County officials rebutted criticism received recently from state agencies over its draft update of the Sussex County comprehensive plan at the county council’s Dec. 4 meeting. County Administrator David Baker reported that the response to the plan at a Nov. 28 meeting of the state’s Preliminary Land Use Service had been significantly negative.
While no written report from PLUS has been received by the county as yet, it is required to be submitted within 20 days of the meeting — Dec. 17. But based on initial oral comments from the various state agencies that make up PLUS, Baker noted “a number of concerns” by those state staffers.
“Comments about some issues continue to be addressed by county staff,” Baker noted, saying the county will review the eventual written comments from PLUS, along with input received through a series of public hearings planned as the comprehensive plan approval process moves forward. But Baker’s report to the council made plain how negative the oral comments on Nov. 28 had been.
“The tone of the meeting was that there were very few positive comments made about county accomplishments,” Baker said. “We felt there were some included in the plan and that they needed to be noted.”
Specifically, in regard to housing issues, while PLUS officials were critical of the draft comprehensive plan, Baker noted the county’s Moderately Priced Housing Units program, which is designed to encourage the provision of affordable housing for middle-income residents in the county, though not those of truly low income. Baker said the program, which has to-date seen about three plans submitted for moderately-priced units to be included in new developments, was recently modeled by New Castle County as the basis for its own program.
Baker also noted a best-practices award from the state planning office itself for the county’s implementation of community development block housing grants (CDBHG), which are designed to help low-income property owners pay for needed repairs and upgrades to existing housing units.
Also noted as positive in Sussex County’s housing element of the new comprehensive plan were cooperative efforts with non-profit agencies, such as providing land to Habitat for Humanity and homes for their use.
Regarding transportation elements of the draft update, Baker pointed to the county’s endeavors in sub-area planning and air quality, and county grants and assistance for transportation at senior and CHEER centers.
Baker took issue with the PLUS committee’s comments on county efforts at preserving open space and purchase of development rights.
“They said the county does not complement state services,” he said. “I believe we do complement state services.”
Specifically, Baker said Sussex County had been the first of the state’s three counties to collaborate with the state on the purchase of development rights. He also pointed to the county’s “density bonus” ordinance, which was originally adopted in April 2006 and updated in July 2007. The original ordinance allows for additional density in exchange for preservation of open space. The July 2007 update was designed to allow the county to collect additional monies from developers receiving additional density, with the additional funds going toward the purchase and preservation of open space.
Baker said he also felt that the PLUS committee had not given enough credit to the county for its new transfer of development rights (TDR) proposal, which is contained in the draft comprehensive plan. The TDR program would essentially allow developers to develop at higher density than normally allowed by right, while requiring them in exchange to purchase development rights on other property within the same immediate area, thus theoretically offsetting the additional density received.
On other open-space initiatives, Baker pointed to the county’s purchase of some 2,100 acres of land to be used for spray irrigation disposal of wastewater and thus preserved — at least for the moment — from development. Baker also pointed to direct open-space purchases by the county, including $1.8 million set aside for such purchases as required by county ordinance, and county contributions to state purchases of property for open space preservation.
Baker also noted as a positive the county’s efforts on an agricultural/industrial/commercial zoning district, which area farm owners had championed as a change that would allow them to make more money from farmlands without needing to sell out to developers.
The county also recently agreed to boost its outsourced provision of state police patrols by 36 officers this coming fiscal year and by 52 troopers in the next four years, Baker pointed out by way of positives for the county, noting also plans for a new state trooper station in Bridgeville.
And even as recently as last Wednesday, Baker said, county officials had met with wastewater officials for a review of a possible regional plan to help address the area’s wastewater issues.
Baker said PLUS comments on Nov. 28 had been particularly critical of the county on how it has provided expansion of its sewer services.
“They said we were providing no service to existing developments but only to new ones.” Baker countered that the county has been working on expansion in the Dagsboro and West Rehoboth areas, while the Miller Creek and Johnson Corner sewer districts had both recently been voted into existence. He also pointed to ongoing wastewater planning studies by the county.
“They expressed concern about a lack of information regarding interconnecting sidewalks and pathways,” Baker added, saying that information is in the draft plan. Also pointed to by PLUS for a lack of information were the subjects of “green” techniques and building standards, which Baker also said he felt were well documented in the draft plan.
Baker said the county had also dealt with property rights incentives in the plan, by including aspects such as agricultural easements. And he argued they had dealt with ways to improve the county’s job issues through the county’s airplane mechanics program and plans for expansion of the county airport, which he said would add jobs directly.
“There certainly is room in the county for improvement in the plan,” Baker acknowledged in his report to the council on Dec. 4. “We continue to meet with the state in that regard,” he said.
“I do personally believe that we should be given credit for the many positive things the county government has done,” Baker concluded.
Council President Dale Dukes acknowledged both the critical nature of the PLUS review and his hope that the county will be able to persuade the committee that the comprehensive plan is a good one.
“They were certainly shooting from the hip, and, hopefully, we will convince them,” Dukes said.