In this third of a series of articles detailing elements of Sussex County’s current draft of this 2007 County Comprehensive Plan Update, released Sept. 25, the Coastal Point will look at sections of the plan dealing with historic preservation, intergovernmental coordination and community design.
With the booming growth in the county has come increasing pressure on the owners of historic buildings and properties to scrap the old in favor of newer and larger. But those championing historic preservation have pressed state, county and local officials for help in conserving such elements of the area’s past.
The plan notes that “Besides providing perspective about days gone by, historic buildings and artifacts have contemporary economic value. Historic sites draw tourists, create jobs and generate commercial revenues. Campaigns to revitalize older downtowns usually depend heavily on re-establishing the traditional, small town, ‘Main Street’ settings that many people find more appealing than highway commercial strips and shopping malls.”
The bulk of such work has fallen to the Delaware Department of State’s Division of Historic and Cultural Affairs, private non-profit groups such as Preservation Delaware, individuals working with the National Register of Historic Places and municipalities within Sussex County that have established their own historic districts, such as Lewes and Georgetown, with Millsboro currently said to be looking into such a district.
The plan, in fact, lists six pages of Sussex County historical buildings and sites on the National Register.
As for the county government itself, the plan calls for continued partnering with the state, Preservation Delaware, local municipalities and private property owners to: encourage more nominations from Sussex County to the register; share more information about the benefits of historical preservation with local officials and the general public; and promote economically viable alternatives to demolition, such as adaptive reuse of old structures for new uses.
The plan also calls for the preparation of a model ordinance regulating the demolition of historic structures and some forms of large-scale exterior renovations to historic structures. County staff would be sent to towns to promote and encourage adoption of such regulations, with the towns to adopt them by district or in an overlay form. Regulations on demolition would be promoted first, with promotion of additional historic preservation regulations as a second priority.
“The county’s first historic preservation priority should be to adopt an ordinance regulating demolition of historic structures,” the plan states, suggesting such an ordinance could be part of a more general demolition permit process that could ensure buildings to be razed are disconnected from all utilities and the debris disposed of properly, and giving the county a chance to review proposed demolitions for historic significance.
The plan also calls for the county to integrate historic preservation into its development review process, by requiring information about a site’s historic status to be included as part of an application. Historic character would be one of the criteria used in variance and conditional-use decisions made by the county.
Relations, ordinance updates considered key
for updated plan
As local governments increasingly look to get involved in county-level development decisions, the county comprehensive plan update addresses the county’s interaction with other counties, school districts, state and federal agencies, and non-profit groups.
The plan lists a series of intergovernmental coordination strategies for the county, including:
• Expanding intergovernmental coordination with its towns and cities, with particular focus on annexation, municipal zoning, future utility service areas, road improvements, large development applications and historic preservation.
• Working closely with the Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination on matters viewed as critical by the county, such as: updating the county zoning ordinance (including additional community design standards) to better coordinate county and state perspectives on developments reviewed through the PLUS system; establishment of an effective, county-sponsored transfer of development rights (TDR) system in the county; confirmation that the future boundaries of state priority spending areas (Levels 1 through 4) match the growth area delineations described in the comp plan update itself.
• Coordination with DelDOT in completing current and future traffic studies, in prioritizing the implementation of road improvements recommended in those studies and in new ways to fund road improvements.
• Working with the Delaware Department of Agriculture to preserve more county farms through agricultural preservation easements and maximizing the value of compensation paid to the landowners.
• Cooperating with DNREC and relevant non-profits to formulate stronger, yet locally acceptable, regulations for better protecting groundwater, waterways, sensitive habitat areas and other critical natural lands in the county.
• Working with DNREC and the Delaware Department of Agriculture to continue adding appropriate priorities to the inventory of state-owned lands in Sussex, particularly to link together existing state-owned forests.
• Seeking guidance from the Delaware Department of Community Development and Housing and relevant non-profits on how best to continue expanding the county’s response to local affordable housing problems.
• Working with all of the relevant state agencies and non-profit services to attract more higher-paying and diverse businesses to locate in the county.
• Expanding the number of State Police officers stationed in Sussex County by continuing to fund 50 percent of new officers above and beyond the county’s base allocation from the state.
• Continuing to seek advice from and providing county financial support to appropriate non-profit organizations that serve the county in “an exemplary way.”
The plan notes that the above strategies are considered key in implementing the comp plan update. Updates to the county’s zoning ordinance and subdivision code are also listed as critical to ensure the recommendations of the plan are translated into enforceable regulations.
Many of the previous plan’s related ordinances were never adopted by the council, but this year’s comp plan update recommends many zoning revisions and states that, “Updating the county’s zoning ordinance immediately will be Sussex County’s first step toward implementing this plan.” The plan also states that the update will lead “promptly to the revision of selected regulations” in the subdivision code.
Design element prefers traditional over sprawl
The 2007 update to the county’s comprehensive plan also addresses the area’s recent growth in one other way: the impact it has had on the appearance of the county, through suburban sprawl and related design issues.
“At one time, Sussex County consisted mainly of small towns surrounded by rural countryside. The towns were characterized by compact neighborhoods, small-town ‘Main Street’ business areas and a mix of traditional architectural styles. The rural areas featured working family farms, crossroads villages and extensive woodlands, all connected by country roads,” the plan says.
“Sussex County is still an attractive place,” it asserts, “with many towns having elements of their traditional character and style. Much of the rural countryside remains picturesque farmland. Many new developments have included well-designed open spaces and carefully designed buildings and amenities.
“However, crowded highways, strip commercial development, cookie-cutter subdivisions, nondescript construction and other aspects of suburban sprawl now exist in some areas. In certain areas of the county’s eastern sector and along some higher volume state roads, there is little physical distinction between the town and the country,” it says.
The plan labels as key the design of modern land uses that add to the character of the community instead of intruding into it. Some of the changes, it says, have “expanded economic opportunities, brought commercial services, provided new housing opportunities and created convenient road connections.”
“Yet, too often new construction has occurred with little thought toward design, causing parts of Sussex County to have the same overly-standardized appearance as many other parts of the country,” the plan reads.
While recognizing that change is inevitable, the plan says the county is looking for the best ways to direct the location, appearance and function of new development, with zoning, subdivision regulations and other means to do things such as incorporate open space and traditional design elements, “an attempt to draw from the best of the old and the best of the new.”
“It is important to maintain an attractive environment for economic development reasons,” the plan states. “Visitors and new residents come to Sussex County for an attractive setting, where they can enjoy waterways, beaches and other natural areas. If Sussex County becomes unattractive, with garish signs, excessive numbers of billboards, destruction of natural features and monotonous construction, it will harm economic growth.”
The plan proposes the promotion of traditional patterns of development that involves making sure a new development fits into the character of existing neighborhoods and incorporates the best features of older development. Included in that kind of development, according to the plan, are:
• Street trees planted to eventually provide a canopy of shade over streets, with anticipated increase in value of homes with mature street trees;
• New street lights to meet a design standard similar to older styles;
• Sidewalks, or asphalt paths along main roads in rural areas, to provide an ability to walk or bike to stores, schools and parks, and avoiding overly wide streets as an encouragement to speeding;
• “A modest density” to be encouraged, similar to typical development in the 1930s through 1940s, at five to 10 homes per acre;
• Parking to be located to the rear or side of buildings, to allow for a landscaped front yard, with alleyways ideally used to access rear parking and garages so to lessen conflict between cars and those using sidewalks;
• Buildings placed relatively close to the street, with front or side porches, to encourage interaction among neighbors and allow them to oversee the neighborhood, with the county possibly providing incentives to promote these features, such as a density bonus and reduced lot width, and as an alternative to building townhouses.
The community design element of the plan also lists a series of design standards it says should be considered in new development, including:
• Pitched roofs, varied rooflines and architectural details that add interest, even for chain stores;
• Open spaces and trails coordinated across developments, with consideration to future linkages on adjacent future development tracts;
• Pedestrian and bicycle connections provided between developments;
• Reverse frontage lots along major roads, to minimize the number of driveways entering on those roads, with rear yards facing roadways landscaped to provide a separation and open space provided along roads to maintain some of the rural character and reduce noise conflicts;
• Extended curbs at intersections to reduce the street width for pedestrians to cross;
• In larger residential developments, areas of neighborhood-oriented stores and services, with “well-distributed commercial areas” throughout the county to reduce driving trips for everyday needs, and commercial areas buffered from residences by landscaping;
• Commercial buildings close to the road with vehicle parking to the rear or side of buildings, ideally with a new street or ally connecting parking aisles so that traffic can access the main road at a traffic signal.
RPCs remain a part
of county planning
The 2007 comp plan update recommends the county continue to offer residential planned community (RPC) provisions in its zoning ordinance, to allow flexibility in the standards for larger developments, in return for higher quality of site design.
The county’s current provisions allow a mix of housing types and for additional density as an incentive, with a percentage of the land allowed to be developed for neighborhood-oriented commercial uses. The plan notes that provisions should specifically allow first-floor commercial uses with apartments on upper stories.
The county can modify the zoning requirements within an RPC, such as setbacks and street widths, and the plan recommends a set of design standards be promoted, such as the aforementioned rear driveways and rear garages.
The plan also makes reference to a requirement for preservation of open space. “There is currently no minimum open space requirement,” it notes. “Greater attention is needed to the design of the open space to make sure it serves a valuable public purpose and is interconnected. The amount of open space can vary with the allowed density, based upon the underlying zoning district,” it says.
The plan update also notes that it may be appropriate to establish maximum building setbacks, so as to keep new construction consistent with prevailing setbacks, with the idea being to encourage front yard setbacks that are relatively small but well-landscaped.
“A much greater emphasis is needed on buffering landscaping,” the plan says. “A high impervious coverage can still be attractive with the proper landscaping. Street trees and shade in parking lots should also be required. Buffering is particularly important between new businesses and residential neighborhoods.” It also notes that the county should have the authority to require fencing when needed on the business side of buffer yard landscaping.
Cluster standards target shortfalls
The comprehensive plan update also delves into the county’s relatively new cluster development standards, which were intended to help preserve open space by providing incentives to developers in the form of greater flexibility in lot sizes and dimensions in return for the provision of generally community-owned open space.
The plan says preserved open space should be used to maintain the scenic character of the county by preserving landscaped open areas along major roads and to maintain forested buffers between developments. Such buffers should also be required between new residential developments and adjacent farmland, it adds, reflecting the buffer ordinance the county council is currently considering.
“The cluster option has made it more economical to develop central water and sewage systems in rural locations,” the plan notes. “However,” it says, “there have been insufficient controls on the types of lands that are allowed to be counted as open space.”
The plan says that an applicant for a cluster development should show that the development has been carefully located to protect important natural areas, including mature forests and waterways, and not including smaller fragmented areas and narrow areas.
“Consideration should be given as to whether wetlands should count as open space,” the plan notes. “Stormwater ponds should only count as open space if they are designed to resemble a natural pond or are suitable for a recreational purpose.”
The plan also says that spray irrigation fields and well sites should be able to be counted as open space, while other treatment facilities should not. Golf courses, it says, can be suitable for open space, as long as there is also a recreational area that is available for use by all residents. It may be desirable, the plan says, to allow a reduction in the amount of open space required if the developer provides substantial recreational facilities.
“It is important to make sure that clustering would not dramatically increase the total number of homes built in the county, unless it is offset by funding the preservation of land on other sites,” the plan states.
“Any improvement along waterways and wetlands (such as boat piers, marinas and docks) need to be designed in an environmentally sensitive manner,” the plan further notes, referencing DNREC standards for marinas and a preference for elevated boardwalks for trails constructed in wetland areas.
The county comprehensive plan update makes reference to elements of “green” architecture and site design in its final few pages, discussing the benefits of solar energy, reduction of fossil fuels and promotion of recharge of stormwater into the ground.
“There should be efforts to minimize the total land areas that are covered by surfaces that are ‘impervious’ to water,” the plan states, again mentioning the clustering of homes on a site as one aspect of this provision. Also mentioned are porous concrete and pervious asphalt where hard surfaces are used, and grass-and-grid construction for less-used parking areas.
The plan recommends maintenance of natural drainage flow paths, with drainage from rooftops to be directed into vegetated areas on each lot instead of into stormwater systems.
Stormwater ponds, the plan says, ideally would be designed to hold water for several hours or more, to allow pollutants to separate from runoff, but not to retain water for more than 24 hours, to avoid breeding of mosquitoes.
The plan also notes the potential for the county to provide incentives for buildings that meet a national certification process for “green” construction, such as the LEED Certification process for large commercial and public buildings or the guidelines in the National Association of Homebuilders’ Green Building Principles.
Finally, and briefly, the 2007 Sussex County Comprehensive Plan Update concludes with a mention of signage.
“The sizes and heights of signs should be controlled to maintain the attractiveness of the county. In particular, billboards should be limited in their sizes (such as 300 square feet), their locations and the minimum distances between billboards,” it says, reflecting existing restrictions.
“Electronically changing signs should be limited in how often they can change to avoid distractions to motorists. Flashing and animated signs should be prohibited,” it concludes.
Next week: The Coastal Point will provide a detailed look at the transportation element of the 2007 Sussex County Comprehensive Plan Update, which was developed by the Delaware Department of Transportation and presented separately last month.