I left the July 14 hearing at about 9:30, so perhaps these two issues were clarified then. Otherwise, they are pertinent.
The first is that the map of the protection area for the five wellheads was probably drawn prior to the expansion of the high school. I assume by its wiggly outline that is a geological map drawn at the time the wells were dug. If so, the permeabilty of the area is now compromised by new buildings and the paving of parking lot and roads. The fact that such construction was grandfathered in without study does not make it harmless!
It simply describes a greater burden of future care since the defined catchment or recharge area cannot function as expected, and will draw water from a larger area than planned. The other topic of concern is that the developers of the proposed shopping center tell us what tenants they envision ... "an upscale grocery store," for example.
But how long do they expect to own the shopping center after its construction is complete? Typically, such centers are turned over to investors, or owner-tenants, or shopping center management companies soon after completion. After all, Lingo et al are not in the shopping center management business.
So choices of attractive tenants will be up to unknown investors, not the developers. I would certainly support a small Village Center if it were well away from the wellhead protection area, arranged so as to minimize dangerous traffic effects, and situated to benefit all residents of Gills Neck Road.
Maybe the developers could get help from an up-to-date community planner ... and leave a legacy to be proud of.
Janet Guerrin
Lewes