Millville Town Council members completed their page-by-page review of draft zoning ordinances for the burgeoning town at a Tuesday, Jan. 16, meeting with town planner Kyle Gulbronson of URS. The meeting was just one of several held in recent months as the council makes major adjustments to its ordinances under pressure of rapid growth.
Already, the council has discussed changes to the town’s existing zoning, annexation procedures and building standards. Tuesday’s meeting focused almost exclusively on Millville’s subdivision ordinances, as the last portion of the zoning code to receive their scrutiny.
Gulbronson set the scene for the town’s future subdivision decisions with a purpose statement that opens the new draft ordinance, telling council members that the statement — which notes a desire to protect existing resources and open space, and to protect from negative impacts to traffic flow, etc. — is the basis upon which the town will make its review of subdivision plans and the decisions on whether or not to approve those plans.
Along with detailing all of the many code violations that developers of subdivisions could potentially commit, the new draft also deals with the penalties those violators could receive — something the council members on Tuesday dealt with at length.
Deputy Mayor Joan Bennett took issue with the subjectivity in existing language permitting the town to fine violators up to $100 for each violation. “I’m not a fan of subjectivity,” she said. With the consensus of Council Members Richard Thomas and Don Minyon (Interim Mayor Tim Droney absent and Council Member Gerry Hocker arriving later in the meeting), they decided to make it a flat $100 fine.
Minyon expressed some dissatisfaction with that amount, saying it might be considered too low. But Code Enforcement Officer Bill Winter emphasized that the code allows for the town to consider each day of violation, and each individual violation on a property, as a separate misdemeanor — meaning each is subject to ongoing fines of $100 daily until they are rectified.
“One hundred dollars is fairly low,” Gulbronson agreed. “But at the end of the week, if they don’t fix it or contact the town, they’re looking at a pretty hefty fine.”
Winter and council members also debated exactly how such a fine would be assessed. Currently, the town sends a certified letter to violators and generally gets a response soon thereafter with plans to rectify the problem, so fines are rarely assessed.
But allowing for some future problems in getting things fixed and noting the potential for major violations in larger subdivisions, they agreed on a 10-day period in which notified violators would be able to contact the town and either set down a plan of action or notify it of plans to appeal the related ordinance to the council.
Those failing to contact the town within those 10 days after receiving notice will be assessed the fine for every violation and every day each violation continues. A stop-work order will be issued the day the violation is recorded, prohibiting any additional work on the site until the violation(s) are corrected.
There Winter also noted a potential future problem for the town, since it has no police force. Gulbronson said the town could call in state police to enforce stop-work orders but would have to give more consideration to the enforcement question for all its ordinances as it continues to grow.
The town also has the ability to refuse to issue additional permits or approvals on a project where violations have not been rectified, which council members noted would prevent a developer from proceeding with approvals at the county or state level and further tie up a project where violations are found.
Council members also debated elements of the appeal process, which is itself pretty standard. The debate focused on how violators could notify the town of their intent to appeal and at what point fines would begin to be assessed or cease to be.
The council members reached a consensus that no fines would be assessed while attempts to rectify a violation were being made or between an official notification of intent to appeal and a decision from the council or other body. Winter will be left with the discretion as to whether sufficient effort for remediation is being made, and those appealing violations will have to deliver notice of their intent to appeal by certified mail or by filling out a form in person.
Approvals to time-out
at two years
With a number of large projects already approved for the town in the coming decade and more, council members also focused on Tuesday on the “sunsetting” provision of its subdivision approval process. Currently, the town allows subdivision approvals to exist for five years before they expire if substantial work has not been done.
Council members were ready to cut that period short, down to just two years, acknowledging the potential for the town’s ordinances to change within a few years and a desire not to have old projects linger uncompleted.
A bond system already exists to help ensure that projects aren’t abandoned, but Bennett said she was concerned that a requirement for “substantial progress” could force a developer to lay out large amounts of available funds for basic infrastructure, such as rough-graded roads, across an entire project and leave them unable to proceed with the project when their funds are depleted.
“That will leave the property a mess when they run into financial problems,” she said, suggesting that the requirement to be 80 percent done with such elements might need to be redefined. “I think the town owes it to itself to compel performance,” she added, referring also to the difficulty of budgeting for the town when projects might linger for years before completion and throw off projections for building permit and other fees it collects.
Winter suggested that larger projects might be required to be done in phases, so that one would be completed before the town would require substantial progress on other areas of the larger project. A large master planned community (MPC) will often take more than two years, he pointed out. He suggested limits on percentage of a project or number of units being constructed at one time, to push developers toward such phasing.
But Gulbronson noted that most of the town’s larger developments are already being done in phases, with overall project approval granted before individual phases are given the go-ahead by the town. He said, though, that the town could tie requirements for progress to a construction schedule consistent with phasing without having to specifically limit construction to certain number of units or an overall percentage.
Conceptual plan reviews, expedited approvals addressed
Noting the success of informal workshops held in recent years with developers on the town’s impending larger developments, Gulbronson proposed that the council also add a provision for an optional conceptual-plan review. He said such a review would allow the town to give input on a concept for development early in the design process.
While agreeing to the notion, Bennett did again express her ongoing concern with town procedures paying for themselves in fees assessed to applicants. The council members agreed that a $500 fee for a conceptual-plan review would be sufficient to pay for most town expenses, such as Gulbronson’s professional fees and legal advertisements, without being so burdensome as to discourage developers from taking advantage of the optional review.
She was also concerned about the existing provision in town code for the council to skip a final plan review and give final approval to an application at the preliminary review.
Winter said he believed that the provision was intended to expedite the process and not waste time or money for the town or applicants in the case of smaller subdivisions where a solid, detailed plan was presented at preliminary review. Gulbronson agreed, noting it was limited to being an option only for minor subdivisions (those without major streets). On that basis, Bennett agreed that the council might find a use for the provision in some cases.
Council members also noted concerns about how quickly plats of projects approved by the town are recorded with the county. Bennett said she was particularly concerned that the town would approve a project only to have the property change hands and go to a new developer before the plat was filed. The council members decided a 90-day time limit and requirement for developers to provide proof of recordation to the town would help resolve that issue.
The council also decided on Tuesday to require developers to provide a site plan for properties proposed for certain special uses, and to require that approved subdivisions have all residences take their road access from collector streets and not main thoroughfares or alleyways. And they bumped the subdivision fee to $450 per unit, with a provision to collect from developers any excessive professional fees required for individual applications.
Streets not a responsibility wanted by town
Thomas reiterated the town’s existing policy to not accept any new streets under town responsibility, saying he was concerned about language in the draft that referred to what standards the town had for roads that it would accept — namely that they be up to Delaware Department of Transportation standards.
“The language is there if the town should want to do so,” Gulbronson emphasized. “It allows the town to accept streets if you want to. I understand the town’s current policy is not to accept new streets,” he noted.
Bennett and Thomas both said they were concerned that the town might be pushed to take over care of roadways, such as with snow plowing, despite its lack of a public works department. And Minyon said he also didn’t like the language for that reason.
Researching existing provisions in the town charter, Bennett said she was concerned that the town might already be in a position of responsibility for roads. She referred to a section that describes how five or more residents of a street could come to the town and request their street be adopted. The provision requires the town to establish a committee to study such a request and for the council to proceed to a vote.
Council members agreed that Town Solicitor Mary Robin Schrider-Fox should review that portion of the charter for its possible implications. They also came to the consensus that with that possibility looming over the town, language setting standards for roads that could be adopted was a wise precaution. Gulbronson said many roads in the county were not up to state standards.
Rapid growth poses future problems
Heading back to the enforcement question, council members raised the issue of how the town will inspect subdivision sites to determine whether the work there is being done to approved specifications, such as landscape plans and the maintenance of preserved wetlands. Gulbronson had words of warning.
“When the scale of development that’s about the hit this town happens, there’s no way one person can do it,” he admonished.
Gulbronson told council members there are public works grants available to help fund an engineer’s professional inspection of projects. The town can also require an escrow account that would be held in case it needed to hire an inspection consultant, he said, to Thomas’ concerns about the town being left on the financial hook for such work.
That was the final element of the subdivision ordinance to be reviewed, and the final portion of the larger zoning code. Gulbronson said he would make the requested changes and provide them back to the council for review.
Still to be decided, the new name for a “town center” commercial overlay zone, to avoid confusion with the “town center” area of Millville by the Sea and with the Millville Town Center retail complex. Council members suggested “downtown” and “old town” as possible monikers.
Also still up in the air, the exact location in the town code for revised ordinances on the hours permitted for construction, on the moving of houses, and a section on demolition permits suggested by Bennett. Schrider-Fox was to be asked to deliver an opinion on whether the sections should be stand-alone segments within the town code or go under the heading of zoning or subdivision code.
Based on those decisions, they could come up for individual public hearings and council votes, or come to the public and council as part of the approval process for the entire draft ordinance package.
That process now includes a final meeting of the council with Gulbronson at 6 p.m. on Feb. 1, to finalize the draft. The draft could then go the town solicitor for a legal review and then to state Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS) review. But Gulbronson said the town might be granted an exception to the PLUS requirement. Dagsboro recently received such a waiver based on its new ordinances being an update planned under its comprehensive plan, he said.
Gulbronson said that even if the state opted not to require a PLUS review for Millville’s new ordinances, it could prove helpful and might be a desirable choice. If so, PLUS review could take up to 20 days before the ordinances would be returned to the town and be available for final adoption.
The deadline for ordinances to be submitted for PLUS review in February is Feb. 1, so the town could schedule a special council meeting in February or March for a public hearing. Gulbronson said he would likely know this week whether a PLUS review would be required.