space should be pursued to make houses less expensive.

Jeff Seemans, a retired landscape architect who lives in Milton, urged further review of subdivision and open space rules.

“Please hit the pause button,” he advised. “We will be living with changes for a long time.”