|
Council's
executive committee on July 1 cleared the ordinance containing
the amendments for floor action at the regular session on July
8.
Councilman Robert Weiner said he will offer an amendment to the
ordinance that would repeal a controversial provision that would
subject development plans to further consideration by the
Planning Board and Council late in the process. That review
would remain part of the overall code, but not apply to plans
meeting conservation design standards.
Beverly
Baxter, executive director of the Committee of 100, a
development trade organization, told the executive committee
that the Department of Land Use's recommendation to do otherwise
would subject developers to losing their investment of
considerable time and money after a good-faith effort. "Anything
can happen" as a result of such hearings, she said.
No
Council member raised specific objection to Weiner's proposed
amendment. He described the proposed ordinance, sponsored by
Councilwoman Karen Venezky, as "an excellent piece of
legislation" but said he is "thinking about" offering another
amendment to give developers a right to build to greater density
in return for dedicating a large portion of the tract as open
space.
The only objection voiced at the
executive committee meeting to passage of the ordinance was by
Rick Wooten, president of the Home Builders Association of
Delaware. He said that trade organization opposes the measure
because it mandates environmental set-asides. He said requiring
that half of a large development be dedicated as open space is
excessive. In some cases, he said, lesser amounts would be
sufficient to produce the desired environmental result.
As
Delaforum previously reported, the Planning Board voted
unanimously on June 17 to recommend passage of the amending
ordinance. Venezky, its
sponsor, predicted that Council also will act without dissent.
"I certainly hope so [because of] all the good that it does for
the county," she said. A vote could occur as soon as July 8.
Charles
Baker, general manager of the Department of Land Use, told the
Planning Board that quick passage is desirable. Any delay "would
be a concern to the department [because] we're trying to massage
[development] plans that are in process right now," he said.
The
timetable was nearly upset when board members Joseph Maloney and
Fritz Griesinger attempted to table consideration of the
ordinance until the board's July business meeting. If that were
done, Baker said, it would mean at least a two-month delay in
final passage. Council does not meet during the month of August.
Maloney
objected to the board's having been presented as it was
convening with a list of nine changes the department had made in
the ordinance following a public hearing on June 3. Griesinger
was miffed because he had not received a response to an e.mail
he had sent to the department just after the hearing, posing
several questions about details of the draft ordinance.
After a
series of parliamentary motions, Maloney agreed to withdraw his
tabling motion after Baker and George Haggerty, assistant
general manager, explained that only two of the changes were
substantive. One limited application of the new standards to
developments of 50 acres of more and prohibited subdividing such
tracts to bring them under that threshold. The other
specifically stated that land designated as a natural resources
conservation area within developments could not be developed in
the future.
Haggerty
went beyond that to say that the ordinance is designed to apply
only to new developments and there is no intention to require
retrofitting of existing ones. "This is all about going forward;
this is not about going back," he said.
Maloney
said he did not want to hold the ordinance hostage to another
issue -- an allegation that board decisions are made difficult
by last-minute receipt of additional material from the land use
department. Griesinger, however, would not withdraw his
seconding the tabling motion, forcing the full board to vote
down the idea of tabling.
Baker and
Haggerty then went on to respond to each of the questions that
Griesinger had asked -- evidently to his satisfaction, judging
by his ultimately voting in favor of recommending Council
approval.
In an
unusually long draft recommendation to County Council, based on
its position concerning the matter, the department gave
the ordinance an unqualified professional endorsement.
"This
ordinance provides a density-neutral approach for a fair and
equitable way to balance conservation and development
objectives," the statement said.
"Growth
is inevitable, but by contributing to development plans early in
the process, the 'environment first' ordinance will not only
avoid the potential degradation of New Castle County's
environmental resources, it will also help to control escalating
financial and social costs that often accompany growth."
It went
on to say there is no need for further public hearings and
redrafting. Baker told the board there had been 43 meetings with
developers, engineers, conservation groups, community activists
and other interested parties. There also was a series of
sessions with a public advisory group formed by the department.
The draft
described the proposed ordinance as "the first major
implementation" of the county's comprehensive plan since the
latest version was approved in 2002.
Haggerty
later noted that environmental protection remains a proverbial
'work in progress'. "Don't think this is the end to the debate
over open space. This is just the next step," he said.
Addressing what appears to be the most significant open issue
with the draft ordinance, the draft recommendation said that
provisions to allow third-party organizations -- mostly
conservation-oriented groups -- to own and manage protected
natural resource open space were intended as an option to
assigning that responsibility exclusively to community
maintenance organizations or having county government assume it.
Turning
to outside organizations :"is not a requirement, but another
alternative offered to potentially enhance and assure that
natural resource areas are maintained in accordance with [an]
open-space management plan," the recommendation said. Baker
later explained that use of conservancies is expected to be
rare. It will make sense in some cases, he said, to turn to "a
group that has experience [managing natural areas] instead of a
[community] maintenance organization that has no experience."
Planning
Board chairman Victor Singer took up that point, saying that the
role of county government should be limited to "picking up the
refrigerators and washers" which, inevitably, will be dumped
there from time to time and not to incorporate the natural areas
into the county parks system. The public, he said, would tend to
demand that if those areas were county owned and managed.
"It's not
a park; it's natural open space. Whatever grows there is what
nature wants to grow there," Singer said.
|
