In this first of a series of stories detailing elements of Sussex County’s current draft of this 2007 County Comprehensive Plan Update, released last week, the Coastal Point will look at the plan’s introduction and sections regarding future land-use planning, conservation, and recreation and open space.
The first pages of the county’s comprehensive plan update set a similar scene as to that laid out by county planning consultants at the Sept. 25 unveiling of the draft plan to the public.
The plan emphasizes that, as an update, its focus is “on refining, not reinventing the county’s approach to planning.” It also emphasizes quality-of-life issues and promoting conservation in community design, along with encouraging economic growth, respecting private property rights and ensuring that the county provides “a viable climate for preserving agriculture.”
The current draft also defines Sussex County as an agricultural leader, tourism center and major growth center, where new full-time residents, second-home growth, seasonal tourism, increasing racial diversity and the “graying” of the population pose particular challenges to which the county must attempt to adapt.
Notably, the plan emphasizes that the U.S. Census figures indicating the area’s population and population breakdowns do not illustrate a full picture of the county, as the Census does not count seasonal residents, who make up a significant portion of those owning property in the county and making use of its resources.
Growth is a strong theme in the plan, as the county experienced a 59 percent growth in population between 1990 and 2006, with a population density of 192 persons per square mile in July 2006 and 180,275 residents countywide.
That growth appears to be slowing, however, with Sussex County’s population expected to grow 24 percent between 2000 and 2010, compared to 38 percent during the 1990s.
Land is, of course, a major focus of the plan — particularly notable as some 48 percent of the land in Delaware is included in Sussex County.
The plan states that the coastal and inland bay areas of the county are its busiest regions in terms of tourism, new construction and seasonal traffic, leading to problems with traffic congestion — particularly on warm-weather weekends and also particularly on east-west roads. It acknowledges that the county’s west and central areas are less developed than the east, though development has been proposed there as well.
That development trend is referenced county-wide but appears to also be slowing, with 61 developments containing 4,609 lots reviewed by county officials in 2004; 100 developments with 12,027 lots in 2005; and 76 developments containing 4,213 lots in 2006. That would indicate a strong peak in 2005, with similar levels in both 2004 and 2006.
Likely demonstrating an acknowledged slowing of the real estate market nationwide, the plan references the county’s backlog of housing approved but not yet constructed. Through 2006, 26,233 residential lots were recorded but have not yet been developed, with a large number still in the county’s review and approval process.
Again pointing to particular development pressures in the eastern portion of the county, some 51 percent of building permits issues between 2003 and 2006 were issued in just four of the county’s tax districts — all in eastern Sussex. Between Baltimore Hundred, two districts in Indian River Hundred, and Lewes & Rehoboth Hundred’s southern district, 6,937 permits were issued, out of 13,706 total permits issued countywide.
County suggests state plan needs re-examining
The county’s Future Land Use Plan designates which parts of the county are to be considered growth areas. The plan says that the location of growth areas designated by Sussex County also influences Delaware state policy on: a) where the state hopes to apply certain growth management strategies; and b) how the state allocates its infrastructure spending.
Of particular concern to many in the county are the state’s Level 4 investment areas — areas in which the state is seeking to discourage growth and does not plan on making significant contributions toward infrastructure.
Many of these areas are concentrated around the county’s inland bays, generally coinciding with the county’s Environmentally Sensitive Developing Area overlay, where environmental and land preservation concerns have led the state to avoid supporting increased infrastructure despite pressure from development.
The county’s future land-use plan indicates that growth areas under the 2007 update have been designed, at least in part, to indicate that some changes may be needed on the state level.
“In these particular cases, the county is signaling that selected new growth areas may be needed to accommodate future development in places the state does not currently view as growth centers,” the plan reads.
“By being pro-active in this way, Sussex County hopes to work with the state to jointly revisit certain designations the state made in prior years on the basis of the county’s old comprehensive plan, which is now updated by this document,” it says.
Sussex County has designated large areas around Rehoboth Bay, Indian River Bay and Little Assawoman Bay (the inland bays) as ESDA, with an emphasis on the D for “developing.”
“This designation recognizes two characteristics of these areas,” the plan says. “First, these regions are among the most desirable locations in Sussex County for new housing, as reflected in new construction data and real estate prices. Second, these regions contain ecologically important wetlands and other coastal lands that help absorb floodwaters and provide extensive habitat for native flora and fauna. These areas also have great impacts on the water quality of the bays and inlets and upon natural habitats.”
The plan indicates that the county’s challenge is to safeguard genuine natural areas and mitigate roadway congestion without stifling the tourism and real estate markets that: a) provide many jobs; b) create business for local entrepreneurs; and c) help keep local tax rates reasonable. They noted the potential of county-provided central sewer to provide environmental benefits by replacing individual on-site septic systems.
In the ESDA, the county’s land-use plan says a range of housing types should be permitted, as well as retail and office uses, but not shopping centers and office parks without arterial road access. Light commercial and institutional uses would allow people to work close to home, it says.
Density, TDR programs addressed in plan
On the controversial subject of density, the plan said most areas in the ESDA should allow two units per acre, and that an option should exist to go up to four units per acre if a developer uses density bonuses, including with the funding major road improvements. The plan also champions the use of smaller lots and increased flexibility with the county’s existing cluster option, in exchange for permanent preservation of “a substantial percentage” of the tract.
The plan says that an additional layer of protection should be considered for the ESDA, with tidal wetland area subtracted so that it is not included in the net size used as basis for density calculations.
County council’s support of voluntary farmland preservation is mentioned in the land-use element, with the existing cap of two units per acre in the AR-1 Agricultural-Residential district retained, unless central sewer is connected, with a minimum lot size of .75 acre with septic systems. A cluster option allowing up to four units per acre with central sewer is also retained.
Density bonuses are provided in exchange for common open space, or with funding provided for the county to acquire open space. The plan calls for developers to plant landscaped buffers and notes the council’s desire to explore techniques such as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), which “gives developers the right to build at higher densities in other, more suitable locations if they agree to permanently preserve certain rural lands.”
With TDR, a developer pays the owner of a rural property to permanently preserve that property. In return, that developer can “transfer” the number of homes that would have been allowed on the preserved tract to the developer’s own tract so that the developer can build more homes than would otherwise be permitted.
The developer and rural landowner would negotiate how much the developer would pay for the rights. The land-use plan says that such a program “helps landowners obtain full value for preserving their property and is an alternative to the below-market values” offered under the state’s agricultural easement program.
New Castle and Kent counties have both established TDR programs.
The plan notes that the county’s existing density trade ordinance is a variation of TDR, with funds paid by developers for additional density going into a fund for land preservation. The density trade program operates with a price per additional house that is fixed and not negotiated, and the county selects properties to be preserved. The plan says this program will be retained and continue to be refined.
“Any TDR program established in Sussex County would augment the current pay-for-density option, not replace it,” the plan emphasizes.
Sussex County would need to amend its zoning ordinances to implement TDR, with terms and conditions specified. Those terms would include identifying “sending areas” where land owners are allowed to sell development rights – including all or almost all of the county’s AR-1 lands.
The terms would also identify “receiving areas” where additional density could be possible under TDR. Those receiving areas would include areas listed on the Future Land Use Plan as Developing Areas and Town Center Areas. With TDR, a yield plan would show how many homes would be possible on the sending tract under conventional zoning.
A TDR program would also likely feature density bonuses as incentives to participate, as Kent County has offered if high-priority farms or natural areas are being preserved.
“With the property definitions in place, this option could help Sussex County preserve contiguous blocks of farmlands, lands of extraordinary environmental importance and/or lands clearly vital to recharging groundwater supplies,” the plan says.
Also referenced are intergovernmental agreements and amendments to municipal zoning ordinances that could allow development rights to be transferred from areas outside incorporated municipalities to areas inside incorporated municipalities, if the municipalities are amenable.
Regarding agricultural lands, the plan says the county should consider establishing an agricultural zoning district within portions of state agricultural preservation districts, with the intent that landowners will ask to be part of district. That program could also include some incentives, such as more permissive provisions for livestock, poultry and agricultural processing activities.
No new agricultural preservation programs are mentioned beyond such a program in conjunction with the state.
Future land-use map
designates growth areas
As noted in the Future Land Use Plan, the plan designates particular areas of the county as growth areas, town centers, rural lands and those under the umbrella of concern that is the ESDA.
Changes to the map in the 2007 update primarily involve lands added to the annexation areas of incorporated municipalities as shown in the municipalities’ comprehensive plans and zoning map changes approved by the Sussex County Council since the previous plan was approved.
The plan also points out “a few selected developing areas that are intended to provide locations where density might be increased from the current zoning if the developer uses density bonus options.”
“Despite these refinements, the new Future Land Use map does not represent a significant revision in the county’s land use policy,” the plan emphasizes, in line with comments by planners on Sept. 25. “This Draft Plan also does not signal a shift in the County Council’s overall view about the future of land development and land preservation in the county.”
Designated as developing areas in the new map are areas: to the southwest of Millville; to the west of Fenwick Island, on the 54 corridor; around Selbyville; around Frankford/Dagsboro; around most of Millsboro; around Georgetown, Laurel, Delmar, Seaford, Bridgeville, Milton, Milford, Ellendale, Greenwood; and a small area southwest of Lewes.
Mentioned briefly in the land-use element of the plan update is manufactured housing, which planners touted Sept. 25 as something that needed to be examined as a possible improvement in the lack of affordable housing in the county.
The plan notes: “Federal law effectively states that county must allow manufactured homes wherever stick-built single-family detached homes are permitted,” and again cites manufactured homes as one way to provide affordable housing.
“The County Council is keenly aware that many jobs in Sussex County do not pay enough for workers to afford the average priced home now available to buy in Sussex County, especially in the eastern part of the county,” the plan acknowledges.
It suggests the county examine potential revisions to county regulations regarding use of single-wide homes, effective lot size needed for placement of a manufactured home and prohibitions against homes built more than five years ago.
Design, open space goals defined for development
While community design elements are dealt with in detail later in the plan, community design criteria is addressed briefly in the land-use section. It specifically lists a series of design merits for cluster developments:
• Housing clustered to the most suitable portions of site;
• Important natural areas preserved before lot lines are engineered;
• Clustering offering just a 15 to 20 percent density bonus;
• Making sure cluster development is not misused to generate a dramatic increase in the number of homes allowed;
• Open space to serve a purpose and not just being “leftover” lands with little development or recreational potential;
• Buildings directed away from natural features;
• Thick vegetation preserved along creeks for filtration and fishing area preservation;
• Preservation of scenic features; and
• The last step of a sketch plan being to draw lot lines, instead of that coming first.
The plan also defines goals for the preservation of open space in the county: to preserve agriculture, hayfields, orchards and treefarms; to protect environmentally sensitive areas; to design stormwater management in an attractive and naturalistic manner; to create usable recreation areas and links in a trail system; and to create large continuous swaths of open space.
The open-space goals say that at least half of required open space should be in one contiguous area, and isolated areas (less than 1 acre) should not be counted as open space. Detention basins would not be considered as open space unless they designed as major scenic asset or are suitable for recreation.
Roads and parking would not be counted as open space, and the county would define a maximum percentage of open space that can be covered by impervious surfaces. If it is not intended for active recreation, open space should be landscaped in trees, shrubs, etc.
Most types of commercial recreation, other than a golf course, should not count as common open space, it says. And buildings would not be considered as open space unless they only serve recreational purposes. Open space should also connect with open space on abutting parcels.
Conservation element addressed
As emphasized at the Sept. 25 meeting, a significant portion of Sussex County is already in some form of preservation.
A Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) estimate from 2006 reported that 21 percent of the county is permanently protected against further development, through wetlands regulated by government, through preservation easements, and by virtue of being owned by federal or state government, or by private land conservancies.
The plan also makes particular reference to concerns about preservation of the inland bays, noting in particular the concerns expressed by the Center for the Inland Bays in a 1995 conservation and management plan for inland bays, as well as a CIB review of the 2002 county comprehensive plan and the group’s input on the 2007 update.
Also referenced are the activities of the Sussex County Land Trust, which advises the county council on how to allocate county funds available for open space preservation. The SCLT has been involved in the acquisition of the 908-acre Ponders track near Milton, which is a forested property managed by Nature Conservancy, as well as 43 acres as part of link from the Great Marsh area near Lewes with Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge.
The plan also references existing provisions for the ESDA, where an environmental assessment must be prepared in conjunction with development applications.
To augment current regulations, the play says, the county council “is now evaluating alternative approaches to protecting non-tidal wetlands and groundwater recharge areas, among other critical natural features.”
Land preservation strategies listed in the plan include:
• Working with the state for additional state resource areas;
• Encouraging more interest from farmers in agricultural preservation;
• SCLT funding to preserve more land;
• Adopting a locally-formulated TDR program;
• Strengthening county development regulations to ensure that open space dedicated by developers contains enough contiguous legitimate open space to facilitate environmental protection and/or passive recreation;
• Establishing future public service areas that will help preserve open space by promoting orderly growth rather than unplanned sprawl;
The plan also lists resource protection strategies, including:
• Adopting zoning that mandates appropriate buffer distance between non-tidal wetlands and development;
• Supporting the CIB and other conservation groups in efforts to educate people;
• Encouraging the state to finish its pollution control strategies and to focus on implementing them;
• Continuing to assess the potential value of including stream setback regulations in water pollution control plans for the Inland Bays and other local water bodies;
• Amending appropriate sections of the zoning and subdivision codes to encourage more “green” stormwater management techniques as an alternative to traditional detention basins;
• Amending zoning and subdivision codes to add regulations that will help protect critical wildlife habitat;
• Raising landowner awareness about state incentives to protect and better manager forestland, wetlands, wildlife habitat and farmland;
• Adopting a wellhead protection ordinance with commonly accepted setback standards for protecting groundwater recharge areas;
• Prioritizing public sewer to areas with a concentration of failed septic systems;
• Provide more public education about how to construct and operate on-site septic;
• In the ESDA, deleting wetland areas from the gross lot size calculation for density;
• Evaluating the county’s development regulations to ensure that maximum building coverage regulations reflect concern for reducing stormwater and promoting on-site recharge;
• Encouraging better nutrient management techniques, improved erosion control and installation of fences to keep livestock out of waterways;
• Strengthening county development regulations that mandate forested buffers between new residential uses and contiguous agricultural uses; and
• Working with state and local land owners to protect working forestlands through the Forest Legacy Program.
Parks and recreation needs considered
The comprehensive plan update also delves into the recreational opportunities provided in the county.
“The county is famous for its renowned public beaches,” the plan notes, also mentioning state parks and forests, and greenways and trails. The plan again says the county is active in helping to finance open-space preservation, as well as providing donations to recreation-related community groups.
However, it acknowledges, Sussex County does not provide recreation programming, nor does the county own or operate its own parks or trails.
“In Sussex County, the incorporated municipalities and private non-profit entities have been the prime parties responsible for the construction and maintenance of local public parks and trails, and provide most recreation programming,” it says.
Also referenced is the state comprehensive outdoor recreation plan, which is updated every five years.
The 2003 plan reported survey results for five areas of the state — two of which are in Sussex County, and one of which aligns with the Coastal Point’s readership area on the eastern side of the county. Those survey results for the eastern region include:
• Some 70 percent responded that outdoor recreation “very important” to them;
• The top four activities were: walking/jogging (89 percent), swimming (83 percent), picnicking (79 percent) and visiting historic sites (75 percent);
• Most visited were: Cape Henlopen State Park, Rehoboth public beach, Killens Pond State Park, Trap Pond State Park;
• Top recreational needs mentioned were: walking/jogging paths, bike paths and fishing areas.
The plan states that the county should:
• Continue to facilitate preservation of more undeveloped land, with recognition of the SCLT’s long-range vision to gradually create a “green ribbon” of connected open spaces;
• Keep providing grant assistance to non-profit recreation providers;
• Re-evaluate the possibility of becoming an active financial partner in establishing a public park, building an indoor recreation complex or constructing a related recreational endeavor, such as a greenway trail, on a case-by-case basis;
• Adopt zoning and/or subdivision code amendments that would require developers of larger residential projects to provide recreational facilities or multi-use trails to serve their future residents;
• Continue working with DNREC and other state agencies to ensure the state continues to add to the supply of active and passive recreation land and facilities in Sussex County; and
• Endorse state report recommendations, such as working with DelDOT to improve road sharing opportunities and make intersections safer for walkers and bikers; ensuring recreation projects consider the special needs of physically challenged persons; supporting public-private use-sharing partnerships to make the most efficient use of existing recreation facilities; supporting appropriate park rehab and renovations, and not just the construction of new recreation sites; retrofitting greenways and trail corridors into existing neighborhoods; encouraging municipalities to incorporate trails into their comprehensive plans and as requirements in development ordinances; and encouraging walking, biking and opportunities for physical fitness through events and in the workplace.
Next week: The Coastal Point will provide a detailed look at the water and wastewater, housing, economic development and historic preservation elements of the 2007 Sussex County Comprehensive Plan Update.