|
Five months after it was introduced, a new forested buffer ordinance remains no closer to passing.
After more than 90 minutes of debate at its Tuesday, April 22 meeting, Sussex County Council President Finley Jones, with the backing of Councilmen Dale Dukes and Vance Phillips, pushed for a workshop for more discussion. But to reach that point, tempers flared as Councilman George Cole took on opponents of the ordinance.
The ordinance would require a 30-foot forested buffer around all but the front perimeter of new subdivisions larger than four lots.
Dukes and Phillips are concerned that the ordinance would drive up the cost of lots in a depressed economy.
The ordinance never came up for a vote.
Instead, council requested a cost analysis by county staff. Phillips, who off the cuff did his own, estimated that lots in a 20-acre development would increase in cost about $4,000. His estimate included the expense of about 800 new trees, although existing trees are counted as part of the buffer.
“It’s nothing more than a smokescreen,” Cole said. “Mr. Dukes has never asked for a cost analysis for anything since I’ve sat here.”
Dukes denied the accusation.
“You’ll do nothing – that’s typical,” Cole replied.
“It’s a shame you have dragged it out as long at it has,” he said. “I thought we had a consensus. This has been a waste of our time.”
Throughout the rest of the meeting Cole rhetorically asked for a cost analysis of how much the county was spending on legal and staff expenses in the prolonged debate over this ordinance, as well as the source-water protection and lot maintenance ordinances.
Dukes and Phillips expressed concern that buffers are required around neighboring subdivisions so that it would be possible for two 30-foot buffers to be required side by side. They also questioned if the ordinance was too restrictive by including subdivisions of more than four lots.
Jones was concerned that wording in the ordinance describing a 30-foot buffer was still vague.
Lawrence Lank, director of planning and zoning, reminded council that the planning and zoning commission recommended passage of the ordinance without changes.
“This has gone so far from where it started,” Phillips said. “When you have to pay an extra few thousand dollars just to see a few extra trees where other trees already are, I don’t understand what the goal [of the ordinance] is.”
Phillips said it was an overreaction to one case. “It seems to be working and now we will be affecting the cost of housing and the process tremendously,” he said.
“We want to add another 30 feet and we haven’t calculated what the cost is,” Dukes said. “I don’t think we need a government mandate to put another 30-foot buffer to add to the cost of lots, and it’s a waste of land. We have wasted a lot of time on an ordinance that still has a lot of flaws in it.”
Dukes said it should be a voluntary act if developers or landowners want to place an additional 30-foot buffer.
Councilman Lynn Rogers was also working to get the measure to a vote. “What does it take to calculate cost?” he asked. “I’d hate to see this go down in flames.”
He and Cole both said they thought all of the bugs had been worked out and a vote in the affirmative would be taken.
Cole pleaded with council to come to a consensus to vote on the ordinance. He said he was willing to compromise on the minimum subdivision size. “A message will be sent that you are not serious with the environmental concerns that the public want,” he said.
“It’s too restrictive and too expensive and if we vote on it today, it’s going down,” Dukes said.
Cole could not understand why new questions were brought up after months of debate on the ordinance.
Dukes said he had been raising the questions. “But they fell on deaf ears,” he said.
Phillips then chastised Cole for not cooperating with members of the council. He said it would be more advantageous for Cole to work behind the scenes with council members to air out differences and iron out details before reaching the meeting.
“Mr. Cole doesn’t communicate with other councilmen prior to the meetings,” Phillips said. “Then we end up in a giant argument.”
“You would rather this be done in the back room instead of out in public. That’s the difference between you and me,” Cole replied. “We had a consensus and now it’s turned around because we didn’t have back-room discussions. I can’t believe a buffer is so controversial.”
Phillips said it was unnecessary to put “a hammer” over everybody with this ordinance. “The quality of life will not end if we defeat this ordinance,” he said.
He said developers are already complying with the existing ordinance, which requires forested buffers around lands adjacent to farming operations.
Problems with one of those buffers caused the council to revisit the ordinance. A large stormwater management pond replaced an existing stand of trees along a buffer between the Jeff and Jewell Marsh farm and the Heron Bay development near Lewes. County lawyers determined that vague wording in the ordinance did not properly define a forested buffer.
Rogers said more is needed. “The good ones will do it. But there are some that will push the envelope. If we have a set of guidelines they will follow it,” he said.
A date has not been set for the workshop, but the council voted to reopen the record to allow for more public comment on the ordinance.
Contact Ron MacArthur at ronm@capegazette.com
|
