Local citizens will have their first opportunity to comment next week on an ordinance that would allow county officials to trade density requirements for cash in certain proposed townhome and condominium developments.
The first of two public hearings is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Thursday, June 14, in Sussex County Council chambers in front of the county’s Planning and Zoning Commission. The second hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. on June 26 in front of the council.
The Environmentally Sensitive Developing Area (ESDA) around Delaware’s Inland Bays is considered a growth zone and would be subject to higher density through the ordinance. The overlay was approved in 2003 to “protect and enhance the water quality” of and “provide for orderly development” around the bays.
Under the ordinance, which also calls for increased open-space regulations and buffer requirements, council would charge developers $15,000, or $20,000 in the sensitive overlay, for every unit that exceeds density requirements in the two-unit-per-acre AR-1 zone, where the practice would be permitted. The money raised through the ordinance would be used for open-space preservation.
Council approved a similar ordinance last April, allowing single-family developments to exceed density requirements for money. Dollar amounts are identical in that ordinance, which has been considered largely unsuccessful because of loopholes allowing developers to change zones to skirt the tax. That loophole could still persist.
The new ordinance, authored and introduced by Vance Phillips (R-5th) seems to have majority support in Georgetown, with only Lynn Rogers (D-3rd) and George Cole (R-4th) recently speaking out against it. Opposition has been focused mainly on the inclusion of the environmentally sensitive overlay in the ordinance.
Cole has called the ordinance a “good” one, except for where it applies on such sensitive lands. Phillips has continually contended that the ordinance will serve to avert higher-density developments and provide a much-needed funding stream for open-space preservation as transfer tax revenues continue to decrease. Only Cole and Rogers — who voted for the single-family ordinance last April — have vocally opposed the concept.
“I don’t want to be blasted for selling all of Sussex County for money,” Rogers said when council first discussed the ordinance in April. “I don’t want to end up with an ordinance that allows you to buy your way out of the comprehensive plan.”
“We ought to be rezoning property because there’s a need or because it’s compatible, but never for money,” Cole added earlier.