NCC 2050 Comp Plan - Priority Changes

We, the residents of New Castle County, ask that the NCC Dept. of Land Use implement the following changes into the NCC2050 Comprehensive Plan:

#1: Revision of the current Suburban (S) District zoning class
#2: Increase preservation and create green spaces
#3: Remove TDR as a strategy for funding preservation
#4: Require precondition for special use permits
#5: Review industrial uses
#6: Add a strategy for Rt 9 corridor open space

Listed below are specific details for each requested change, the reasoning for each requested change, and a response to the relevant parts of the Recommendation for Ordinance 22-024 dated June 21, 2022.

Thank you.

#1: Revision of the current Suburban (S) District zoning class

Suburban (S) zoning must be amended before NCC2050 is approved because the current FLUM is in conflict with known conditions, the zoning change enables strategy 4.2.2, is consistent with WILMAPCO SNCC recommendations, and is allowed per UDC Section 40.31.420.B which states that the following must be considered when determining a text amendment: “Implementation and achievement of the Comprehensive Development Plan’s goals and objectives.”

Page 98 of the NCC2050 plan includes the following statement: “While the Future Land Use Map as proposed has been designed to minimize such occurrences [future land use designation changed], inevitably there will [sic] instances where a change or an amendment is merited. This should not be a common practice, but one that in rare instances permits the County to be nimble, adjusting to unforeseen economic and housing conditions.”

This statement establishes a significant barrier to FLUM changes in the future. Residents value having that predictability. As you are aware, a piece of legislation (Ordinance 22-023) is in process of approval which would revise the S zoning class. This ordinance not only has the support of many residents across the county, but is also not related to unforeseen economic and housing conditions. This indicates that the current FLUM is in conflict with known conditions and is not ready for approval. Therefore, the FLUM should be paused until after the S zoning revisions occur, so that it reflects the most accurate information for residents.

The S zoning change will enable the NCC2050 strategy 4.2.2 on page 228, “support the creation and enhancement of transit-oriented development and mixed income development, such as by allowing multi-family housing within a distance of all transit centers/stations and specific transit lines.”

The S zoning change is consistent with WILMAPCO SNCC recommendations, captured as an objective on page 513, “adjust zoning definitions and designations for clarity, predictability, and alignment with the development goals and objectives of the SNCC MP.”

The Recommendation for Ordinance 22-024 dated June 21, 2022 notes on page 16: “The primary issue seems to be that some do not want the S Zone to allow attached and multifamily residential units.” This is a misrepresentation based on the MOT Alliance sponsored poll. Residents want attached and multifamily residential units to be located on S zoned parcels which are located more proximal to infrastructure and services, since residents in attached and multifamily residential units may be more vulnerable populations.

The recommendation document states that changing S zoning “is inconsistent with the 2012 Comprehensive Plan and therefore would not meet the criteria for a text amendment (Section 40.31.240).” (page 17). The recommendation calls this putting the cart before the horse.
• UDC Section 40.31.240 is titled “Zoning permit” and does not establish criteria for a text amendment. We believe you intended to refer to 40.31.420 “Standards for text amendment.”
• Nowhere in 40.31.420 is a revision to zoning classes prohibited as a text amendment. Rather the opposite is true: Section 40.31.420.B states that the following must be considered when determining a text amendment: “Implementation and achievement of the Comprehensive Development Plan’s goals and objectives.”
• As noted above, changing S zoning first enables the NCC2050 strategy 4.2.2, is consistent with WILMAPCO SNCC recommendations, and is supportive of the intent of the FLUM be edited only in rare instances.
• Therefore, changing S zoning prior to the NCC2050 does not put the cart before the horse, but rather enables the implementation and achievement of the Comprehensive Development Plan’s goals and objectives.

We therefore request emphatically that the S zoning be revised PRIOR to the NCC2050 comprehensive plan approval. We recognize that S zoning revisions will take time, which is why we continue to advocate you requesting a longer extension from the State of Delaware to enable the combination of zoning and FLUM to be the product of a public planning process that is focused on those specific changes. As a compromise if you are unable to obtain the extension, then please make the following changes:
• strike through the phrase “adjusting to unforeseen economic and housing conditions” on page 98
• Incorporate text from Ordinance 22-023 into the document in a location of your recommendation
• Revise the language on page 97 to reflect that changes to the zone are a distinct strategy, and not just "explored" and "reviewed".

#2: Increase preservation and create green spaces

Preservation acreage should be increased to equate to 40% instead of 30% in objective 1.1 (page 145, section E). We support the DLU’s plan to convert the number to acreage instead of percentage. Not only is 30% lower than what is realistically achievable, but 40% is a value supported by environmental organizations in the state of Delaware.

Additionally, please add a strategy in objective 1.1 (page 145, section E) to create new green spaces where there isn’t sufficient open space to be conserved.

The Recommendation for Ordinance 22-024 dated June 21, 2022 notes that the target will be changed to a minimum of 7,100 acres. Not only is this a reduction in acreage from the prior draft, but it also does not increase the percentage as requested. The math is shown below.
• On page 24 of NCC2050, there is a statement: “There are roughly 74,700 acres of protected lands in New Castle County (about 27% of the total land area).”
• If 74,700 acres is equal to approximately 27% of the total land area, then the total land area is approximately (74,700/0.27)= 276,667 acres.
• Given the current proposed target of an additional 7,100 acres, this means that the NCC2050 plan targets (74,700+7,100)=81,800 acres which equates to (81,800/276,667)=29.6%. This is a reduction from the previously targeted 30%.

We request that the target change from 7,100 acres to 35,967 acres. This equates to a total of (74,700+35,967)=110,667 acres which is approximately (110,667/276,667)=40%. As stated previously, please add a strategy in objective 1.1 (section E) to create new green spaces where there isn’t sufficient open space to be conserved.

#3: Remove TDR as a strategy for funding preservation

Transfer of Development Rights is not transparent to the public due to the nature of private transactions. Please remove TDR from the details of the strategy on page 50 (1.1.1) which directs the Open Space Advisory Board to evaluate preservation strategies.

The Recommendation for Ordinance 22-024 dated June 21, 2022 included a response to this request on page 15. In the response, it was noted that plans which are major land development plans that include TDRs are required to be posted and include public hearings. We value the clarification in the response so we amend our reasoning as follows:
• The intention that a property owner desires to utilize the Transfer of Development Rights is not transparent to the public due to the nature of private transactions.

Land preservation is valued by residents, yet in order for land to be preserved, it requires land which might otherwise be transacted profitably for individuals to be reserved. The TDR enables some profit to be realized in the transaction because development rights are sold. However, there is nothing prohibiting a TDR decision from being market-driven, and nothing ensuring that a property holder would choose a TDR instead of selling the land to be developed. We believe that establishing a preservation strategy based on market-driven or individual-driven TDRs puts at risk the likelihood of land preservation. We the residents are not opposed to the existence of TDRs; however, we ask that it not be identified as a strategic methodology associated with preservation. Therefore, please remove TDR from the details of the strategy on page 50 (1.1.1) which directs the Open Space Advisory Board to evaluate preservation strategies.

#4: Require precondition for special use permits

Require mitigation of health and environmental impacts as a precondition for issuing special use permits to industrial uses.

See below commentary for item #5 why the Recommendation for Ordinance 22-024 dated June 21, 2022 remains concerning to residents.

#5: Review industrial uses

As required by Ordinance 20-101, conduct a review of all industrial uses and determine whether they need to be amortized and phased out.

The Recommendation for Ordinance 22-024 dated June 21, 2022 included a response on page 23. In the response, it was noted that the FLUM “permits” downzoning of land, and the UDC “permits nonconformities, but restricts further investments which would tend to make a nonconforming situation more permanent.” There is a “recommendation” that the Board of Adjustment “consider” Special Use permits for HI uses. There is nothing in NCC2050 that prevents to continue “business as usual” with existing heavy industrial uses, and there is no requirement for mitigation; rather there are only recommendations. Therefore, we the residents want more prescriptive strategies to ENSURE that mitigation of health and environmental impacts is performed, and we request the addition of a strategy to EVALUATE all current industrial uses and plan (and communicate to residents) which ones are likely to continue and which may be considered for downzoning.

#6: Add a strategy for Rt 9 corridor open space

Create a separate objective in section E (page 145) to create open spaces along the Rt 9 corridor.

The Recommendation for Ordinance 22-024 dated June 21, 2022 did not incorporate this request. We request that an objective in section E specifically create open spaces along the Rt 9 corridor.